Podcasts about brandishing

Ashton Jeanty continues his Heisman campaign in Vegas, Texas A&M finds itself atop the SEC, Notre Dame ruins the perfect military run (while Northern Illinois loses again), and Kennesaw State nabs its first FBS win in a huge upset. Plus, what's more ridiculous: Brandishing weapon celebrations or pre-season basketball analytic data?

Subscribe to our Penn State Football YouTube Channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdoTL0BmD1GFBLYw1r8zCDg?view_as=subscriber?sub_confirmation=1 (0:00-7:57) College Football Playoff is WIDE OPEN(7:58-11:21) Penn State Football News(11:22-23:11) Wisconsin Football Offense Preview(23:12-32:10) Wisconsin Football Defense Preview(32:11-34:27) The Brandishing a Weapon Penalty(34:28-48:44) Penn State Week 9 Iron Lion Matchups(48:45-1:02:44) College Football Week 9 Best Bets Big Ten(1:02:45-1:05:23) OUTROFollow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/whiteoutweeklyFollow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklywhiteoutFollow The Liberty Line Here: https://thelibertyline.com/Liberty Line Twitter: https://twitter.com/LibertyLinePHLLiberty Line Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/libertylinephl/

- Nico Collins out for 4 week due to hamstring! - Demeco and The Rat Poison - Soft Boys: Paul Banned for Life?! - Penalties for, "Brandishing a Gun"??

Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Thursday August 15, 2024 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Thursday August 15, 2024 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jason talks to local attorney Joe Tamburino about several legal stories in the news. Starting with an expansion of the "duty to retreat" law. Then was Nicolae Miu's sentence reasonable? And why didn't KSM get the death penalty?

03:29 SCOTUS destroys DOJ's allegation against Phoenix PD 22:22 Cop not facing charges after shooting suspected burglar 36:28 Police spot bad guy brandishing gun before taking him down LEO Round Table (law enforcement talk show) Season 9, Episode 137 (2,234) filmed on 07/09/2024 1. https://www.lawofficer.com/supreme-court-decision-destroys-doj-allegation-against-phoenix-police/ 2. https://rumble.com/v55nnax-delta-officer-faces-no-charges-when-he-shot-a-suspected-burglary-suspect-af.html 3. https://rumble.com/v53l08y-cmpd-release-videos-of-a-suspect-being-shot-by-officers-when-he-was-tossing.html Show Panelists and Personalities: Chip DeBlock (Host and retired police detective) Dr. Travis Yates (retired major) Jamie Borden (Force Investigations Specialist and Court Certified Expert) Related Events, Organizations and Books: Retired DEA Agent Robert Mazur's works: Interview of Bryan Cranston about him playing Agent Robert Mazur in THE INFILTRATOR film https://vimeo.com/channels/1021727 Trailer for the new book, THE BETRAYAL https://www.robertmazur.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/The-Betrayal-trailer-reMix2.mp4 Everything on Robert Mazur https://www.robertmazur.com/ The Wounded Blue - Lt. Randy Sutton's charity https://thewoundedblue.org/ Rescuing 911: The Fight For America's Safety - by Lt. Randy Sutton (Pre-Order) https://rescuing911.org/ Books by panelist and retired Lt. Randy Sutton: https://www.amazon.com/Randy-Sutton/e/B001IR1MQU%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share They're Lying: The Media, The Left, and The Death of George Floyd - by Liz Collin (Lt. Bob Kroll's wife) https://thelieexposed.com/ Lt. Col. Dave Grossman - Books, Newsletter, Presentations, Shop, Sheepdogs https://grossmanontruth.com/ Sheriff David Clarke - Videos, Commentary, Podcast, Shop, Newsletter https://americassheriff.com/ Content Partners: Red Voice Media - Real News, Real Reporting https://www.redvoicemedia.com/shows/leo/ ThisIsButter - One of the BEST law enforcement video channels https://rumble.com/user/ThisIsButter The Free Press - LEO Round Table is in their Cops and Crimes section 5 days a week https://www.tampafp.com/ https://www.tampafp.com/category/cops-and-crime/ Video Show Schedule On All Outlets: http://leoroundtable.com/home/syndication/ Syndicated Radio Schedule: http://leoroundtable.com/radio/syndicated-radio-stations/ Sponsors: Aero Precision - "When Precision Counts” https://www.aeroprecisionusa.com/ Galls - Proud to serve America's public safety professionals https://www.galls.com/leo Blue To Gold - training that is relevant and relatable to every street officer https://bluetogold.com/ AUFIRE - The Gold Standard in tactical simulation https://www.aufire.com/ The International Firearm Specialist Academy - The New Standard for Firearm Knowledge https://www.gunlearn.com/ MyMedicare.live - save money in Medicare insurance options from the experts http://www.mymedicare.live/ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/leoroundtable/support

Welcome to Real News - A daily news podcast hosted by Meshel Laurie and Simon Baggs. Don't forget to follow and subscribe to get the latest episodes in your feed. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last time we spoke about Operation HA-GO, U-GO and some action brewing up on New Britain and Bougainville. Mutaguchi basically tricked his superiors at Tokyo into allowing him to attempt an invasion of India. Operations HA-GO and U-GO were simultaneously unleashed, the only problem was the allies were very ready to meet them. General Slim's men captured documents indicating the true nature of the operations and he acted accordingly. The new box defense systems were employed as the allies lured the Japanese into major traps thwarting their designs against Imphal. The Japanese were fighting tenaciously, but time and supplies would not be on their side. Over on New Britain the allies advanced and managed to seize Talasea. Meanwhile on Bougainville the Japanese were preparing a large counteroffensive, attempting to breach the American defensive perimeter. The operation had just kicked off last episode and today we will continue the story. This episode is the Bougainville Counteroffensive  Welcome to the Pacific War Podcast Week by Week, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about world war two? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on world war two and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel you can find a few videos all the way from the Opium Wars of the 1800's until the end of the Pacific War in 1945.  The Marines departed Bougainville and were relieved by the Americal Division by the end of January 1944. Sporadic fighting emerged and through it Major General Griswold obtained intelligence indicating the Japanese would launch a major counter attack, most likely slated for early March. At the time Lt General Hyakutake was under extreme pressure to reduce the bombing against Rabaul. Rabaul as we know was smashed daily, suffering heavy losses. Admiral Koga had responded by taking away air units from Truk, but all this achieved was even more losses. Rabaul was neutralized, and Truk became vulnerable. The Americans had pummeled both so much, they were able to unleash a dramatic thrust into the central pacific aimed at the Gilberts, Marshalls and later the Carolines. Now it seems Hyakutake had been operating under some very bad intelligence, indicating to him the Americans were defending their perimeter with just a single division around the airfield. With the objective of destroying said airfield, Hyakutake did not know the actual number of defenders and would not enjoy movement by sea. The Americans had full control of the sea lanes, thus any IJN destroyers trying to move troops would run a risky gauntlet. By the first quarter of 1944, Rabaul had tossed meager attacks against the Americans, for example on January 23rd two bombers scored a direct hit over the living quarters of Brigadier General John Hodge and his senior staff officers.  What Hyakutake had to work with was 4300 men of the 45th regiment led by Colonel Isashi Magata. These men were considered the crack troops on Bougainville and they included artillery, mortar and engineering battalions. They were further supported by 4125 men of the 23rd regiment led by Major General Shun Iwara and 1350 men of the 13th regiment led by Colonel Toyo Horei Muda. All three units would be led by Major General Masatane Kanda. The 3 units made an arduous trek through the jungles to reach their jump off points by the evening of March 7th. Hyakutake then sent them a resounding message “time has come to manifest our knighthood with the pure brilliance of the sword. It is our duty to erase the mortification of our brothers at Guadalcanal. Attack! Assault! Destroy everything! Cut, slash, and mow them down. May the color of the red emblem of our arms be deepened with the blood of American rascals.” Major General Kanda also added his own message  “The cry of our victory at Torokina Bay shall resound to the shores of our beloved Nippon. We are invincible.” All of these troops received a large morale boost from such message, but on top of that there was something else incentivising them all. They had adequate food to last them until April 1st, they literally needed to overrun the Americans to steal their provisions. Such was the reality of the Japanese island hopping campaigns. Hyakutakes forces proved themselves far from invincible. Their artillery bombarded on the morning of the 8th, targeting the airfield at Piva Yoke. Their bombardment destroyed a bomber, 3 fighters, killed a single man, and forced a temporary evacuation of aircraft to New Georgia. It was now exactly the greatest of results. Artilleryman Stan Coleman vividly described the Japanese artillery attack “All of a sudden we heard a very different kind of ‘whoosh.' It was made by a shell at the end of its flight, not the beginning. It was ‘incoming mail.' All hell broke loose. In the rear some fuel dumps went up. Every American artillery piece in the perimeter went into action.” The American artillery counter-attack proved far more effective. The Japanese artillery units were forced to move positions constantly and then they were met by a new type of weapon.  As Coleman recalled “Four blue Marine Corsairs came in with rockets. Rockets were a new ground-support weapon and I had never seen them … The rockets in flight made a fearful display. There was a tremendous concussion when they struck their target.” That same night the Iwasa Unit attacked Hill 700 during a heavy downpour. Yet by 2:30am the first attacks were beaten off. It seems the experience persuaded the Japanese not to attempt another night attack on March 9th. Instead, they used occasional machine gun and mortar fire to disrupt the fitful sleep of the Americans. Then at 6:45am on the 10th, Iwasa launched another attack in coordination with Colonel Muda's assault against Hill 260. Iwasa's men clambered up the steep 70 degree slopes screaming maniacally. They would shout confused threats in English. A prolific slaughter occurred against one group of Japanese soldiers who seized out a pillbox and set up a machine gun post on the saddle of the hill. It was dearly bought. General Griswold had brought up more reinforcements for the 145th that same morning. Engineers put together a bangalore torpedo 72 feet long by connecting sticks of dynamite like a long pipe. The object was to climb the hill and then snake the charge down the opposite side into one of the pillboxes. Unfortunately the Japanese spotted them and fired a knee mortar, hitting the torpedo and killing the engineers. Another ruse was attempted shortly after noon with the object of getting the Japanese on the saddle to surrender. A public address system was set up with speakers aimed at Hill 700, and one of the division's Japanese interpreters spoke to the defenders. He informed them of the odds against their success and told them that they could not be reinforced. If they surrendered, it would be considered honorable. To die needlessly was foolish. For the short time he spoke all was quiet, but seconds after he had finished the Japanese directed a mortar barrage on the section of the hill from whence he was broadcasting. The day ended in victory for the riflemen of the 37th Division. At 11:15 an air strike by 26 planes and continuous artillery fire had devastated the Japanese. The day's assault cost the lives of some 500 or more Japanese soldiers.  Meanwhile further south, the 1st battalion, 13th regiment was knocked out by heavy artillery fire. Colonel Muda sent his 3rd battalion, 13th regiment to attack the southern positions of the 182nd regiment around Hill 260. Hill 260, a twin-peaked rise close to the west bank of the Torokina River approximately four miles north of its mouth, was covered with heavy vegetation. The hill itself measured only 850 yards along its north-south axis and at its widest a mere 450 yards, and it was shaped roughly like an hourglass, with the highest elevations to the north and south connected by a narrow saddle. The eastern slope of the hill was precipitous, steepest along the South Knob, where it was almost perpendicular. The South Knob, which was considered the most important part of Hill 260, had been occupied by men of 2nd battalion, 182th regiment since early January, and vigorous patrolling had also been carried on regularly along the saddle and on the unoccupied North Knob. The hill was about half a mile east of the 182nd's main line of resistance. Between Hill 260 and the main line of the Americal was a small stream named Eagle Creek, which provided a natural defensive barrier. There was but a single trail leading from the main perimeter to South Knob. A small bridge over the creek could take vehicular traffic. The last hundred yards to the top of South Knob was a steep stairway cut into the sides of the hill. Possession of this portion of the hill was important for both sides. The Americans had built a platform near the top of a 150-foot banyan tree from which forward observers could see any enemy-activity along the Torokina River or along the highlands to the northeast. Conversely, if the Japanese could seize the hill they could have good observation of the American-held Hills 608 and 309 and the area behind them. Under the cover of intense machine-gun and mortar fire, the Japanese managed to climb the steep slope of the South Knob and then burst in among the outnumbered Americans. The position was held by a reinforced platoon of Company G of the 182nd and a forward observer team of the 246th Field Artillery Battalion. The Americans were rapidly wiped out and dispersed as Muda's men established a defensive perimeter over the crest of South Knob. Hearing the dire news, General Griswold ordered General Hodge to hold Hill 260 at all costs, an order that surprised many of the Americal's staff since they had not expected to try to hold the hill in the face of a concerted Japanese attack. Companies E and F immediately advanced to occupy the North Knob and then attempted an encircling maneuver to counterattack the newly-established Japanese perimeter. Company E at 8:45 attacked South Knob from the southwest while Company F moved south. The company began its attack at 10:45 but halted after the troops had advanced a few yards into the cleared zone. The men took whatever cover was available and waited for flame throwers before trying to advance farther. At approximately 2:45 the commander, Lieutenant Colonel Dexter Lowry, ordered the attack resumed; Company E split and attempted an envelopment. The northern prong of the envelopment was halted but the infantrymen of the southern prong, using grenades and flame throwers, managed to gain a lodgment within earshot of the men of Company G who were still holding out in the pillbox.  Meanwhile, the 1st and 2nd Battalions, 145th Regiment had been reorganized and launched a counterattack against Hill 700 at 5:00. The Japanese unleashed intense mortar and artillery ied, but gradually were dislodge from the crest of the hill, leaving just 4 pillboxes remaining under their control. After the reestablishment of the original resistance line, Iwasa prepared his men to storm Pat's Nose during the night. The Japanese had lost heavily during these attacks, which also cost the 145th three dead and 121 wounded. During the night, after a failed bayonet charge, the Japanese would reinforce their position on Hill 260. They then struck at Company E early in the morning of March 11th and although this attack was beaten off, the American situation in the lodgment had become desperate. Thus, after another Japanese flanking attack, the defenders would have to pull back towards North Knob.  Company G was sent to relieve the beleaguered Company E but was halted by yet another Japanese flanking attack on Company E. General Hodge, fearful of reducing his main defense line, felt that he could send no more reserves to the hill and therefore decided to break off the action and pull Company G and what was left of Company E off South Knob. They retired, unimpeded by the Japanese, behind Eagle Creek. There they joined Company B and then proceeded to cut a new trail up to the crest of North Knob. At daybreak on 11 March, Iwasa launched another attack against the promontory called ‘Pat's Nose,' some 150 yards to the west of ‘Hill 700.' Flanking 37 mm guns cut the Japanese charge to shreds. Iwasa's rear echelons kept advancing over the dead bodies of those who had been leading the charge and eventually managed to break through the barbed wire, though they too were ultimately destroyed. After an hour of suicidal attack Iwasa's troops receded leaving some 84 dead behind them. The 37th Division's historian described this attack: "Brandishing their prized sabers, screeching 'Chusuto' (Damn them!), the Jap officers climbed up the slope and rushed forward in an admirable display of blind courage. The men screamed in reply 'Yaruzo' (Let's do it!) and then 'Yarimosu' (We will do it!). As they closed with the American doughboys, the leaders cried' San nen Kire!' (Cut a thousand men!). General Beightler, concerned over the inability of the 145th to reduce the Japanese positions on Hill 700, decided to send the 2nd Battalion, 148th Regiment to finally wipe out the enemy opposition. After a heavy mortar and artillery bombardment, two platoons of Company E advanced east from Pat's Nose trying to flank the saddle while a third attacked west from Hill 700. Thirteen men were killed before the momentum of the attack waned and the battalion dug in on the ground it had gained. Meanwhile, Companies F and B, now under the command of Brigadier-General William McCulloch, began a  two-pronged attempt to drive the Japanese off South Knob. Supported by flamethrowers units from the 132nd, men of Company B got across the saddle and onto the knob, but were ultimately pulled because of the enemy's numerical superiority. Meanwhile, Colonel Magata Isashi's 45th Regiment had limited its actions to heavy patrol activity while the Iwasa Unit was attacking Hill 700. The terrain fronting the 129th Regiment, which was holding the center of the 37th Division line, was much more favorable for the Japanese than that encountered by either the Iwasa or Muda forces. The land was relatively flat, although cut by many gullies. The 129th's line, defended by two battalions, extended over two miles, curving slightly from just east of the Numa Numa Trail southwest to the right flank of the 148th Regiment. The Japanese had easy access to the 37th's lines, first via the Numa Numa Trail and then following the lowlands and gullies adjacent to the creeks. Colonel John Frederick, the regimental commander of the 129th, had recognized the potential vulnerability of this position and had organized a defense in depth during the two months prior to the attack. The position was anchored by a large number of mutually supporting earthen and log pillboxes and protected by a double apron of barbed wire, in front of which antipersonnel mines had been laid. Machine-guns had been sited to provide interlocking fire and additional barbed wire had been placed to channel potential attackers into the main machine-gun fire lanes. The 129th's cannon company of 75-mm pack howitzers, and its mortar sections had been augmented by 37-mm and 40-mm anti-tank guns, which could fire canisters in flat-trajectory direct fire. Thus although Colonel Magata's men did not have to climb up steep cliffs to get at the American positions, they would find the 129th's defenses near impregnable to relatively lightly supported infantry attacks, no matter how fanatically delivered. While patrolling, some documents were taken from dead Japanese bodies detailing Magata's plan, so Colonel John Frederick's 129th Regiment was expecting his thrust. On the 11th, the contact between Japanese and American patrols increased, as did the amount of incoming mortar fire, so the American supporting artillery was directed to fire intermittently into the areas where the Japanese were located.Colonel Frederick at 4:00pm ordered all his outposts back into the main perimeter and division artillery fired a ten-minute concentration along the 2nd Battalion front. At dusk, a heavy firefight then broke out as the Japanese opened up with machine-guns and mortars on Company G's area. During the exchange of fire, which lasted until 7:20pm, men in the pillboxes did not fire their machine guns, since they did not want to reveal their positions. The firing died down to only a few exchanges during the night, generally directed at Japanese infiltrators, who were attempting to cut through the barbed wire. Finally, at dawn on the 12th, Magata sent his 1st and 3rd battalions in column to strike Company G. Although the attacking Japanese suffered very heavy casualties from machine-gun fire, they penetrated the first line of defense by sheer weight of numbers. Moving up the streambed running into the sector, they captured one pillbox after another until they held a total of seven. Frederick then sent his reserve 1st Battalion to support Company G, while also launching a counterattack that managed to contain the enemy expansion and that also retook two pillboxes by late afternoon. Meanwhile, Companies E and F of the 148th were converging against Iwasa's remaining strongpoints. Using grenades, rifles, and flamethrowers, they finally reduced the pillboxes one by one, leaving the Japanese in possession of only one pillbox by 1:00pm. An historian of the 145th Regiment described the fight for this last strongpoint: “On the second day, the last held enemy pillbox was subjected to everything an infantryman has at his command. Hand grenades by the dozen were thrown at the emplacement. Still there was responding fire. Flamethrowers scorched the hidden Nip into silence. The searching parties entered the charred remains of the emplacement only to hear the click of a Japanese grenade being detonated. In the far corner they made out the dim outline of a Jap, eyes bloodshot, mouth bleeding, face seared, clothing burned. His clenched fist held a grenade. Even as the men dove for cover outside the pillbox, the Jap threw the grenade at them as in a dying gesture.” Despite a heroic resistance, this was cleared in the afternoon at last, thus completely restoring the original 145th's line.  While this was going on, after a heavy artillery bombardment, McCulloch sent Companies B and F once again to storm the South Knob. Company B in a column of platoons with six flamethrowers attempted to storm the height from the northwest. The leading platoon was halted by machine gun fire from pillboxes dug in on the west slope. Once these were spotted a concentration of mortar and machine gun fire was directed against these Japanese positions, enabling the following platoon to reach the top of the knob. There, it was pinned down by heavy fire from machine guns sited east of the observation post banyan tree. American mortar fire, together with the work of the flamethrower operators, who were covered by BAR men of the 3rd Platoon, soon negated these positions. Although it appeared that the South Knob would soon be in American hands, ammunition for the attacking platoons was running low, there had been numerous casualties, there were no more reserves, and it was already late in the day.  Despite this, Hodge sent Company A of the 132nd Regiment to reinforce the gained position. Company A of the 132nd tried to scale the height from the southwest to join Company B of the 182nd on the crest. A burst of machine gun fire killed the company commander, however, and disorganized the attack so much that under the best of conditions the men could not reach the top before dark. Hodge then reluctantly recalled his forces and, sensing the futility of further attacks, he requested permission to pull off South Knob. Yet Griswold refused the request and a new attack was ordered for the next day using two companies of the 1st Battalion, 132nd Regiment. After another heavy artillery bombardment, Company A attacked southward along the narrow saddle while Company B attacked up the southwest slope. Surprisingly, the two companies of the 182nd that had led the attack the day before had not been kept in immediate reserve but had been pulled back within the perimeter. Therefore there were no reserve troops available to help exploit the minor gains made during the afternoon. As night fell, Major Raymond Daehler, the battalion commander, reluctantly pulled his men off the knob and retreated to safer ground. Despite repeated attacks from 12 -16th, Magata had made no headway and finally withdrew his forces. After Iwasa's retreat, the men of the 145th had the dubious honor of policing the slopes of Hill 700 and burying the corpses left behind. In an area roughly 50 yards square, corpses that could be identified were counted. This count included only those within the barbed wire lines in front of the pillboxes. As one observer noted, the carnage was a sight to turn even the most cast-iron stomach: “Enemy dead were strewn in piles of mutilated bodies, so badly dismembered in most cases that a physical count was impossible. Here and there was a leg or an arm or a blown-off hand, all to show for the vanished and vanquished enemy. At one point, Japanese bodies formed a human stairway over the barbed wire. Five enemy were piled one on top of the other, as each had successively approached the location to use a predecessor as a barricade and then fall on top of him as he in turn was killed. Farther out from the perimeter, where a little stream wound its way parallel to it, Japs killed by the concussion of thousands of mortar shells lay with their heads, ostrich fashion, stuck under the least protection they could find”. What was left of Iwasa's shattered command to the relative safety of the Blue Ridge, Approximately two miles east of the American perimeter. During the day, as the Japanese were retreating, American planes dropped 123 tons of bombs on the intermediate areas, and destroyers off shore lobbed their five-inch shells into the high ground to the north and east of the perimeter. Further east, Magata launched a night attack at 4:00am, managing to gain another pillbox, so Griswold would decide to reinforce Frederick with a tank platoon. General Griswold agreed to send the 1st Platoon of Company C, tank battalion, forward, with the stipulation that they be used only to augment the infantry as they took back the lost pillboxes. 4 tanks supported a midmorning assault, which successfully retook two pillboxes. Another tank-infantry attack began at 1:15pm but was halted since the tanks were low on fuel and ammunition. They were replaced by tanks of another platoon, which assisted the infantry of the 129th in destroying all the other pillboxes held by the Japanese and in restoring the front line roughly to the positions held before the Japanese attack of the previous day. Alongside this, Griswold ordered the reconnaissance troop forward to occupy the right sector of the threatened area, with the 131st Engineer Regiment taking over the extreme left. General Hodge requested to be reinforced with tanks; but as they could not cross Eagle Creek, McCulloch and him reluctantly decided to cease any further attempt to drive the Japanese off South Knob. He thought that the three-day action against the Muda Unit had obviously so weakened it that it no longer posed a danger to the perimeter proper. Thus, it could be contained and continually harassed by combat patrols and neutralization fire.  On the 14th, the fighting fell into just intermittent small-arms and mortar fire from the Japanese as Colonel Magata shifted some of his troops to more favorable positions and as he brought his reserve 2nd Battalion, 45th Regiment and 2nd Battalion, 13th Regiment to reinforce further attacks. Magata also received the 1st Battalion, 81st Regiment and the 3rd Battalion, 53rd Regiment from the north, tossing them into his new reserve. At 4:00am on 15th, the Japanese launched a heavy local attack against the right of Company F. By dawn, they had captured one pillbox and penetrated approximately 100 yards into the perimeter, where they were ultimately checked. A coordinated counterattack by Companies F and C in conjunction with a 36-plane strike against the Japanese positions, managed to retake the pillbox. Further tank-infantry attacks finally drove the entrenched Japanese out of the salient and successfully restored the line. Losses for the day were 10 dead and 53 wounded, while 190 Japanese were counted dead. The Japanese then repeated the attack the next morning at 4:00am on the high ground east of Cox Creek with a larger force of elements from three battalions. They penetrated approximately 75 yards before their momentum was halted. Then, Company B, supported by a platoon of tanks, counterattacked and restored the original line by midmorning. Finally, shortly after noon, the tanks moved beyond the wire and shelled the draws and ravines in front of Company F until their ammunition was exhausted. Once again the Japanese had paid heavily for no gain. 194 dead were counted and 1 prisoner taken, while the Americans only lost 2 dead and 63 wounded. Though the counter offensive is nowhere near done, that is all for this week as we now have to jump over to the CBI theater. General Merrill's Marauders had been given the task of cutting the Japanese supply line over the Kamaing road. At Merrill's disposal were the three battalions of GALAHAD, each in turn broken down into two combat teams. The teams bore the code names Red and White for the 1st Battalion; Blue and Green for the 2nd Battalion and Khaki and Orange for the 3rd Battalion. Each team included a rifle company, heavy weapons platoon, pioneer and demolition platoon, reconnaissance platoon, and medical detachment, with a combined strength of sixteen officers and 456 enlisted men. The marauders had been recruited from units in the south-west pacific and from Trinidad in the Caribbean. Many of the volunteers were notably seen as pure psychopaths. Their training in India was quite painful, a lot so for the military police nearby. 10 percent of the Marauders went AWOL, many of them amused themselves by shooting at catte, chickens and other birds, apparently even at the feet of locals to make them dance. One incident apparently had some of them aboard a train to Ledo firing out of the windows. They were seen as arrogant, psychopathic, gung-ho and they had many colorful catchphrases such as ‘My pack is on my back, my gun is oiled and loaded, and as I walk in the shadow of death I fear no sonofabitch.'  The baptism of the Marauders did not impress their commander who was obsessed with speed and efficiency. The Galahad unit had departed on February 24th and on receiving orders to move to his forward assembly area, Merrill sent his three intelligence and reconnaissance (I & R) platoons to check trails as far as the Tawang Hka, the first of the three considerable streams that crossed the line of march. At 6:00am on the 24th, the 5307th moved out, screened by the I & R platoons. Next day two of them clashed with Japanese patrols and the point of one platoon, Pvt. Robert W. Landis of Youngstown, Ohio, was killed. Luckily radio communication between the 2nd Battalion, 56th Regiment and the 18th Division's headquarters broke down at this time, so General Tanaka was unaware that a semi-detached American unit was operating off to his flank.  Stilwell fretted at the time it took them to cross the 130 miles over the Naga range to the battlefront. Part of the problem was that 5307th Composite was mule-based and had to bring 700 animals with them but none of them knew anything about muleteering. Whatever misgivings Stilwell had when he saw his reinforcements, he kept them to himself and addressed them simply and quietly, explaining that their new mission was to hit Walawbum. On the afternoon of the 28th, Merill received the new orders, calling for cutting the road on either side of Walawbum, the 2nd Battalion led by Colonel McGee to the west, the 3rd Battalion led by Colonel Beach to the south, and the 1st Battalion led by Colonel Osborne to patrol along the Nambyu Hka north of the Kamaing Road. Positions near Walawbum would be held until the 38th Division relieved the 5307th. Unfortunately the freak rains already experienced by Stilwell and his men continued, so that the Marauders' eight-day, 60-mile trek to Walawbum turned into something of a nightmare. On March 2nd, the Marauders crossed the Tanai Hka and arrived at their assembly area. With the last elements at hand, General Stillwell initiated his offensive. On the 3rd, Colonel Brown's tankers, with the support of a battalion from the 65th regiment advanced against Maingkwan. Facing light opposition, they managed to advance 5000 yards northeast of Maingkwan by 3pm when they were halted by heavy Japanese fire. Meanwhile, Merrill's marauders were clashing with Japanese at various places throughout the day. The 3rd Battalion had a sharp fight at Lagang Ga, killing 30 Japanese and seized the area needed for the building of a drop field. One of the battalion's two combat teams, Khaki, stayed at Lagang Ga to build and protect the dropping zone. Orange Combat Team kept on to the high ground east of Walawbum and dug in, its heavy weapons commanding the Kamaing Road. This saw them securing high ground east of Walawbum. The 22d Division, was also moving ahead, and so far was in step with the tanks and GALAHAD. On  the 3rd, the 64th Regiment was near Ngam Ga, east of the Kamaing Road. The 66th to the west was in contact with the third regiment, the 65th, as it emerged from the Taro Plain. Tanaka's intelligence indicated the Americans were at Walawbum. The Chinese 22nd and 38th divisions were advancing slowly, so he believed his rearguard could hold them back so he could take the bulk of his strength to attack the americans. On the 3rd, the 55th and 56th regiment began retreating in order to launch an enveloping maneuver against Merrill's marauders. The next day, Brown found the enemy gone and his men were able to advance 3 miles southeast, getting his tanks in line with Maingkwan. Over at Walawbum, Merrills 3rd battalion were resisting against ferocious attacks from the Japanese. The drop field at Lagang Ga was attacked at dawn on the 4th but the garrison held. Orange Combat Team opened the battle in its sector with mortar fire on Walawbum, drawing mortar and 75-mm. fire in return from the 56th Infantry Regiment, which had been Tanaka's left flank, as it assembled for attack. When it moved, the 56th tried to cross the river and work around the Americans' flanks, where it met booby traps and ambushes thoughtfully prepared for just such a contingency. Some Japanese did cross to the east, but this failed to affect the course of the action, and 75 dead Japanese were counted, as against one American dead and seven wounded. These latter were evacuated by air the same evening. The 2nd battalion managed to get across the Kamaing road west of Wesu Ga where they established a roadblock. Finding out about the roadblock, Tanaka dispatched his forces to clear them out. On the 5th the Japanese appeared to be forming for an attack, but mortar fire seemed to be successful in breaking up such attempts. To the south, Allied aircraft could be seen bombing and machine-gunning what Orange Combat Team took to be Japanese reinforcements. One indication that the Japanese were increasing their strength in the immediate area lay in their being able to force Orange Combat Team's I & R Platoon back across the river about noon. Simultaneously, the 66th regiment liberated the abandoned Maingkwan and began advancing south over the Kamaing road. Brown's reconnaissance had found a good trail running south from Tsamat Ga, and on the morning of the 5th the tanks moved out through the jungle. After the engineers had prepared a small stream for crossing, the tanks broke into a freshly evacuated Japanese bivouac area. Jungle vines looping across the trail from either side, and connecting masses of vegetation and trees, made effective obstacles as they slowed down the tanks by catching their turrets; not until late afternoon did the armor break out on the trail running east and west between Maingkwan and Wesu Ga. Almost immediately the tanks encountered what seemed to be a company of Japanese defending a small but marshy stream. The stream did not seem fordable, so Brown attacked by fire alone. Unknown to him, his tanks were firing on Tanaka's division headquarters, and now lay squarely between the 18th's headquarters and its 56th Regiment. This understandably threw Tanaka's plan into chaos, as his forces who were unsuccessfully attacking Merrills marauders were becoming encircled. Tanaka decided to swing his force around the American roadblock, using a Japanese built trail that the Americans did not know about.The bypass road over which the 18th was to withdraw had been built by the Japanese engineers some days before and quote “The Engineer Regiment commander, Colonel Fukayama, had considered the possibility of reversals in our position and, in order to facilitate the withdrawal of the division, he had previously cleared a secret jungle trail about 20 kilometers long leading from the vicinity of Lalawng Ga to Jambu Hkintang on his own initiative. This trail was used in the withdrawal of the main body of the division.” By nightfall, Merrill's 2nd battalion had pulled out to Wesu Ga and were trying to link up with the 3rd battalion south of Walawbum. On the 6th after heavy artillery bombardment, at 5:15pm an estimated two companies of Japanese in line of skirmishers, with heavy supporting fire, crossed the river. The American mortars continued their work; the automatic weapons held back until the Japanese were within fifty yards. Two heavy machine guns, which had a clear field of fire along the river bank, were especially effective. The Japanese failed, leaving many dead on the open ground east of the river and on the river banks. Orange Combat Team found its ammunition low, and so sent a request for more to Khaki Combat Team, which was about one hundred yards downstream. This was however just a diversionary attack, as most of the 18th division were escaping unmolested. Meanwhile elements of the 113th regiment were beginning to arrive to Lagang Ga and unfortunately an incident of friendly fire would occur. The remainder of the 38th Division and an American patrol met near Walawbum on March 7th. The recognition signal had been arranged as three bursts of three rounds each. This necessarily meant there would be firing when the Chinese and Americans met. When the tops of the American helmets, which looked not unlike the Japanese pot helmet when their brims were invisible, appeared through and over the brush, there was a brief exchange of fire in which three Chinese were wounded before identity was established. Such is the nature of coordinating multiple nations' armies during actions. General Sun and Merrill's marauders made a withdrawal beginning on the 7th in order to circle south and cut the Kamaing road again, this time even further south than before. Brown in the meantime had advanced to Ninghku Ga where he secured support from a battalion of the 64th regiment and launched a coordinated tank-infantry attack against Kumnyen. At around 3pm, the tanks and infantry assembled across the Kamaing road in two places, establishing a roadblock while the tanks moved out aggressively along the road to east and west. On the 8th, Brown's tanks then moved along the Kamaing Road and onto a trail that showed signs of heavy traffic. This allowed them to discover Tanaka's evacuation route, finally occupying Walawbum by the end of the day. Brown later recalled, "swarming with people from the 64th Infantry and the 113th Infantry who, to the tankers' great disgust, disputed the latter's claim to have taken Walawbum”. Though the 18th division had managed to escape Stilwells traps, the American-Chinese forces had still scored a well-earned victory. The road to Myitkyina was not open.  The cost for this first series of victories in the North Burma Campaign were 802 Chinese dead and 1479 wounded, plus 530 undifferentiated casualties from the fall of 1943 to March 18, 1944. But the temporary American-Chinese collaboration did not presage a wider Sino-American synergy, and the Marauders found operating with their allies a major problem. One issue was that of disease: the Americans caught dysentery in large numbers and attributed this to the insanitary habits of the Chinese, especially their refusal to boil their water, or to wash their hands after using the latrines. The American K-rations also proved unsatisfactory and unsuitable for jungle warfare, as the Chindits soon discovered. Yet that is all for burma as we now have to jump over to New Guinea. The advance and pursuit upon Madang resumed on March 12th as the 2/12th Battalion found Ward's Village unoccupied while the 57th/60th Battalion secured the abandoned Saipa 2. The 57th/60th Battalion advanced swiftly by night and finally concentrated at Yokopi two days later. On the 16th, Brigadier Hammer then received a rather ambiguous order. Chilton had redefined the division's role "in the light of the present situation". While the 18th Brigade was to watch the 15th Brigade's immediate left flank from the high ground between the lower Evapia and Mene Rivers, and the commando troop at Faita the far left flank, the 15th Brigade would garrison Kankiryo Saddle, keep contact with the enemy along the Bogadjim Road and patrol along the Kabenau River towards Astrolabe Bay to join the Americans. Finally, the 15th Brigade would "provide a firm base for patrolling, by employing at the discretion of the commander, a force not exceeding one battalion forward of Kankiryo up to and inclusive of Yokopi". The order was ambiguous as far as the local commanders were concerned, and managed to overcome the ban placed by higher authority on any advance across the Finisterres to the coast: Hammer could not go beyond Yokopi but, at the same time, he was to maintain contact with the enemy along the Bogadjim Road—and they were already farther back than Yokopi. At this point Hammer decided that the supply route from the Saddle to the 57th/60th had to be developed. While the battalion patrolled and the enemy positions were bombarded, Saipa, Yokopi and Daumoina were built into staging areas. In the meantime, patrols from the 2/2nd Commando Squadron were harrying the Japanese from the left flank, successfully establishing a new patrol base at Jappa by March 17th. From there, the Commandos patrolled towards Aminik, Oromuge and Mataloi, which they finally found abandoned. Further east, the 58th/59th Battalion patrolled from the Nangapo and Yangalum areas towards Arawum and Kul 2 as they searched for the Americans at the Kabenau and Kambara Rivers. An accidental meeting had already taken place between the patrols of the two Allies. An American reconnaissance patrol was being towed in a rubber boat by a PT boat with the object of landing at Male and seeing if the Japanese were at Bogadjim. Off Garagassi Point, the tow rope broke and the Americans rowed to shore in their rubber boat which they deflated and hid in the bush near Melamu. Moving inland for about a mile they turned west and nearing the Kaliko Track met Lieutenant Norrie's patrol of the 58th/59th Battalion and accompanied the Australians to Barum, where the Americans were given supplies and a guide; moving via Wenga, they reached Jamjam on the 18th and found no signs of the enemy. On this day at noon about 30 Japanese with three machine-guns and a mortar attacked Norrie's position at Barum. The situation would have been serious had it not been for Sergeant Matheson and his two men who had remained behind at Kaliko and managed to bear the first brunt of the attack and warn those at Barum. The Americans moved on the 20th to Yangalum and next day set out for Kul 2, along almost exactly the same route as that taken by Brewster, who had departed on March 20. Brewster reached Kul 2 on March 21, where he joined the Americans from Saidor and remained with them until the 26th. In this period he went to Saidor where he met General Gill, giving him information about the area east of the Kabenau River and learning of the American intentions and dispositions. Brewster then returned to Yangalum having carried out an important and lengthy linking patrol—35 miles each way. On the other side, General Adachi ordered his 51st division to continue withdrawing towards Wewak and for the 20th division towards Hansa. There he sought for them to reorganize and receive around 5000 replacements from Palau each. By the 9th, both divisions had reached Bogia and the 20th division had established a new defense of the Hansa area. By mid March the 51st reached Wewak and would be able to assemble at Hansa. On March 20th, the bulk of the 41st division was ordered to withdraw towards Hansa as well. As a result of the invasion of the Admiralty Islands, the 18th army and 4th air army were now cut off from Rabaul. Thus they were reassigned to the 2nd Area Army under the command of General Anami Korechika with his HQ at Ambon. They would be responsible for the defense of the eastern part of the Dutch East Indies and the western portion of New Guinea. General Teramoto would also have to move his command from Wewak to Hollandia.  Back at Yokopi, Hammer anticipated that the constant patrolling and bombardment had forced the Japanese to withdraw from their positions. On March 28th, patrols of the 57th/60th moved past Daumoina and effectively found the enemy gone. The reality, however, was that General Nakai and Colonel Matsumoto had been ordered to pull back and follow its parent unit towards Hansa. The remainder of the 41st Division were following suit over the next few days. Only a 5000-men detachment, deemed the Madang detachment formed around the 239th Regiment, under the command of General Shoge, was left behind to hold Madang and cover the Japanese withdrawal. Hammer ordered the 57th/60th to move forward with speed towards Yaula, yet the Australians would be stopped at the Kofebi River on March 30. In response, a company would be sent in an enveloping maneuver across the river, successfully getting through to Mabelebu although they would be unable to draw away the defenders. During the night, the surrounded company would then have to resist a number of enemy counterattacks, though these weren't really counterattacks but the Japanese trying to retreat towards Madang. The following day, with the enemy gone, the Australian patrols would rapidly set out north towards Yaula. Meanwhile, the 2/2nd Squadron's patrols, after securing Mataloi 1, were also advancing towards Yaula with speed. Finally, the commandos would successfully enter Yaula on April 4, with the 57th/60th's vanguard arriving soon after and then occupying Kwato by nightfall.  I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. The Bougainville counteroffensive proved the Japanese could still unleash brutal offensives and meet some success. However the level of success was not going to win the war let alone the fight over Bougainville. Within Burma the mixed national armies of the allies were finding some difficult working together, but they were gradually pushing the Japanese back.  

This week Be a Man, John Fiore, and Tonzo talk about driving fast and taking chances, taking a chance with a broad, Life as a dream chaser, Restaurant life, Ordering the special, American tacos, Well done steak, Blood on the plate, Smelling your own farts, Drinking and driving, Small town cops, Brandishing weapons, On the medicine, and a great fan question from the Be A Man Hotline BE A MAN LINKS: http://link.me/bostonbeaman

Brandishing a menacing knife, he binds the child securely with rope he brought with him. After the child is tied up, he cuts away the boy´s clothes so that he lies completely naked under the sun. Smiling, the serial killer's mask falls away and he quickly masturbates over the now crying boy. According to Garavito, he made a quote/unquote "pact with the devil" and Satanic rituals were also incorporated, the boy and others were apparent blood sacrifices.Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theserialkillerpodcastWebsite: https://www.theserialkillerpodcast.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/theskpodcastInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/serialkillerpodTwitter: https://twitter.com/serialkillerpodSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/the-serial-killer-podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

President Akufo-Addo pledges proactive measures by security agencies ahead of the 2024 elections, assuring that those wielding weapons at the former president's residence will face consequences.

Director of the Africa Centre for Security and Intelligence, Paul Boateng says Ghanaians should expect more brandishing of weapons in the run-up to the 2024 elections. Supporters of the NDC who went to the office of flag-bearer John Mahama for a clean-up exercise brandished machetes and debris.

You can listen to the John Oakley Show live and in its entirety weekdays from 3:00 - 6:00pm ET over the air, or on our website www.640toronto.com Got a question a question or comment? We'd love to hear from you at michael@640toronto.com Music for the John Oakley Show podcast composed and produced by Michael Downey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Friday, October 6th, 2023. Dropwave Do you have a podcast, or thinking about starting one? Does your church have a podcast feed for sermons? Then Dropwave.io is for you. Cancel culture is like walking on a thin glass bridge over the Grand Canyon. Every step you take could get you killed, I mean canceled. Since the beginning CrossPolitic has been working on being antifragile, so no matter what happens, our content can still be delivered to your tv and to your podcast. This past year, the Waterboy and his friend Jeremi, have been working on building a podcast hosting solution for rowdy platforms like CrossPolitic, so that you can be confident your podcast will never fall through that glass bridge. Dropwave offers seamless onboarding for shows that have been around for years to easy to use solutions for starting your own podcast. Dropwave will track all your show’s downloads by city, state, and country, and it offers network and enterprise packages for solutions like the Fight Laugh Feast Network. Free to speak, Free to podcast, free to start your journey now at www.Dropwave.io. https://www.theblaze.com/news/child-allegedly-shoots-two-teens-at-football-practice-over-bag-of-chips Child allegedly shoots two teens at football practice over 'bag of chips' An 11-year-old was arrested Monday after allegedly opening fire at a Pop Warner youth football practice in Apopka, Florida. Police say that while only one shot was fired, two kids were ultimately struck — one in the back and the other in the arm. The suspect is presently facing one count of attempted second-degree murder, though Apopka Police Chief Michael McKinley indicated prosecutors may pursue additional charges. WOFL-TV reported that the APD received a report of a shooting around 8:20 p.m. near a football field at the Northwest Recreation Center on Jason Dwelley Parkway where a kids' soccer game was also taking place. In the 911 call obtained by WESH-TV, one victim's mother can be heard saying, "My son got shot, miss! ... In his back!" The first officer arrived on the scene just four minutes later, finding one victim on the ground and another victim holding his grazed elbow. The two victims, both 13 years old, were taken to Arnold Palmer Hospital and are expected to make a full recovery. Surveillance footage shows juveniles crewing at the edge of the parking lot around 8:17 p.m., some still wearing their football jerseys. The first victim, a heavy-set male with red shorts, can be seen chasing the alleged shooter toward his mother's vehicle around 8:18 p.m. Seconds later, the suspect opens the front passenger door and reaches into the vehicle, where his mother was reportedly in the driver's seat. Inside and under the passenger seat was a purple handgun, according to the arrest report. Brandishing the weapon, the suspect appears to turn the tables and chase the heavy-set victim, ultimately firing one shot into the victim's back. The same round proceeded to graze the second victim's elbow. Following the shooting, WOFL indicated the alleged shooter was brought back to his mother's vehicle. He is now being held at a juvenile detention center. According to the arrest report, some witnesses claimed the victims had been "bullying" the alleged shooter. Others suggested the dispute was over "a bag of chips," reported the Orlando Sentinel. Apopka Police Chief Michael McKinley told reporters, "It's unbelievable that young kids out here to play football and have a good time would get into an altercation." McKinley indicated the APD would be pursuing second-degree misdemeanor charges against the mother for allegedly having her firearm in an unlocked box, reported WKMG-TV. Orange-Osceola State Attorney Andrew Bain, who took over for Monique Worrell after her suspension by Gov. Ron DeSantis, said his office will ensure there will be a reckoning. "The level of violence unacceptable right now, especially from our youth," said Bain. "We’re going to stand strong to deal with those cases and try to end or put a big slow-down to what’s going on in the streets right now." Apopka Pop Warner canceled its Wednesday practice, noting in a statement, "One of our players was involved in a shooting incident that resulted in the injury of two players. We are deeply saddened by this event and our thoughts and prayers are with the families affected." https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/10/04/uk-announced-new-zealand-style-plan-to-ban-smoking-altogether/ UK Announces New Zealand Style Plan to Ban Smoking Altogether The United Kingdom is to phase out smoking altogether, the government says, by banning young people from buying cigarettes at all with a minimum age to buy rising from 18 every year until there isn’t anyone left alive old enough to enjoy the habit. Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced his intention to steer the UK towards becoming tobacco-free by increasing the minimum age to buy products every year from here on, so the teenagers of today will never be old enough to legally take the habit up. Sunak acknowledged restricting personal freedoms was not always an easy choice for an instinctive Conservative but — underlining the way government decisions are driven by socialised healthcare — said it was important because smokers cost taxpayers through needing more hospital care. This is about “preventative care” to keep people out of hospitals, the Prime Minister said and told his governing party’s annual conference that: “I propose that in future, we raise the smoking age by one year every year. That means a 14-year-old today will never legally be sold a cigarette, and that they and their generation can grow up smoke-free”. This would work, Sunak said, because the UK’s previous experience with increasing the smoking age from 16 to 18 saw a drop in the number of people starting smoking. The Prime Minister said he would also look at cracking down on ‘vapes’, the electronic tobacco alternative. A report explaining the system as already implemented in New Zealand, which is becoming known for its draconian health interventions, stated in 2022: The law states that tobacco can’t ever be sold to anybody born on or after January 1, 2009 – and from now on, the minimum age for buying cigarettes will keep going up and up. In theory, somebody trying to buy a pack of cigarettes 50 years from now would need ID to show they were at least 63 years old. But health authorities hope smoking will fade away well before then. They have a stated goal of making New Zealand smoke-free by 2025. New Zealand also took other measures in its law shakeup, including making getting hold of cigarettes more difficult for those who could legally use them. They are no longer sold in regular stores, but can only be bought at specialist tobacconists, cutting the number of locations where smokes are sold nationwide from thousands of locations to hundreds. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/biden-faa-nominee-promises-end-work-from-home Biden pick to lead FAA promises hard push to end work-from-home policies President Joe Biden's nominee to lead the Federal Aviation Administration would prioritize ending pandemic telework policies for federal employees and bring the out-of-date agency into the 21st century. Former FAA Deputy Administrator Michael Whitaker told Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee members during his confirmation hearing on Wednesday that, if approved, he would focus heavily on matters with agency employees. "I do believe that it's important to be in person for collaboration and working together," said Whitaker, a pilot and former aviation industry executive. "This has been a challenging issue for all organizations, private or public. And I think what needs to happen is after understanding the situation that we're in and the limitations that might be there, issuing very clear guidance, what the expectations are to get people in the office." In July, the FAA announced that employees would have to return to the office no fewer than three days per week starting on Oct. 9. The union pushed back against a 100% return to office, complicating the agency's attempt to reinstate the policy. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) egged Whitaker on over the work-from-home policies and claimed the federal government was the only employer that had not returned to pre-pandemic policies. "When I talk to businesses in the private sector, virtually all of them, employees are going back to work, and they're physically present. And yet, throughout the Biden administration, we have a pattern in just about every agency where large portions of the workforce have apparently decided going into the office is optional," Cruz said. "That seriously limits the effectiveness of an agency and particularly an agency whose mission is protecting people's lives and the airspace." When asked by Cruz if he would commit to "working diligently" to bring employees back into the office, Whitaker agreed. Whitaker was second in command at the FAA from 2012 through 2015. The agency has had a gap in leadership over the past 18 months. Returning to the FAA at this point, Whitaker said, would warrant three actions he would take in his five-year term as administrator. "First, I will work not just to maintain the safety record we have collectively achieved but build upon it. The two Boeing MAX crashes remind us that we must be ever-vigilant," Whitaker said. The agency ought to ensure gaps in the FAA certification process are closed so that undisclosed changes manufacturers make to aircraft can still be caught before being put into use. Second, the FAA should be more "agile and creative" and willing to "adapt quickly" and plan for the future rather than focus on the present. The FAA has but one academy that takes years to complete, and it can only accommodate 1,800 air traffic controllers at a time. Whitaker's final point was that the government should make the FAA a place where people interested in aviation careers, particularly air traffic controllers, want to work. He was tasked with hiring 6,000 air traffic controllers during his previous stint at the FAA but came up far short. https://dailycaller.com/2023/10/05/rnc-republican-presidential-primary-debates-donald-trump/ Even The RNC’s Own Members Are Admitting Trump-less Debates May Be A Waste Of Time Members of the Republican National Committee (RNC) are frustrated with the current direction of their GOP primary debates, admitting that without President Donald Trump the events may not be worth it, according to Politico. The frontrunner for the Republican nomination, Trump has skipped the first two presidential debates, a decision that has drawn criticism from rival candidates. After the first two debates were widely panned, some within the RNC think they need the President on the stage to make the forums worth it. “I think the only way you salvage it is if you get the frontrunner there,” Tyler Bowyer, a national committeeman from Arizona, told Politico. “Plan a debate where you get the frontrunner to agree to it.” The first GOP presidential debate, sponsored by the conservative youth organization Young America’s Foundation (YAF), was aired exclusively on Fox News, Fox Business and Rumble. The debate was moderated by Fox News’ Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The second debate was aired by the exact same networks, in addition to Spanish-language network Univision. The moderators included Univision anchor Ilia Calderón, Fox Business host Stuart Varney and Fox News host Dana Perino. That debate fell flat, with many prominent conservative media figures criticizing the moderators for asking poor questions while candidates bickered and talked over one another. The RNC previously promised in 2022 to use debates to “raise conservative media up” and incorporate other outlets, but after the first two debates, conservative media companies outside of the mainstream media told the Daily Caller that they are feeling snubbed by the committee. “You can’t put your head in the sand and pretend these debates are going to result in someone other than Donald Trump getting the nomination,” Patti Lyman, the RNC’s national committeewoman from Virginia, told Politico, adding that the debates were “embarrassing” and “reflected very poorly on our party.” Despite some members pushing for Trump to take the debate stage, top officials are reportedly not attempting to get the front runner on the debate stage, a person with knowledge of the committee’s operations told Politico. That reportedly includes RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and chairman for the RNC’s Temporary Committee on Presidential Debates David Bossie. Trump himself doesn’t think the debates should go on; the President told the Daily Caller that the RNC “has to stop the debates” because they are “bad for the Republican party.” Trump and his advisors have additionally urged the RNC to “refocus its manpower and money” on election integrity efforts rather than the debates, Politico reported.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Friday, October 6th, 2023. Dropwave Do you have a podcast, or thinking about starting one? Does your church have a podcast feed for sermons? Then Dropwave.io is for you. Cancel culture is like walking on a thin glass bridge over the Grand Canyon. Every step you take could get you killed, I mean canceled. Since the beginning CrossPolitic has been working on being antifragile, so no matter what happens, our content can still be delivered to your tv and to your podcast. This past year, the Waterboy and his friend Jeremi, have been working on building a podcast hosting solution for rowdy platforms like CrossPolitic, so that you can be confident your podcast will never fall through that glass bridge. Dropwave offers seamless onboarding for shows that have been around for years to easy to use solutions for starting your own podcast. Dropwave will track all your show’s downloads by city, state, and country, and it offers network and enterprise packages for solutions like the Fight Laugh Feast Network. Free to speak, Free to podcast, free to start your journey now at www.Dropwave.io. https://www.theblaze.com/news/child-allegedly-shoots-two-teens-at-football-practice-over-bag-of-chips Child allegedly shoots two teens at football practice over 'bag of chips' An 11-year-old was arrested Monday after allegedly opening fire at a Pop Warner youth football practice in Apopka, Florida. Police say that while only one shot was fired, two kids were ultimately struck — one in the back and the other in the arm. The suspect is presently facing one count of attempted second-degree murder, though Apopka Police Chief Michael McKinley indicated prosecutors may pursue additional charges. WOFL-TV reported that the APD received a report of a shooting around 8:20 p.m. near a football field at the Northwest Recreation Center on Jason Dwelley Parkway where a kids' soccer game was also taking place. In the 911 call obtained by WESH-TV, one victim's mother can be heard saying, "My son got shot, miss! ... In his back!" The first officer arrived on the scene just four minutes later, finding one victim on the ground and another victim holding his grazed elbow. The two victims, both 13 years old, were taken to Arnold Palmer Hospital and are expected to make a full recovery. Surveillance footage shows juveniles crewing at the edge of the parking lot around 8:17 p.m., some still wearing their football jerseys. The first victim, a heavy-set male with red shorts, can be seen chasing the alleged shooter toward his mother's vehicle around 8:18 p.m. Seconds later, the suspect opens the front passenger door and reaches into the vehicle, where his mother was reportedly in the driver's seat. Inside and under the passenger seat was a purple handgun, according to the arrest report. Brandishing the weapon, the suspect appears to turn the tables and chase the heavy-set victim, ultimately firing one shot into the victim's back. The same round proceeded to graze the second victim's elbow. Following the shooting, WOFL indicated the alleged shooter was brought back to his mother's vehicle. He is now being held at a juvenile detention center. According to the arrest report, some witnesses claimed the victims had been "bullying" the alleged shooter. Others suggested the dispute was over "a bag of chips," reported the Orlando Sentinel. Apopka Police Chief Michael McKinley told reporters, "It's unbelievable that young kids out here to play football and have a good time would get into an altercation." McKinley indicated the APD would be pursuing second-degree misdemeanor charges against the mother for allegedly having her firearm in an unlocked box, reported WKMG-TV. Orange-Osceola State Attorney Andrew Bain, who took over for Monique Worrell after her suspension by Gov. Ron DeSantis, said his office will ensure there will be a reckoning. "The level of violence unacceptable right now, especially from our youth," said Bain. "We’re going to stand strong to deal with those cases and try to end or put a big slow-down to what’s going on in the streets right now." Apopka Pop Warner canceled its Wednesday practice, noting in a statement, "One of our players was involved in a shooting incident that resulted in the injury of two players. We are deeply saddened by this event and our thoughts and prayers are with the families affected." https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/10/04/uk-announced-new-zealand-style-plan-to-ban-smoking-altogether/ UK Announces New Zealand Style Plan to Ban Smoking Altogether The United Kingdom is to phase out smoking altogether, the government says, by banning young people from buying cigarettes at all with a minimum age to buy rising from 18 every year until there isn’t anyone left alive old enough to enjoy the habit. Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced his intention to steer the UK towards becoming tobacco-free by increasing the minimum age to buy products every year from here on, so the teenagers of today will never be old enough to legally take the habit up. Sunak acknowledged restricting personal freedoms was not always an easy choice for an instinctive Conservative but — underlining the way government decisions are driven by socialised healthcare — said it was important because smokers cost taxpayers through needing more hospital care. This is about “preventative care” to keep people out of hospitals, the Prime Minister said and told his governing party’s annual conference that: “I propose that in future, we raise the smoking age by one year every year. That means a 14-year-old today will never legally be sold a cigarette, and that they and their generation can grow up smoke-free”. This would work, Sunak said, because the UK’s previous experience with increasing the smoking age from 16 to 18 saw a drop in the number of people starting smoking. The Prime Minister said he would also look at cracking down on ‘vapes’, the electronic tobacco alternative. A report explaining the system as already implemented in New Zealand, which is becoming known for its draconian health interventions, stated in 2022: The law states that tobacco can’t ever be sold to anybody born on or after January 1, 2009 – and from now on, the minimum age for buying cigarettes will keep going up and up. In theory, somebody trying to buy a pack of cigarettes 50 years from now would need ID to show they were at least 63 years old. But health authorities hope smoking will fade away well before then. They have a stated goal of making New Zealand smoke-free by 2025. New Zealand also took other measures in its law shakeup, including making getting hold of cigarettes more difficult for those who could legally use them. They are no longer sold in regular stores, but can only be bought at specialist tobacconists, cutting the number of locations where smokes are sold nationwide from thousands of locations to hundreds. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/biden-faa-nominee-promises-end-work-from-home Biden pick to lead FAA promises hard push to end work-from-home policies President Joe Biden's nominee to lead the Federal Aviation Administration would prioritize ending pandemic telework policies for federal employees and bring the out-of-date agency into the 21st century. Former FAA Deputy Administrator Michael Whitaker told Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee members during his confirmation hearing on Wednesday that, if approved, he would focus heavily on matters with agency employees. "I do believe that it's important to be in person for collaboration and working together," said Whitaker, a pilot and former aviation industry executive. "This has been a challenging issue for all organizations, private or public. And I think what needs to happen is after understanding the situation that we're in and the limitations that might be there, issuing very clear guidance, what the expectations are to get people in the office." In July, the FAA announced that employees would have to return to the office no fewer than three days per week starting on Oct. 9. The union pushed back against a 100% return to office, complicating the agency's attempt to reinstate the policy. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) egged Whitaker on over the work-from-home policies and claimed the federal government was the only employer that had not returned to pre-pandemic policies. "When I talk to businesses in the private sector, virtually all of them, employees are going back to work, and they're physically present. And yet, throughout the Biden administration, we have a pattern in just about every agency where large portions of the workforce have apparently decided going into the office is optional," Cruz said. "That seriously limits the effectiveness of an agency and particularly an agency whose mission is protecting people's lives and the airspace." When asked by Cruz if he would commit to "working diligently" to bring employees back into the office, Whitaker agreed. Whitaker was second in command at the FAA from 2012 through 2015. The agency has had a gap in leadership over the past 18 months. Returning to the FAA at this point, Whitaker said, would warrant three actions he would take in his five-year term as administrator. "First, I will work not just to maintain the safety record we have collectively achieved but build upon it. The two Boeing MAX crashes remind us that we must be ever-vigilant," Whitaker said. The agency ought to ensure gaps in the FAA certification process are closed so that undisclosed changes manufacturers make to aircraft can still be caught before being put into use. Second, the FAA should be more "agile and creative" and willing to "adapt quickly" and plan for the future rather than focus on the present. The FAA has but one academy that takes years to complete, and it can only accommodate 1,800 air traffic controllers at a time. Whitaker's final point was that the government should make the FAA a place where people interested in aviation careers, particularly air traffic controllers, want to work. He was tasked with hiring 6,000 air traffic controllers during his previous stint at the FAA but came up far short. https://dailycaller.com/2023/10/05/rnc-republican-presidential-primary-debates-donald-trump/ Even The RNC’s Own Members Are Admitting Trump-less Debates May Be A Waste Of Time Members of the Republican National Committee (RNC) are frustrated with the current direction of their GOP primary debates, admitting that without President Donald Trump the events may not be worth it, according to Politico. The frontrunner for the Republican nomination, Trump has skipped the first two presidential debates, a decision that has drawn criticism from rival candidates. After the first two debates were widely panned, some within the RNC think they need the President on the stage to make the forums worth it. “I think the only way you salvage it is if you get the frontrunner there,” Tyler Bowyer, a national committeeman from Arizona, told Politico. “Plan a debate where you get the frontrunner to agree to it.” The first GOP presidential debate, sponsored by the conservative youth organization Young America’s Foundation (YAF), was aired exclusively on Fox News, Fox Business and Rumble. The debate was moderated by Fox News’ Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The second debate was aired by the exact same networks, in addition to Spanish-language network Univision. The moderators included Univision anchor Ilia Calderón, Fox Business host Stuart Varney and Fox News host Dana Perino. That debate fell flat, with many prominent conservative media figures criticizing the moderators for asking poor questions while candidates bickered and talked over one another. The RNC previously promised in 2022 to use debates to “raise conservative media up” and incorporate other outlets, but after the first two debates, conservative media companies outside of the mainstream media told the Daily Caller that they are feeling snubbed by the committee. “You can’t put your head in the sand and pretend these debates are going to result in someone other than Donald Trump getting the nomination,” Patti Lyman, the RNC’s national committeewoman from Virginia, told Politico, adding that the debates were “embarrassing” and “reflected very poorly on our party.” Despite some members pushing for Trump to take the debate stage, top officials are reportedly not attempting to get the front runner on the debate stage, a person with knowledge of the committee’s operations told Politico. That reportedly includes RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and chairman for the RNC’s Temporary Committee on Presidential Debates David Bossie. Trump himself doesn’t think the debates should go on; the President told the Daily Caller that the RNC “has to stop the debates” because they are “bad for the Republican party.” Trump and his advisors have additionally urged the RNC to “refocus its manpower and money” on election integrity efforts rather than the debates, Politico reported.

I was a little starstruck to have the opportunity to interview Dakota Lee for the podcast! She is such a powerhouse! Her professionalism exudes from her online presence. Dakota has rebranded herself in many ways over the years.  From becoming a professional photographer to quitting nude modeling and having new doors open for her as a result, my conversation with Dakota had me thinking about freelancing from a fresh perspective!  Oh, and her photoshoot fail story was CRAZY!! It was a good thing her photographer had a gun with him!! You will have to listen to find out what happened!  Check out Dakota Lee on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/msdakotalee/ And on her website: https://eventswithdakota.com/ Cover image by Kevin Deal This episode is brought to you by Model Society - the best website for figurative fine art photography! Check out http://www.ModelSociety.com 

Brandishing his youth as one of his greatest assets, social entrepreneur, inventor, and author Milan Kordestani can't be contained to a single industry. A business visionary from a young age, Milan began his first financial endeavor in middle school by breeding and selling rare species of turtles. From there he continued following his natural interests which extended into writing and creating space for people to talk about challenging topics. He founded a series of startups including a freelancing site, a publishing company, and a record label. Through these experiences, he gained business knowledge and clarity about his role pertaining to startups— Milan is a small business incubator. One of Milan's favorite parts of building a company is getting it off the ground. He enjoys being the boots on the ground, identifying problems he might be able to solve for a specific demographic, and finding the right people to build a dream. As soon as it's time to talk about scaling the business, he's usually onto another project. Instead of succumbing to imposter syndrome, Milan chooses to see his youth as a strength. Through his publications, he is passionate about using his voice and unique perspective to make big changes in the world. By combining his love for entrepreneurship and his heart for bringing people together, he stands out as a leader in his generation seeking to make the world a better place.Main Topics Milan's early entrepreneurial experience as a reptile breeder (02:55) The roots of an entrepreneurial spirit (05:30) Youth perspective in the agriculture industry (08:45) Milan's love of sharing his perspective through writing (11:45) Overcoming imposter syndrome (13:15) Milan's first real company (14:55) I'm Just Saying shares tools for active listening and sharing (20:50) The process of starting multiple companies (25:10) Vetting new ideas (30:00)   Episode Links https://www.milankordestani.com https://audo.com  Go to TheFridayHabit.com to find show notes for this episode. There you can also find links to our websites and ways to get in touch. At the bottom of the page you can download our guide to the Friday Habit system that will show you how to set aside one full day each week dedicated to working on your business instead of in your business.If you enjoyed this episode please subscribe and leave us a review in the Apple podcasts app.If you have a question or a topic you'd like us to cover don't forget to record us a quick voice memo and send it to hello@thefridayhabit.comThanks for listening to The Friday Habit.Until next time. Live every day like it's Friday.Listen, rate, and subscribe!Apple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle Podcasts

Immerse yourself in a sea of inspiration as we embark on a journey with Bart Jenezon, a true maestro of mastering happiness amidst the chaos. This thrilling episode of "Chasing Happiness" promises to ignite your passion for the pursuit of genuine bliss. Navigating through intricate lanes of life, this podcast converges on experiences that kindle joy even in turbulent times. Our guest, Bart Jenezon, shares his extraordinary journey of busting myths and misconceptions about happiness, and his insights on triumphing over personal chaos. In this thoughtful exploration of happiness, Jenezon will enlighten us with his unique insights on utilizing joy and satisfaction as survival tools amid turmoil. Gain a fresh perspective on embracing bliss, shifting perspectives, and thriving amidst adversity. All while creating his company 1nspiring. So, why wait? Dive into this profound conversation and start your journey towards a happier, more fulfilled life. Remember, happiness is not just a pursuit; it's a decision. Spread the good vibes! Share this podcast with colleagues, friends, and loved ones. Subscribe, follow, and get update notifications from Chasing Happiness with Ryan DeMent anywhere you listen to podcasts. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/chasinghappiness/message

Naida Valencia originally hails from the West Coast of the US, but holds a strong identity within her Chilean and Colombian heritage. A theater virtuoso from the age of 9, she attended The Northwest School of the Arts, as well as the acting division of UCLA's School of Theater, Film and Television. Since then her career has been an eclectic mixture of marketing, management, writing, event planning and overall industry involvement. She currently works as a marketing manager for Whatevergroup, a production company in Northern Finland. Whatevergroup is a TV and film production company based in Oulu, Finland. The company was initiated in 2011 and is run by three writer producers: Antti Kaarlela, Antti Kairakari and Aleksi Puranen. A modest, yet dynamic team runs the engine of this enterprise, setting the course for unique and ambitious horizons. Whatevergroup sets itself apart as one of the primary industry players within the northern regions of Finland. Brandishing an eclectic profile of enthralling pieces, such as the Evilside thriller series for Elisa Viihde and the family feature Susikoira Roi for Cmore MTV3.

A SMALL CHRONOLOGICAL INTERLUDE: Sneak preview of new characters appearing in Season 3. James has a mission in the middle of the woods at night. Brandishing a shovel and a willow sapling, he and his girlfriend Christine are there to do... something. Will he ever tell her what that something is? Episode based on the play Arbor Day by Peter Cosmas Sofronas. Series based on the play Two and TwoTogether by Peter Cosmas Sofronas. Written, Directed, and Produced by Peter Cosmas Sofronas. Starring (in order of appearance) Jon Vellante as James Rogers and Presley Duyck as Christine Reid. Credits and Narration by Leonard Caplan. Sound Editing by Peter Cosmas Sofronas. Theme Music by Valerie Forgione.Support the showScripts of Two and Two Together and the first two seasons of Putting 2&2 Together can be purchased at Amazon.com. Merchandise available at TeeSpring. Donations can be made at By Me a Coffee. For further information, please visit puttingtwoandtwotogether.com.

Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Monday May 15, 2023 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Monday May 15, 2023 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Comedians Zahid Dewji and Karla Watkins join Zac Amico as they both grin and endure yet another disastrous deviation from the infamous David DeCoteau. Brandishing a sprawling cast of four whole actors, including TV's Clark Kent (Tyler Hoechlin), this film chronicles the perilous fate of four teenagers who happened upon the wrong Canadian park. With nothing but still water from a radioactive lake, and an enraged mama bear in pursuit of vengeance, they must fight to make it out alive. Written by Arne Olsen, and buried in the depths of Amazon Prime, it's none other than “Grizzly Rage” from 2007.Air Date: 04/14/22Support Our Sponsors!Fans over the age of 21, visit YoKratom.com for all your Kratom needs. No promo code necessary, just head over to YoKratom.com, home of the $60 kilo!Fans over the age of 21, if you're looking for ELF Bars, MIPOD.com has them relabeled as EBDesign, and you can get 20% OFF right now by using promo code GAS at checkout!The newest 15 episodes are always free, but if you want access to all the archives, watch live, chat live, access to the forums, and get the show five days before it comes out everywhere else - you can subscribe NOW at http://www.GaSDigitalNetwork.com and use the code ZAC for a 7-Day FREE Trial and save 15% on your subscription to the entire network.Check out https://www.PodcastMerch.com/ZAC to get EXCLUSIVE Zac Amico merchandise!FOLLOW THE SHOW!Zac Amico:https://www.instagram.com/zacisnotfunny/https://www.twitter.com/zacisnotfunny/Zahid Dewji:https://twitter.com/zahiddewjihttps://www.instagram.com/zahiddewjiKarla Watkins:https://www.instagram.com/karlawatkinshttps://twitter.com/karlawatkinsSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Infinite Loops Podcast Notes Key Takeaways  Words that used to carry a certain weight are now levied all the time, and this debases their meaning The Woozle Effect: An article makes a claim without evidence, is then cited by another, which is cited by another (and so on), until the range of citations creates the impression that the claim has evidence when really all articles are citing the same uncorroborated source The Toxoplasma of Rage: Narratives that do the best in the digital age are narratives that not everybody thinks are true, but those that divide people the mostGolden Hammer: When someone, usually an intellectual who has gained a cultish following for popularizing a concept, becomes so drunk with power he thinks he can apply that concept to everything The Streisand Effect: A narrative that people are trying to suppress will eventually leak out, and it becomes even more appealing to everyone else because of the very fact that it was suppressedOur minds are configured not to argue for what is true, but for what we want to believe and what we need to believe in order to be part of the tribe Purity Spiral: Members of political tribes inevitably begin competing with their fellows to be the most ideologically pure. The constant one-upmanship toward moral superiority causes the whole group to become more extreme gradually. You cannot censor an avalanche “Certainty is the death of thought.” – Gurwinder BhogalRead the full notes @ podcastnotes.orgGurwinder Bhogal is a writer and programmer who writes about the myriad ways in which technology and psychology conspire to fool us and how we can withstand the covert assault on our senses. Gurwinder is known for his epic Twitter ‘Megathreads' which set out a series of powerful concepts for understanding the world. He joins the show to discuss our tendency to narrativize information, how to overcome the bandwidth tax, why Wikipedia is the world's largest source of misinformation, and MUCH more! Important Links: Megathread: Feb 7, 2020 (53,000 likes) Megathread: Feb 11, 2022 (62,000 likes) Megathread: March 18, 2023 (most recent) Gurwinder's Substack Gurwinder's Twitter The Toxoplasma of Rage Show Notes: Megathreads & the Woozle effect AI, the Encyclopedia Disinformatica, and cultivating a garden of Mithridates Capturing the nuance between dishonesty and lying The Toxoplasma of Rage Overcoming the bandwidth tax Brandishing the golden hammer; why we can't comprehend large numbers Tribalism & intersubjectivity The purity spiral Are we facing a lost generation? We are programmed to like complex explanations Narrativizing information “Certainty is the death of thought” Climbing the thinking ladder MUCH more! Books Mentioned: The Fifth Science; by Exurb1a Talking to Strangers; by Malcolm Gladwell Tao Te Ching; by Lao Tzu What's Our Problem?: A Self-Help Book for Societies; by Tim Urban

Gurwinder Bhogal is a writer and programmer who writes about the myriad ways in which technology and psychology conspire to fool us and how we can withstand the covert assault on our senses. Gurwinder is known for his epic Twitter ‘Megathreads' which set out a series of powerful concepts for understanding the world. He joins the show to discuss our tendency to narrativize information, how to overcome the bandwidth tax, why Wikipedia is the world's largest source of misinformation, and MUCH more! Important Links: Megathread: Feb 7, 2020 (53,000 likes) Megathread: Feb 11, 2022 (62,000 likes) Megathread: March 18, 2023 (most recent) Gurwinder's Substack Gurwinder's Twitter The Toxoplasma of Rage Show Notes: Megathreads & the Woozle effect AI, the Encyclopedia Disinformatica, and cultivating a garden of Mithridates Capturing the nuance between dishonesty and lying The Toxoplasma of Rage Overcoming the bandwidth tax Brandishing the golden hammer; why we can't comprehend large numbers Tribalism & intersubjectivity The purity spiral Are we facing a lost generation? We are programmed to like complex explanations Narrativizing information “Certainty is the death of thought” Climbing the thinking ladder MUCH more! Books Mentioned: The Fifth Science; by Exurb1a Talking to Strangers; by Malcolm Gladwell Tao Te Ching; by Lao Tzu What's Our Problem?: A Self-Help Book for Societies; by Tim Urban

Kirby Farris joins John to disucss a 43-year-old mother of a sexual assault victim will be on probation for 18 months for brandishing a gun toward the teen who pleaded guilty to assaulting the girl. The Daily Reporter is not naming the woman to protect the identity of the teen victim. The woman received an admonishment from Circuit Judge Bill O'Grady about her conduct on Bishop Avenue on Oct. 22 next to Heritage Park, where the confrontation took place.

What does the word "amnesty" mean to you? If an illegal immigrant was told they could get permanent residency as long as they, didn't have a criminal history besides being here illegally, had a job, and paid a fine, would you consider that amnesty? There is a Joint Senate Memorial in Idaho to ask the Federal Government to create permanent citizenship if illegal immigrants fall under the three things mentioned above. What are your thoughts? After we wrapped that topic up Nate Shelman discussed a bill that would expand on the stand your ground law in Idaho. The bill would allow you to show your gun to someone or tell them you have it if someone is coming at you with illegal physical violence. Do you think this is a good idea or bad? (3/16/23)

NATO and Russia are set to separately hold long planned exercises of their nuclear forces at a time of huge tension as Russia continues its war on Ukraine. The Pentagon and the US intelligence community are watching for any unexpected or unusual movements of Moscow's nuclear weapons during Russia's exercise, which is expected to take place before the end of the month, according to several US officials. "We believe that that Russian nuclear rhetoric and its decision to proceed with this exercise while at war with Ukraine is irresponsible. Brandishing nuclear weapons to coerce the United States and its allies is irresponsible," a senior defense official told CNN. The Russian exercise called Grom, which roughly translates into thunder, is conducted every year, according to the US. "We anticipate the exercise will span several days. It'll include actions within the normal bounds of what Russia has done in the past. It'll include live missile launches and a deployment of strategic assets," said John Kirby, Coordinator for Strategic Communications at the National Security Council. Though the Russian exercise is routine it comes after President Joe Biden issued a stark warning earlier this month about the danger of President Vladimir Putin's nuclear threats as Moscow continues to face military setbacks in Ukraine. "First time since the Cuban missile crisis, we have a direct threat of the use (of a) nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they are going," Biden warned during remarks at a Democratic fundraiser in New York. He added: "I don't think there's any such thing as the ability to easily (use) a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon." After Biden's remarks, administration officials stressed that the US still has seen no evidence that Putin is moving toward using Russia's nuclear capability, nor is there any intelligence showing he's decided to do so. The tensions over Ukraine means there will be even more scrutiny on the Russian exercise. The US constantly monitors Russian nuclear assets, but the Pentagon will be watching the exercise for any sign Russian strategic forces or nuclear weapons movements are anything other than routine and expected, officials told CNN. The exercise is expected to focus on strategic weapons, meaning tests of ballistic missile systems that Russia would be required to provide advance notice of under treaty obligations. NATO and US officials have said they are confident they will be able to accurately monitor any Russian nuclear activity during the exercise. "We will monitor that, as we always do. And of course, we will remain vigilant not least in light of the veiled nuclear threats and the dangerous nuclear rhetoric we have seen from the Russian side," said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Thursday. On Monday, NATO will begin its annual nuclear exercise known as Steadfast Noon, with the US among the 14 nations participating. It's been conducted annually for over a decade, according to the Pentagon. The exercise includes fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear warheads but there will be no live weapons aboard. The US will provide B-52 bombers flying from Minot Air Base in North Dakota. The major exercise area will be more than 625 miles from Russia. The goal is to ensure NATO's nuclear deterrent remains "credible, effective, safe and secure" the defense official said. According to NATO there will be up to 60 aircraft involved including advanced fighter jets, surveillance and tanker aircraft. Flights will take place over Belgium, the UK and the North Sea. - by Barbara Starr, CNNSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on SUDDENLY, an unbelievable true story. At age 19, Estonian-Australian immigrant Peeter Pedaja had his life changed by a Frank Sinatra film, THE KISSING BANDIT (1948). You will NEVER guess where this is going. Born in 1931, Pedaja spent his entire Estonian childhood on the run from occupying Germans and Russians, including an exhaustive three-and-a-half year search for his lost family. He migrated to Australia by 18 and began hitch-hiking around the country - once riding a bicycle from Perth to Melbourne in summer, another time walking almost 300km in three days to win a bet. At age 19, he saw THE KISSING BANDIT and was inspired. Brandishing a toy water pistol, he managed to hijack a motorcycle then hold up a couple in a car before being promptly arrested. “(Sinatra's character) in the film never meant to do anything bad and I didn't either”, he told the court. “I've been honest all my life and always will be.” He got off with a suspended sentence - and became known in Australia as “The Kissing Bandit in Real Life.” And his adventures were just beginning. In 1957, he turned up in Darwin having constructed a boat out of oil drums. Oil drum sea travel had become an obsession. Despite warnings that the craft was unseaworthy, he was absolutely determined to cross the Timor Sea and arrive in Indonesia. As he set off, nobody expected him to even survive the trip... THE KISSING BANDIT is universally agreed to be the worst ever Sinatra film, so we got podcasting legend Tim Batt from The Worst Idea of All Time to join us for this episode. But it turned out that all this was just beneath the surface - and maybe it had something to do with the Worst Idea after all. How this incredible story became lost to history is unclear. But you'll hear all about it, for the first time in almost 50 years, on this week's SUDDENLY. Voice acting cast for this episode: Pete Rush as Peeter Pedaja, Lewis Worthington as Gregory Black, Henry Giardina as Capt. Peter Petersen, Spike Vincent as Capt. H.I. Phillips and Sue Marsh as Rosalie Pedaja. Peeter Pedaja (sometimes spelt Peter Pedaja, alias Stanley Lexton) was born on August 24th, 1931 in Talllinn, Estonia to Rosalie and Johannes Pedaja, and died on October 17th, 1985 in Melbourne, Australia. If you know any more about his amazing life, we would love to hear from you.  EMAIL: suddenlypod at gmail dot com INSTAGRAM: @suddenlypod TWITTER: @suddenlypod

In this week's Pulse: Maine pols unite over lobster "red listing," channeling book-ban fever, GOP candidates decline to answer BDN survey questions, swamped election officials, and a few programming notes.

Born and raised in Caracas, Venezuela, Martha Lluch has dedicated her life to creativity. Throughout the course of the years, it has become evident to her that the creative process, translates directly into how she navigates life altogether. She is currently exploring new ways to share the benefits of creativity and the design approach with others through art, yoga and her ongoing workshop: The Art of Cultivating Joy. Aside from being passionate about creativity, she is a big advocate for mental health and healing trauma - the core of the Little Raging Warrior Project. Find more about her work and this project here: https://www.littleragingwarrior.com/ Hosts: Claire Kaplan and Katie Koestner Editor: Craig Stanton Producer: Emily Wang

Neighbour, friend and former hoop dreamer Jon Terkel, joins Bryce on the pod for a conversation on the great point guards of their time and how they influenced Jon and Bryce as young players.

Kaleidoscope Visions focuses upon Jupiter entering courageous Aries. And later the same day, Mercury retrogrades the 2nd time in 2022. What stories? Brandishing causes to defend or choosing the seed of an independence we dreamed to manifest? While backtracking our moments to rethink and review and reconsider and recite the reasons, the data, the depths, all the connecting factors involved in these active steps we find determined to initiate. We will also look a bit at Johnny Depp, who has a Gemini Sun with Jupiter in Aries, and associate these cosmic energies with his chart. Follow us and subscribe! for email updates! and for the Talk Cosmos YouTube Channel. Listen on Apple Podcast or your favorite podcast. Always heard on KKNW formats. Joining Sue Rose Minahan founder and Evolutionary/Eclectic Consulting Astrologer of Kailua-Kona, Big Island Hawaii will be guest panel members: AMANDA PIERCE: Seattle WA amandamoonastrology@gmail.com Blends her eclectic style of astrology and energy magic around a soul-centered approach to life and healing. With a B.A. in Psychology, Amanda has a drive to uncover the root causes to life's issues and empower her clients in the process. Astrology and Energy Work Consultation | Meditation | Writing & Editing. Empowerment-based Meditation Teacher: upcoming 2022 in-person 4-week series class starting Jan 29. email for future classes. Past Washington State Astrological Association (WSAA) Board Member | United Astrology Conference (UAC) 2018 Volunteer Coordinator. JOHN CHINWORTH: Seattle WA archerstars@gmail.com Growing up in Southern Arizona, I was so obsessed with mythology, I branded the Greco-Roman pantheon into my psyche. My experience of teaching and mentoring developmentally disabled and resource students for many years, seasoned me with an exceptional reconciling energy. I started by reading, then honed skills by studying with accomplished astrologers. I have more than two decades of experience and continue to enhance consulting techniques by attending workshops and conferences. I've lectured at NORWAC (Northwest Astrology Conference), SFAS (San Francisco Astrology Society), and have served on the board of WSAA (Washington State Astrological Association). I received my Diploma from the International Academy of Astrology in 2021. I relax by penning poems and going on road trips around Washington. JULIE ANGLIN: Marine County CA ArmchairIntuitive@yahoo.com Has over thirty years as an intuitive healer and meditation teacher. Her lifelong study of astrology provides the foundation for her spiritual work. Julie's thoughtful intuitive communication integrates life issues, energy awareness and astrology for one-on-one intuitive/astrology consultations, as well as preliminary interviews with women about the energy of money. Besides a clairvoyant reader and healer, Julie also worked as a creative business owner, in finance and in publishing. Julie facilitates an online woman's Meetup group, Manifestly US, providing women reflection, self-healing, and creativity. Topics are based on current new or full moon cycle themes, include simple guided meditation, imaginative tools, and processes to stimulate thoughtful change. (Website ArmchairIntuitive.com updating) email: ArmchairIntuitive@yahoo.com

Kaleidoscope Visions focuses upon Jupiter entering courageous Aries. And later the same day, Mercury retrogrades the 2nd time in 2022. What stories? Brandishing causes to defend or choosing the seed of an independence we dreamed to manifest? While backtracking our moments to rethink and review and reconsider and recite the reasons, the data, the depths, all the connecting factors involved in these active steps we find determined to initiate. We will also look a bit at Johnny Depp, who has a Gemini Sun with Jupiter in Aries, and associate these cosmic energies with his chart. Follow us and subscribe! for email updates! and for the Talk Cosmos YouTube Channel. Listen on Apple Podcast or your favorite podcast. Always heard on KKNW formats. Joining Sue Rose Minahan founder and Evolutionary/Eclectic Consulting Astrologer of Kailua-Kona, Big Island Hawaii will be guest panel members: AMANDA PIERCE: Seattle WA amandamoonastrology@gmail.com Blends her eclectic style of astrology and energy magic around a soul-centered approach to life and healing. With a B.A. in Psychology, Amanda has a drive to uncover the root causes to life's issues and empower her clients in the process. Astrology and Energy Work Consultation | Meditation | Writing & Editing. Empowerment-based Meditation Teacher: upcoming 2022 in-person 4-week series class starting Jan 29. email for future classes. Past Washington State Astrological Association (WSAA) Board Member | United Astrology Conference (UAC) 2018 Volunteer Coordinator. JOHN CHINWORTH: Seattle WA archerstars@gmail.com Growing up in Southern Arizona, I was so obsessed with mythology, I branded the Greco-Roman pantheon into my psyche. My experience of teaching and mentoring developmentally disabled and resource students for many years, seasoned me with an exceptional reconciling energy. I started by reading, then honed skills by studying with accomplished astrologers. I have more than two decades of experience and continue to enhance consulting techniques by attending workshops and conferences. I've lectured at NORWAC (Northwest Astrology Conference), SFAS (San Francisco Astrology Society), and have served on the board of WSAA (Washington State Astrological Association). I received my Diploma from the International Academy of Astrology in 2021. I relax by penning poems and going on road trips around Washington. JULIE ANGLIN: Marine County CA ArmchairIntuitive@yahoo.com Has over thirty years as an intuitive healer and meditation teacher. Her lifelong study of astrology provides the foundation for her spiritual work. Julie's thoughtful intuitive communication integrates life issues, energy awareness and astrology for one-on-one intuitive/astrology consultations, as well as preliminary interviews with women about the energy of money. Besides a clairvoyant reader and healer, Julie also worked as a creative business owner, in finance and in publishing. Julie facilitates an online woman's Meetup group, Manifestly US, providing women reflection, self-healing, and creativity. Topics are based on current new or full moon cycle themes, include simple guided meditation, imaginative tools, and processes to stimulate thoughtful change. (Website ArmchairIntuitive.com updating) email: ArmchairIntuitive@yahoo.com

Brandishing perhaps the greatest handle in photography history, Dylan sits down with Tomoko Inoue, perhaps better known by her moniker, The Tinfoil Biter, to delve into her history as a concert photographer. A chance opportunity to photograph Down while in Japan opened the gate and her dynamic shots have highlighted the already heavy presence of such artists as Crowbar, High on Fire, Child Bite, Weedeater, and Osees. We go through some select sets of her photos while also touching on the highs and lows of living in Michigan in the 90s, how drawing lead her to photography, the dreaded purple light, knowing when to put the camera down, and randomly becoming acquainted with Henry Wilson from Floor*. You can check out more of Tomoko's photography over at her website. *NOTE: There was a slip of the tongue and we meant to say Henry WILSON of Floor. Mr. Vasquez is correctly from Saint Vitus, not Floor. Our bad!

linktr.ee/CatchingUpOnCinema This week, Catching Up On Cinema is joined by Kyle's brother Nik to review John Milius', Conan the Barbarian (1982)! Based on the popular pulp fiction character created by author Robert E. Howard, the film is a violent, mythic tale of swords and sorcery. Hot on the heels of his star making turn in the documentary, Pumping Iron (1977), the film serves as one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's earliest starring roles. Financially back by powerhouse producers Dino De Laurentiis and Edward R. Pressman, written by Oliver Stone, and directed by Hollywood wild man, John Milius, the film is a massive and thoughtfully conceived experience, confident in it's intent and tone. Brandishing production design by Alien (1979) designer Ron Cobb, and a magnificent, operatic score composed by Basil Poledouris, the film dazzles the eyes and ears during it's numerous, wordless interludes. Packed with talent on the screen and behind the scenes, the film is a near timeless adventure epic that has was massively successful at it's time of release, and has since gone on to be remembered as one of Schwarzenegger's better films. Follow us on Instagram @catchinguponcinema Follow us on Twitter @CatchingCinema Like, share, subscribe, and we'll catch you next time!

This week the Be A Man Guy, John Fiore and the Laugh Guy talk Man Sh*t. From Stool samples,The photo department, Brandishing weapons, Drunken hunting, Fishing for serial killers, High school locker rooms, Tonzo sucks at bocce, BB guns, John Fiore was a brick shithouse, The YMCA in the 70's, Guns and booze, Man games,Hook hands, Gym life, Grill masters, Branding, Camping, Alpha males and more..

Mike Boyle has been an influential force in the strength training profession since its inception back in the 1980s. Brandishing a pragmatic sensibility, Mike has remained relevant and effective in an ever-changing profession for 4 decades. He's one of the early adopters of a "functional approach", now widely accepted in the industry. Mike is a busy fellow. He works as a strength coach in the Boston area at Mike Boyle Strength and Conditioning (www.bodybyboyle.com). He is the author of a functional training classic, Functional Training for Sports. He has a functional training certification, Certified Functional Strength Coach (CFSC | www.certifiedfsc.com) and he is a regular presenter on the Perform Better Functional Training series (www.performbetter.com/3-day-functional-training-summit). Mike is a fantastic presenter. If you ever get a chance to hear him present, you should definitely take it.

EMRA*Cast Host Shreyans Sanghvi, DO, takes us on an innovative journey with Andrew Chu, MD, PGY4 at Harvard Affiliated Emergency Medicine Residency and fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital's Healthcare Transformation Lab, and Leland Perice, MD, Ultrasound Fellow at Maimonides Medical Center. Their first experiences with patient codes catalyzed their drive to explore the intersection of healthcare and digital innovation. In 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 global pandemic, they embarked on a journey to create a digitalized treatment algorithm. Brandishing a Silicon Valley approach to mastering cardiac arrest management, Dr. Chu and MGH's Jared Conley, MD, PhD, MPH, created the MGH ACLS. 

Brandishing a flat-plane-crank wail and widebody looks, this is Z06 2.0.

Brandishing a flat-plane-crank wail and widebody looks, this is Z06 2.0.

Episode 5 of the Circus Train The Vanishers, eat your heart out. Come join our Discord Server! Cast: Beladora Wilde-Carolina Finnigan Bomon-Zach Clydus Logan-John Narrator-Trevor Podbean Facebook  Twitter  Instagram  Tumblr Gmail lostlegendsofscadrial@gmail.com Art by Steve Argyle Music by Bryan and Trevor    

Sneak preview of new characters appearing in Season 3. James has a mission in the middle of the woods at night. Brandishing a shovel and a willow sapling, he and his girlfriend Christine are there to do... something. Will he ever tell her what that something is? Written, Directed, and Produced by Peter Cosmas Sofronas. Starring (in order of appearance) Jon Vellante as James Rogers and Presley Duyck as Christine Reid. Sound Editing by Peter Cosmas Sofronas. Theme Music by Valerie Forgione. Special thanks to Leonard Caplan. Episode based on Arbor Day by Peter Cosmas Sofronas. Series based on Two and Two Together, which can be purchased along with the  scriptbook for Season One at Amazon.com. Merchandise available at Teespring. For further information, please visit petersofronas.com.Support the show (https://www.facebook.com/groups/twoandtwotogether/)

Stories this week include: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster goes to a disco. Scientists discover hotdogs unhealthy. Child freed from pressure cooker hat. Silent messianic figure appears to traffic in Swansea. The purple rod goes missing... Subscribe to Patreon for exclusive bonus episodes: https://www.patreon.com/LAPodcastExtra Website: http://www.lapodcast.net/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LAPodcast/ Twitter: @LAPodcast

President George W. Bush announces end of Taliban, Dec. 12, 2021https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4vqwxtnswwhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/07/08/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-drawdown-of-u-s-forces-in-afghanistan/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/us/politics/afghanistan-taliban.htmlPresident Biden dismissing likelihood of Taliban takeover, July 8, 2021https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTRnuB4u8jkAT WAR WITH THE TRUTHhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/30-Year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam Warhttps://fair.org/media-beat-column/30-year-anniversary-tonkin-gulf-lie-launched-vietnam-war/House of Representatives votes against US Libya rolehttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13908202Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libyahttps://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libyaU.S. Gives Its Air Power Expansive Role in Libyahttps://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us/29military.html?ref=ericschmittVietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces 3 Decades of Growing U. S. Involvementhttps://www.nytimes.com/1971/06/13/archives/vietnam-archive-pentagon-study-traces-3-decades-of-growing-u-s.htmlThe Secrets and Lies of the Vietnam War, Exposed in One Epic DocumentWith the Pentagon Papers revelations, the U.S. public's trust in the government was forever diminished.By Elizabeth BeckerThis article is part of a special report on the 50th anniversary of the Pentagon Papers.Brandishing a captured Chinese machine gun, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara appeared at a televised news conference in the spring of 1965. The United States had just sent its first combat troops to South Vietnam, and the new push, he boasted, was further wearing down the beleaguered Vietcong.https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/us/pentagon-papers-vietnam-war.htmlPentagon Papershttps://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers#:~:text=The%20Pentagon%20Papers%2C%20officially%20titled,the%20press%20and%20widely%20distributed.https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/documents-database/?document=background_ll_07_xx_woodbridge_08032016https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/documents-database/?document=background_ll_07_xx_woodbridge_08032016“A Big Money Funneling Operation” — Afghanistan Vet Reflects On Withdrawal Of US Forceshttps://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-big-money-funneling-operation-afghanistanTHE NSA IS RECORDING EVERY CELL PHONE CALL IN THE BAHAMAShttps://theintercept.com/2014/05/19/data-pirates-caribbean-nsa-recording-every-cell-phone-call-bahamas/Wikileaks reveals NSA is listening to nearly all calls in Afghanistanhttps://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/05/23/Wikileaks-reveals-NSA-is-listening-to-nearly-all-calls-in-Afghanistan/2781400880276/Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/TheDarrellmcclainshow)

In this week's episode please join Matty and Mo as they discuss the Swimming sport anime; Free!- Iwatobi Swim Club. This week the duo recording over zoom once again. Matty takes us through his newly established Twilight phase that we already went through years ago and Mo has absolutely nothing going on this week just really boring school work. What your going to get out of this weeks episode is a little but of talk about the amazing visuals from the amazing Kyoto animation and more talk about trauma, like seriously go and get a therapist some of you anime characters. We hope you enjoy this weeks episode.Please like, review, and subscribe to #BingersAnimeEdition!Music Recommendation:Matty: My Hero Academia Ending 1 Mo: Kokoronashi

Todgers out, it's Friday!! We need to clear up some confusion about our social media accounts. If you want to reach Lazlo, reach out to him on twitter @lazlothebuzz or @churchoflazlo. Lazlo is mainly a twitter guy. If you want to reach out to Slimfast, follow him @slimfast965 and @churchoflazlo on Instagram. Slimfast is mainly an Instagram guy. If you want to reach Jeriney, follow her @jeriney and The Church of Lazlo facebook page. Jeriney in mainly a facebook gal. *Remember kids, if you're gonna do the crime, make sure the payoff potential is worth it. Brandishing a firearm and shooting at a moving vehicle is not worth a $200 payout on the CashApp. *Apparently, Americans desperately need more vacation time. The fact that people are willing to take a pay cut and give up Netflix just for an extra couple weeks of time off is not a great sign. *Doomscrolling!!! The world is on fire, running out of water, and flooding all at the same time. LA says it's time to start wearing masks indoors again. GET VACCINATED PEOPLE! YOU'RE RUINING IT FOR ALL OF US!! Did you know that you can download celebrity voices for your Alexa device? The PM of Australia wants you to know that he did not poop his pants in 1997 at a McDonalds after a rugby match. Illinois is the first state to tell cops that they can no longer lie to juvenile suspects during interrogations. Who knew hot air balloon rides could be dangerous? *We've all heard people discuss what type of advice they'd give their younger selves. How about specifically asking people over 40 the advice they'd give people in their 20's? *Odds are, you've had sex with a coworker. If you haven't, odds are you'd still like it to be an option. *Lazlo has caused a lot of controversy over the years with all his, "I could beat up that animal" talk. Someone sent us an actual strategy guide from experts on how to defend against several types of specific animals. *Do you remember the moment you realized your relationship was over? Lazlo remembers the moment Slimfast manipulated his ex-wife into getting a divorce. *Have a great weekend!! Do something fun and please don't forget.....Everybody Wang Chung!!! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When the documentary film "Period. End of Sentence." won an Oscar in 2019, the film's co-producer, Melissa Berton, said in her acceptance speech: "A period should end a sentence, not a girl's education." Now comes a new book that follows-up on that goundbreaking movie, a far-reaching book that outlines the challenges confronting those who menstruate worldwide and the solutions being offered by a new generation of body-positive activists and innovators. Our guest is the author of this work, Anita Diamant. As was noted in this starred review in Booklist: "[A] scorching and utterly unforgettable read.... Brandishing a stunning array of statistics and sharing stories from around the world of girls and women in every social circumstance, Diamant delivers a withering account of how menstruation has led to humiliation, threats, and on more than one grim occasion, even death.... This is a barn-burner of cultural analysis that never strays from the preventable suffering at its core. A life

A LONG TIME AGO ON VERONICA MARS: • Pizza delivery Penn is making the most of his post-bombing notoriety - he's on TV accusing Congressman Daniel Maloof of murdering his brother's girlfriend Tawny! • Matty from the motel is doing her own detectiving - maybe whoever refilled the vending machine put some exploding gum in there? Her investigation leads her to Liam Fitzpatrick urghhhh, but phew, Veronica rescues her.  • And the Maloofs are rescued from Tawny's violent family by Logan doing some professional punching.  • He also punches his kitchen cabinet, as Veronica is hot for angry violent Logan, not reasonable calm Logan who is taking therapy seriously.  • In other news, Big Dick has a 'Big Dick' tattoo, and a mysterious prison buddy and fixer Clyde. We don't know what Clyde's deal is, we just know that he definitely has one.  •  And Dick Casablancas is an action movie star now! Sure, why not. Join Jenny Owen Youngs and Helen Zaltzman to investigate Veronica Mars season 4 episode 2: Chino and the Man, and puzzle over such mysteries as how and when Dick Casablancas became a movie star, whether the show Travel Boobs could ever live up to its name, what Veronica would really be watching on Hulu, and what legally constitutes 'brandishing'. Content note:Veronica Mars contains heavy themes, and this episode includes storylines concerning murder, violence, sexual assault, and toxic relationships.  For more about this episode, and to read the transcript, visit the podcast's official site http://VMIpod.com/4-02. This episode was edited and mixed by Helen Zaltzman; the music is by Martin Austwick and Jenny Owen Youngs. Lo Dodds brings us the LoDown. Find the show @VMIpod on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. We also have MERCH - get your pins to show your love for Weevil or non-love for milk at hellomerch.com/collections/veronica-mars-investigations. If you'd like to advertise on VMI, and for us to talk amusingly about your product or thing, contact Amanda via multitude.productions/contact.  This episode is sponsored by: • Orphan Black: The Next Chapter, a thrilling podcast continuation of the hit science fiction TV show. Tatiana Maslany returns to play eight cloned sisters facing new danger. New episodes drop on Fridays; listen to Orphan Black: The Next Chapter in your pod app. • Feals, premium CBD delivered to your door. Become a member today at Feals.com/VERONICA and you'll get 50% off your first order with free shipping. Support the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=TWQYZDRGZUGH8&source=url See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Weapons. Tools. Knowledge. Ability. You have to be sure what you use is what you need to get the job done.

In this episode, Julie talks about the Ittan-Momen - the diabolical Japanese fabric that will fly into your nightmares. Cassandra tells us about haunted fashion choices in America, featuring two harrowing tales of romance and adventure and one tale of... FRAUD. Hosted by: Julie Smyth Cassandra Litten Edited by: Julie Smyth Music by: Kevin Macleod (public domain) Logo by: Kyle Parker (@kyleparkr) Follow us: Twitter @ghoulgals Instagram @ghoulgals, @ghouliesmyth, @casslitten Facebook: ghoulgalspodcast Listen on Spotify, SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, TuneIn, and Google Podcasts!

  This week National Trial Counsel Don West, Critical Response Coordinator Gary Eastridge and Critical Response Team Member Rob High discuss one of the most often asked topics we deal with. When should you draw or reveal your weapon in a self defense situation? What happens when you do and the situation ends? With over eighty years of legal and law enforcement experience between them the guys take a deep dive into a complex issue. 

Today's episode we'll be talking about…murder creek.  Yes, you heard that correctly.  That is the official name of this place and it got its name from…you guessed it…murder.  There are two stories that surround this creek: The Legend of Murder Creek which gave it its name, and the curious case of child murderess Sadie McMullen.   Episode Transcript: https://crimesandwitchdemeanors.com/2020/11/23/episode-003-murder-creek/  Submit your feedback or personal stories to crimesandwitchdemeanors@gmail.com  Podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/crimesandwitchdemeanors Podcast artwork by GiAnna Ligammari: https://gialigammari.wixsite.com/portfolio  Sources: A Girl's Trial for Murder: Seventeen-Year-Old Sadie McMullen Before a Jury in Buffalo. (1891, March 6). The Evening Star, 8.   Akron Falls County Park. (n.d.). Upstate NY Photography, Waterfalls, Nature. Retrieved November 14, 2020, from https://nyfalls.com/waterfalls/akron-falls/   Ellen May “Nellie” Connor (1880-1890)—Find A... (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2020, from https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/117793906/ellen-may-connor   Estephe, S. (2015, November 15). Unknown Gender History: Sadie McMullen, 17-Year-Old Murderess – Akron, New York, 1890. Unknown Gender History. http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2015/11/sadie-mcmullen-17-year-old-murderess.html   Her Love: The Secret of Sadie McMullen's Hideous Crime. (1890, November 4). The Buffalo Daily Times, 1.   John Dolph (1781-1834)—Find A Grave Memorial. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2020, from https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/179636329/john-dolph   Legend of Murder Creek in Akron, New York—The Tragedy of Ah-weh-hah. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2020, from https://www.zeph1.com/2016/09/legend-murder-creek-akron-ny.html   Moses, J. (2016, October 27). Murder Creek: The Sorry Case of Sadie McMullen. Artvoice. https://artvoice.com/2016/10/27/murder-creek-sorry-case-sadie-mcmullen/   On Trial For Her Life. - Is Sadie M'Mullen Guilty Of Child Murder? - So Young and So Pretty—Could She Have Done Such a Deed? – What Promises to Be a Notable Case Now Before the Supreme Court at Buffalo – A Great Field Open to Insanity Experts – Meanwhile, Sadie's Indifference is Hard to Understand. (1891, March 6). The World, 3.   Parker, A. C. (1919). The life of General Ely S. Parker: Last grand sachem of the Iroquois and General Grant's military secretary. Buffalo, N.Y. : Buffalo Historical Society. http://archive.org/details/lifeofgeneralely00parkrich   Sarah Dilley Dolph (1783-1861)—Find A Grave... (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2020, from https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/127942807/sarah-dolph   Schrock, F. (2014, October 31). The Legend of Murder Creek. Low Bridges: Upstate History. https://fredschrock.com/2014/10/31/the-legend-of-murder-creek/   She Killed Two Children: Was Committed to a Hospital as Insane and is Now Liberated and Cured. (1893, August 22). Portland Daily Press, 1.   The Legend Of Murder Creek | Erie County Parks, Recreation and Forestry. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2020, from https://www2.erie.gov/parks/index.php?q=legend-murder-creek   TRANSCRIPT: Hello and welcome to Crimes and Witch Demeanors; I am your host Joshua Spellman.  Join me today for a spooky tale of murder, mystery, and of course…ghosts.  Today's location is Akron, New York.  A small village outside of Buffalo, New York and specifically we'll be talking about…murder creek.  Yes, you heard that correctly.  That is the official name of this place and it got its name from…you guessed it…murder.  There are two stories that surround this creek: The Legend of Murder Creek which gave it its name, and the curious case of murderess Sadie McMullen.  So without further ado let's discuss the tragic history of Angola's Murder Creek. An old map of Akron (formerly known as Fallkirk) The sources of our first story vary, but I have acquired most of the information from The life of General Ely S. Parker : last grand sachem of the Iroquois and General Grant's military secretary written in 1919 by Arthur Caswell Parker and published by the Buffalo Historical Society.  This book is accessible in its entirety from the Internet Archive at archive.org.  However it should be noted that Arthur Caswell Parker lifted the story from a 1906 book written by Uriah Cummings called The Haunted Corners.  However, the Parker version follows the original source nearly word-for-word.  Uriah Cumming's book was written to explain the ghosts that he claimed lived on his property.  There is only one remaining copy of the Haunted Corners in existence housed at the Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society's research library.  The Legend of Murder Creek appears to be an actual historical account of events, or at least a version of them.  In the newspapers for the murder case we'll discuss next the story seems to be a bit different, only mentioning a robbery.  However, Cummings purports that he possessed the diary and personal papers of John Dolph, as the Dolph home once stood on his land, and that was the source of this legend.  The Dolph family was indeed real, and are buried in Ledge Lawn Cemetery.  You can find photographs of their graves on findagrave.com.  Other sources used for this story include Erie.Gov, the official county website, and NYFalls.com. Before Murder Creek obtained its haunting name, it was known to the Native Seneca tribes as De-on-go-te Gah-hun-da, or “the place of hearing”  Other sources claim the original name as See-un-gut, or “the roar of distant waters”.  Colonizers knew it as Sulphur Creek as indicated on maps at the time.  As with most early settlements by colonizers, water was an important resource to live by.  In the spring of 1820, a white settler known as John Dolph built his cabin on the shores of the creek, with eventual plans to erect a sawmill with his business partner Peter Van Deventer, using the creek's water as a power source. One chilly October evening, while Dolph was pouring over his plans with his wife, they heard a blood curdling scream emanate from the woods outside.  Concerned, John and Sarah lept to their feet and threw open their door.  Running towards them was a Native woman, wildly out of breath, shouting “Save me!  Please save me!” and begging for refuge. The Dolphs quickly obliged and without hesitation, ushered the woman inside, promptly barring their front door.  Within moments of securing the latch, the door shook violently on it's hinges  “Let me in!” a man bellowed, throwing his weight against the door. John stalled the unknown assailant by asking him questions while motioning for his wife to hide the young woman.  And he reached for his musket.  Sarah opened a trap door, escaping into the night and leading her to the mouth of a nearby cavern. The man impatiently responded to John's inquiries, explaining that his name was Sanders and that the girl was his prisoner.  Her father, an Indian chief, placed her in his care because she wished to marry a “bad Indian”.  He asked once more, albeit more politely, for entrance into the Dolph's home.  With the girl safely concealed from view, John Dolph's obliged. Unbarring the door, John let Sanders inside.  Sanders, panting and full of rage, surveyed the home.  He saw no signs of his prey.  He glanced upward, spying the attic opening and a ladder leading up into the darkness.  John lit a candle, and handed it to Sanders.  I imagine he did so quite smugly, “Please, feel free to look”.  Sanders ascended the ladder and soon came back down, in even more of a rage.  “That girl is here!” he hissed, “I saw her come in!  Where is your cellar?” he snarled, scanning the floorboards.  John moved aside his carpet to reveal the trap door and bade Sanders down to investigate.  Again, Sanders discovered nothing.  No trace of the girl and no visible means of escaping, aside from the ladder he just descended. Murder Creek today Making his way back up, Sanders swore and muttered under his breath that he would have the girl if it was the last of his deeds. In exasperation Sanders said he was headed to Canfield Tavern for a drink and he quickly retreated into the night.  After some time, John Dolph reunited with his wife and they cautiously made their way down the side of the gorge to the cave that sheltered the young girl, located a little ways north of the falls.  With the autumn moon shining brightly overhead, The Dolphs surveyed their surroundings.  They looked up and down the dirt path, into the forest, and along the banks of the stream and saw no one.  Satisfied they were not being followed, they entered the cave.  However, though the moon illuminated the night, it could not penetrate the dense canopy of trees, and the Dolphs failed to notice the figure of a large man crouched beneath the shadows of a large pine. The Dolph's entered the chamber and found the girl asleep, passed out from exhaustion.  Upon hearing their approaching footsteps, the girl shot up in fright “Where is he?!” she cried.  Sarah calmed the young girl, assuring her that she was safe.  It was then that she recounted her tale of horror. Her account of events was recorded by John Dolph in his diary and was reproduced by Cummings in full in his text.  Though, I will be paraphrasing.  Cummings notes his surprise of the young girl's fluency in English and attributes it to the fact she was most likely a student at the mission school in Tonawanda.  I find it important to mention that these schools often forcibly took young children from their parents to enroll in these schools, forced to assimilate to American culture under harsh conditions of abuse.  These schools played a major role in the cultural genocide, erasure, and decimation of many Native Nations with painful echoes and generational trauma that reach to the modern day. Back to our story. The girl's name was Ah-weh-hah or, as she said in “the language of the pale face” Wild Rose.  She explained that she lived near Spirit Lake, under the cliff, about a mile from the Tonawanda Falls.  Her mother had died several years ago and she lived with her elderly father, Go-wah-na (The Great Fire) who was a chief of the Seneca Nation.  Moments before Ah-weh-hah happened upon the Dolphs, her father had been brutally murdered by Sanders. Sanders had been stalking Ah-weh-hah for over than a year, asking for her hand in marriage.  However, she already had a love, Tah-yoh-ne, Grey Wolf, who she was to marry.  Enraged by this, Sanders vowed that instead of seeing Ah-weh-hah marry a Seneca, he would murder all those who stood in his path. Ah-weh-hah took it upon herself to prevent her love, Tah-yoh-ne, from crossing paths with Sanders, for she knew if he were to harm Sanders in self-defense, that the authorities would not listen to his story and would punish him regardless of his innocence. So, Go-wah-na, in an attempt to protect his daughter, decided to send her away to the Cattaraugus Nation.  There she could safely be joined by fiancé Tah-yoh-ne away from the bloodthirsty clutches of Sanders. That morning Ah-weh-hah and her father set out to Te-os-ah-wah, known as the city of Buffalo.  When they reached the bank of the De-on-go-te Gah-hun-da, or modern day Murder Creek, they sat down to listen to the waterfall and rest. It was then that they saw Sanders approaching.  However, he approached them with his hand extended, apologizing for his past actions.  He smiled as he explained to them that he made up his mind to let go of Ah-weh-hah and that he hoped she would be happy with Tah-yoh-ne.  He explained he was currently making his way to the Wild West to start his life anew and has not expected to ever see Ah-weh-hah or her father again.  However, as fortune had it, they appeared to be headed in the same direction and Sanders offered to help on their journey to atone for his sins. They agreed to travel together.  They walked for some time and set up camp for the night.  Here, Ah-weh-hah stared into the east and saw a light in the valley not far away and at that very moment was startled by a loud sound followed by a groan.  She turned to see her father lying on the ground, face-down in the dirt, and looming over him was Sanders with an uplifted club in his hands. With a devilish grin, Sanders moved to attack Ah-weh-hah, but she was swift.  Quickly, she made her way to the light in the distance, which happened to be the Dolph's residence. After hearing her story, the Dolphs resolved to protect Ah-weh-hah.  John made his way to the camp she had described.  Here he found the smoldering coals of the campfire and the lifeless body of Go-wah-na.  This is the spot that later became known as the Haunted Corners.  When dawn broke, John and his business partner Peter Van Deventer buried his remains and learned that Sanders had taken the Buffalo stage at midnight.  Word of the tragedy spread quickly to the Seneca Nation and when John returned home, Tah-yoh-ne had already arrived to reunite with his love.  Ah-weh-hah was elated to see her lover and begged to visit the grave of her father.  Together they made their way to the newly dug grave of her father.  Once there, Ah-weh-hah and Tah-yoh-ne chanted a traditional death song, ignited a grave fire, and burned tobacco. While enveloped in their grief and distracted by their funeral rites, something leaped from the underbrush.  Brandishing an ax, with a demonic glint in his eye, Sanders bore down on the couple but Tah-yoh-ne reached for his tomahawk and a brawl ensued.  Both men lost handle on their axes and reached for their hunting knives and furiously ripped at one another's flesh.  The blood flowed like a stream until suddenly…it was quiet.  Sanders stopped motionless and fell to the ground. Frozen in fear, Ah-weh-hah could not move.  Tah-yoh-ne went to comfort her but he could not speak.  He was too weak from the loss of blood.  He swayed from side to side, staggered, and fell.  Dying on the grave of her father.  Ah-weh-hah let out a scream of pain which echoed through the woods to the Dolph's home.  Upon hearing this cry, Mr. Dolph ran the quarter mile to the camp.  Ah-weh-hah was sobbing, and between the heavy heaves of her cries she uttered the traditional death chant.  John once again, dug two more graves. Sarah Dolph's Grave Ah-weh-hah often visited graves of her father and her love to sing her grief.  One day, many moons later, the Dolphs did not hear from her.  They searched and came across Ah-weh-hah's lifeless body lying upon the grave of her love, seemingly having died of heartbreak.  Here she was buried between the graves of her father and her lover. As Legend has it, if you walk the trails of Murder Creek at night you may hear the voices of two the lovers as they wander the trails.  They were forsaken marriage in life, but have been united in death by an unbreakable bond. While it was these events that successfully changed the name of Sulphur Creek to Murder Creek, sadly these were not the last murders to occur there.  For our next story, we're fast forwarding 70 years to the year of 1890.  It was October 31, 1890 a spoooooky Halloween just like any other when 17 year-old Sarah Sadie McMullen made a trip to the local store to buy some butter.  That Halloween day had been spent at the Brown home, engaging in songs and parlor games that were popular among girls at the time.  A Happy Halloween indeed.  Sadie was accompanied on her trip to the Johnson's store by 6 year-old Delia Brown, the daughter of her widower boss, Simon Brown, and her friend, 10-year old Nellie May Connor.  Nellie was reported as being four years old eight years old, and nine years old depending on the article.  However, I looked up her grave and she was actually 10 years old.  Sadie had worked as a servant in the Brown's household and helped care for the Mrs. Brown during a time of illness.  She bonded with little Delia, and was kept on as a housekeeper after Mrs. Brown's passing.  Once at the Johnson's store, Sadie began acting very strangely.  She took out a quarter and slammed it on the counter.  She walked away before the store clerk could get her butter from the ice box or give her change.  A quarter in 1890 is the equivalent of $7.15 and you know something's up if you literally just throw away money.  And it only gets creepier from here. The bridge where the murder took place After leaving the store, Sadie, with the children in tow, walked to the New York Central Railroad Bridge that stood over 50ft above the Murder Creek gorge.  She coaxed the children to the center of the bridge before hurling little Nellie May Connor into the rushing waters below.  Then Sadie turned on Delia, the girl who she supposedly loved like a daughter, and after a short struggle, managed to heave her off the trestle as well.  “Hello Sadie” After committing these treacherous acts, Sadie made her way back to the Brown's house, walking through the front door without the children.  Simon was not home, he was barkeeping at his saloon.  Sadie was greeted instead by Hannah, Simon's sister. Sadie just stared back at Hannah and held out her hand. “Goodbye Hannah” “Where are you going?” asked Hannah, confused. “WELL FINE!  If you don't want to shake hands with me, well then alright” Sadie exclaimed, turned on her heels and stormed out of the house.  It was then that Hannah realized the children were not with her. Concerned, Hannah went to tell her father of her apprehensions.  In the midst of her explanation, Simon happened to stop by and Hannah relayed her worries once more.  Simon simply laughed and assured Hannah that the children were in good hands. Meanwhile, Sadie made her way through the dark to a bridge behind the saloon owned by Mr. Brown.  This bridge was much smaller than the trestle bridge, a mere 10 feet from the water.  Sadie looked down at the stream below her, took a deep breath, and dove into the water. Now drowning Sadie screamed in the night.  Sadie was eventually rescued from the waters by the father of Delia, Simon Brown and his friend George Jones.  Hannah claims she was there to extend her hand and help pull Sadie safely to shore.  Sadie screamed and shrieked that they put her back into the water immediately, but against her wishes they carried the hysterical girl back to the Brown's family home where a doctor was called to tend to her. “Where are the children?” the family demanded. “What children?” Sadie replied, confused. “Delia!  Where is Delia!” “Was she with me?” “Yes!” “Last I remember she was at the Johnson's store” Sadie replied, running her fingers through her hair “Why is my hair wet?” A search party was set out for the girls.  Nellie May Connor was soon discovered, her body twisted in a horrible manner, her lifeless eyes staring up at the bridge some 50 feet above her.  Hours later, around 3 am, the search party heard a moan and followed it to find that Delia Brown had survived.  As they carried little Delia up the gorge they heard her mutter weakly “Sarah was smart to throw us off the bridge” Sadie was soon brought to trial and if convicted, was to become the first woman to be put to death by the electric chair.  Many of the articles of the time oddly focus on her appearance: Pale and slender as she is, and dressed in exquisite though simple taste, her long brown hair falling in thick waves around her face and shoulders, she looks more like a child of ten than a girl of seventeen, who is barged with a most awful crime, and whose life depends on the ability of her lawyers and the mercy of the jury. But she either does not mind or does not realize her position, for every once in a while she turns her face to the sunlit windows and smiles as though she were happy and contented. And then she scans the women who throng the court-room, only to sit back in her chair with a weary air as though the whole affair and her presence in court were bore. Her face, while not particularly intelligent, is pretty. It bears a chic expression which is taking and she has a naive way of pursing up her lips which at times is, quite fascinating. There is nothing in her manners or her features which would indicate insanity or any other spirit than that of peace and girlish love. Sadie's past was full of trauma and she was plagued by mental and physical illness.  An Irish American, Sadie was raised in poverty with an absentee father and a mother described as “an irritable, quick-tempered, troublesome woman, with suicidal and homicidal tendencies.” Sadie appeared to have suffered from epileptic seizures and lost time beginning very early in her childhood, presumably something inherited from her mother.  When Sadie was only three her mother came across a bear while in the woods of Wisconsin and after running to a nearby house for help, she died soon thereafter, seemingly from shock.  At the age of 12 Sadie travelled with her alcoholic father, half-brother, and younger sister by foot from Wisconsin to Akron, New York.  Which is very far. Upon their arrival in Akron, Sadie's strange behaviors did not stop.  Once Sadie had found herself atop a ladder picking cherries, miles and miles from home, and another time she found herself at her front door wearing nothing but her underwear, her clothes were tucked underneath her arm and were soaking wet and she could not remember why. All of these stories of her losing time were never brought up until the trial.  So, it's debtable whether she was insane.  But let us give her the benefit of the doubt.  Despite this history of mental illness Sadie showed many signs that her murders were premediated. Two days prior to the murder, she sent a letter to her aunt in Buffalo, on October 29, which reads, in part: “I don't care if I never hear from him. I won't look at him when I come back. He will find that I ain't as soft as I look.” Clearly a strange letter about a liaison with a lover. On Halloween, the day of the murders, Sadie received a letter while in the company of Simon Brown's sister, Hannah.  While Hannah did not know the letters' contents, she could tell it upset Sadie.  It was from a servant at one of Sadie's former employers in Buffalo, accusing her of stealing diamonds and valuables from the mansion she used to work at.  Barely hiding her emotions, Sadie ran home and penned the following letter to her aunt: DEAR AUNTY: When you get this I will be far from earth, I am sick and tired of living and as I told you my last hope is come at last—I am thankful to die, people rebuke me for things that I am not guilty of and as I have no one to love me, I can go in peace, as my heart I leave in Akron with the one I always spoke to you of, as he seems to not care for me. I know it is a sin to put an end to myself, but I am not the only one, my brain is longing for the end, now if I only had my little brother to take with me I would be happy. If I had died when I was young how thankful I would have been, but as it is, I must die as it is, so tell my sister that I love her as much as ever, but could not stay with her. I hope you will see to them as I know you will and when I am dead I will come to you and explain, but do not fear me I will not hurt you and the man I loved will know me as a frequent visitor. Oh dear, if it was only over how thankful I would be. I think I will take some one with me so I will close my last letter on earth, hoping God will do justice with me, as he does with everybody, so when you get this you will know that I am no more, you will find my body in the basin in Buffalo, please bury me in Akron as I will be near my loved one so good bye—from Sadie, your no more niece. The letter was written in a haphazard scrawl that did not resemble Sadie's handwriting, and Sadie herself could not remember writing it.  SoI believe that either someone else wrote it for the newspapers or she really had written it in an epileptoid state. Later, it was also discovered that the stolen valuables from her former employer were recovered, seemingly misplaced in one of Sadie's blackouts. So who was this man that Sadie was obsessed with?  Rumor has it that Sadie was in love with Simon Brown, jealous of Mrs. Eliza Connors, a widow and Nellie May's mother, whom was said to be involved with Simon.  It was believed that Sadie and Simon were once engaged but he had put an end to it because of Eliza or because it was inappropriate, or even because he may have realized Sadie was a little off her rocker.  Others purport that Sadie was in love with Simon Brown's brother, and this was the man mentioned in her letters. Regardless, people believed the murders were to exact revenge on her former lover and his new betrothed, but these claims were unfounded and mainly based on the sensationalist headlines.   Which, I just want to mention that while now, it being 2020 these newspaper articles are considered primary sources because they are reporting of the time.  But at the time they were not primary sources.  They were secondary and even tertiary sources.  So, whenever you're reading historic newspapers, while they seem like primary sources, they also have a lot of their own biases.  One of those is that they're written to sell newspapers.  A lot of these stories that come up there's no basis in fact.  For example, Hannah said a lot of things like “She was possessed by the devil, I saw it in her eyes!” but in another article she said that Sadie would never harm a child.  So while these sources are historic, they are also very much tabloid-ish.  But that's also the fun of Victorian news stories.  The way that they write headlines is just  so insane.  But this was essentially their Keeping Up With the Kardashians.  That being said: Sadie's trial was extraordinarily short, lasting only two days.  In fact, she was acquitted of the crimes due to insanity.  Even though all the newspapers said she didn't seem insane, all the witnesses said she didn't seem insane, the medical community of Buffalo believed that she had carried these acts out in an epileptoid state and that she was not at fault.  And so, the medical community decided that she should be institutionalized and treated. Sadie was sent to the Buffalo State Asylum for the Insane.  Which, by the way is very famous for its architecture, it has served as inspiration for horror movies and video games and is very haunted.  It is still an active asylum…and I attended undergrad only hundreds of feet from it. After only a year and a half, the Asylum Superintendent, (J.B.) Andrews, said, “that she is now perfectly sane” and they just released her.  That's it.  I thought there might be some outrage in newspapers at the time but I was reading them and they were more or less apathetic.  “Oh, yeah, Sadie got out.  She's cured now.”  Which a) I think is rare for them to be like “Oh someone is cured of mental illness!” instead of just torturing them but also b) it's also weird that they just didn't report on it.  So this begs the question…was she just faking it?  Since all these stories of her history of mental illness didn't arise until the trial and then she was miraculously cured and let go?  Was she faking being insane to avoid the electric chair, and once she was in treatment in the asylum was just like, “Oh, wow!  I'm better now!”  It's weird to me. One of her descendants has talked in YouTube videos and stuff and has tried to spin it as “This is the tragic story about Sadie and mental illness” and all this stuff.  And yes, mental illness is very important to discuss—I'm not trying to crap on that—but we also cannot forget that this woman's story wasn't that tragic: she went to the asylum for a year and a half and was let go and she fell into obscurity.  No one knows what happened to her.  Some say she went out west to Kansas, others claim she travelled to California.  But ultimately no one knows what happened to Sadie McMullen.  In the end Sadie lived,  a child died, and another was permanently injured because of her actions.  So yes, it's important to focus on the mental illness part of the story it's also important to focus on the fact that a child's life was taken for no reason and this woman didn't even spend much time in the asylum; they just let her go.  What's to stop her from doing it again?  It's a complicated issue, but I don't know if I buy that Sadie was insane.  It seems just all too convenient that she got out after only a year: that's unheard of.  But maybe I'm just being problematic. So, I used a number of sources for this story.  As usual they are in the show notes.  Stay spooky, my friends.

The multitude of Micah's rare creative offerings as an ambassador of equality have been on my radar for years so it was only natural to ask him to grace us with his presence on the pod. He is a "dark light-worker, a hybrid human/alien/angel/creature, a freelance mindblower with freak tendencies and an infectious laugh, an author, illustrator, artist, writer, fashionista, poet, partner, proud papa, empowerment coach and unapologetic Badass." Ive had the pleasure to work with Micah one on one in coaching sessions and can attest to him not only being an evocative, genera bending gifted af artist but also as a guiding light and leader towards raising the vibration of humanity both individually and collectively with his buoyant fortification of timeless wisdom and progressive insights.   Topic discussed in this episode: -How we, as creatives can weaponize our art to tap into the conversation of eradicating racial ignorance, further understand white privilege and overall make more room for non Eurocentric voices to shine. -Where the future of art education is goin in the digital age as brick and mortar  establishments become seemingly archaic as virtual classrooms increase. -How Micah's clothing experiences at burning man sparked his path in fashion. -Using Erotica as an art to dissolve old puritanical sexual suppression and how the root of so many conflicts in humanity stem from the repression of sexuality. -The concept of "Inspiration mining" through the notes app to keep the  creativity flow consistent  and poppin.   Contact  Micah Blacklight and his continual array of dope projects at: https://i-am-catalyst.com/ https://www.facebook.com/micah.blacklight https://www.instagram.com/micahblacklight/   And be sure to scope his new Erotica Graphic novel project: LER with the teaser at his kickstarter  here: https://www.gofundme.com/f/ler-vol1?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1

You already know that job search marketing tools are used to catch the eye of the hiring manager or the decision maker who offers you an interview and soon to follow, employment. Your marketing tools bring awareness to who you are and gives you an advantage over other job seekers. Which ones are you missing? --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lenora-johnson/message

Hey Bonely Brigade, on this episode we're gonna be bringing you the latest news on New Zealand's wizard on deck, how your next favorite play might be produced by Clever Bot, and what not to do in a downtown Walgreens. So strap in and get ready for some hard hitting news. Also consider telling your podcast loving friends about us, word of mouth is still the best way to advertise.We'd like to send a special thanks to Indie Drop-In for sponsoring this episode. They are some really great people who care about the indie podcasting community. They plan to spread the word about Bonely and many other comedy shows, and you can check all that out at their website IndieDropIn.com and to keep up with them you can follow them on twitter Twitter.com/IndieDropInSubmit questions, topics, or just ask us for advice via Twitter: https://twitter.com/BonelyPODSubmit via email: bonelyPOD@gmail.comAnd now on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bonely/Follow Tim's Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/bonelytimJoin us as a patron: https://www.patreon.com/BonelyOur Linktree page: https://linktr.ee/bonelyCheck out Tim's new project D&Dweebs: Twitter.com/DnDweebsPOD Intro and Outro song: DJ Quads - SoulArt By: https://twitter.com/Lukairus Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/Bonely)

Brandishing

Company Bosses and Lifelong Friends Michael Zubick and Marshall Terrin (USMC - Veteran.) Tackle various gun issues such as the couple in Illinois. Brandishing, the All Black Militia, as well the future of the company. There is also a surprise announcement regarding Merchandise you're going to want to hear, so tune in while it's hot!Support the Podcast? CashApp $Zubick17 or Venmo @Michael-Zubick --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/stopgunbans/support

http://www.mofpodcast.com/ https://www.facebook.com/matteroffactspodcast/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/mofpodcastgroup/ www.youtube.com/user/philrab https://www.instagram.com/mofpodcast   Support the show Shop at Amazon:http://amzn.to/2ora9ri Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mofpodcast Purchase American Insurgent by Phil Rabalais https://amzn.to/2FvSLML Shop at MantisX http://www.mantisx.com/ref?id=173   Trek from MDFI joins us for a follow up to “Can I Shoot, Should You Shoot?” to talk about recent police use of force incidents, intermediate use of force, and the St. Louis homeowners confronting protesters. Phil, Andrew, and Trek all leave the emotions at the door and try to discuss these situations from a standpoint of legality, morality, and common sense.   https://trainmdfi.com/ https://www.facebook.com/trainMDFI/ https://www.instagram.com/mdfitraining/   Intro and Outro Music by Phil Rabalais All rights reserved, no commercial or non-commercial use without permission of creator

On our first supplemental episode in almost three years, we talk about the president's decision to assault peaceful protesters in order to walk to a church and hold up a Bible. Here are the books and articles we referenced along the way: How Democracies Die, by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt "The Christians Who Loved Trump's Stunt," by McKay Coppins "Trump's Brandishing of the Bible Plays Into a Cultural Legacy of Racism and Colonialism," by Katie Edwards and Helen Paynter "Trump's Church Photo Has No American Precedent. Does It Have One in Fascism?" by Talya Zax "Christian Nationalism Talks Religion, But Walks Fascism," by Samuel L. Perry and Andrew L. Whitehead Here are the reactions to Trump's stunt by Franklin Graham, Ben Sasse, and Pat Robertson. The New York Times reported on Trump's approval slipping among evangelicals. And here's an early oral history of the incident. *** Finally, this happened after we recorded, but it seems only fitting to include these images of the portion Pennsylvania Avenue that has been ceremonially renamed "Black Lives Matter Plaza."

Sarah tells us about her experience as an administrator at the district level, gives us some great book recommendations, and details the time she got to play a wizard. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Since Ralph Brennan and Terry White reopened the venerable Brennan's Restaurant in 2014, they've initiated some new traditions, like champagne sabering in the patio and an annual turtle parade. On this week's show, we speak with general manager Christian Pendleton, who, since the coronavirus shutdown, has been demonstrating the art of sabrage in a series of funny videos posted online. One in particular, which featured him dressed up as the Easter Bunny, became a worldwide sensation.   This Mother's Day weekend would have marked the restaurant's sixth annual Turtle Parade, which has been dubbed “The Slowest Second Line on Earth.” We take you to last year's party, where we hear from some of the people who make the event possible, including a rapping judge.   Finally, Ralph Brennan tells us the inside story of the steps he took to ensure that Brennan's Restaurant remained in the family, and shares some personal tales of first dates that included a champagne-fueled carriage ride through the French Quarter.   For more of all things Louisiana Eats, be sure to visit us at PoppyTooker.com.

We're still deep in the evil woods, and we're not turning around now!  Not even after hearing what the chipmunk said.  Revin and Karll get themselves tied up in a whole heap of trouble, and it's up to lil Eldon and Zillara to save the day

If only America had this one thing, say Democrats, we'd be safe from coronavirus, Biden hurls obscenities at auto worker who asks him about gun control, Protests Erupt After Police-Involved Shooting In Raleigh, The Myth Of “Moderate” Joe Biden, LAPD Has No Excuse for Not Arresting DA's Husband for Brandishing.   Lock N Load is Presented by;     Hour 1; Franklin Armory www.franklinarmory.com   3rd Hour Aero Precision https://aeroprecisionusa.com     And by; NightHawk Custom https://www.nighthawkcustom.com      Ace Firearms http://www.acefirearms.com   CZ-USA https://cz-usa.com   DeSantis Holsters https://www.desantisholster.com   STI International https://stiguns.com   L-AV8 https://l-av8.com   Spikes Tactical https://www.spikestactical.com         Lock N Load is Presented by;     Hour 1; Franklin Armory www.franklinarmory.com   3rd Hour Aero Precision https://aeroprecisionusa.com     And by; NightHawk Custom https://www.nighthawkcustom.com      Ace Firearms http://www.acefirearms.com   CZ-USA https://cz-usa.com   DeSantis Holsters https://www.desantisholster.com   STI International https://stiguns.com   L-AV8 https://l-av8.com   Spikes Tactical https://www.spikestactical.com

  Not long ago Stan Campbell and Mike Darter spoke with Marissa Alexander about the warning shot she fired that triggered a long legal battle and some substantial prison time. In this episode Don West and Shawn Vincent draw upon the conversation with Alexander to identify the lessons learned for concealed carriers.   TRANSCRIPT:  Shawn Vincent: All right. Don, what's happening. Don West: Hey, Shawn. Good to talk with you again. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. So, it was a couple of months ago that Stan Campbell and Mike Darter, founders of the CCW Safe, had a chance to talk with Marissa Alexander, who is actually someone who survived a self-defense encounter, and was prosecuted, and actually served time in prison, and is now out and she's an advocate that goes around talking about domestic violence, and gun rights, and educating people about self-defense. Don West: That's right. People may not immediately know the name Marissa Alexander, but this is one of those handful of cases coming out of Florida several years ago that get known nationwide by some other name. We know the Loud Music Case: Michael Dunn in Jacksonville. I think Marissa Alexander also was a Jacksonville, Florida case. Shawn Vincent: She was. Don West: It's known as the warning shot case. It got lots of publicity at various stages. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. Part of the reason that it became so well-known is this idea that it was a warning shot. Here's a self-defense case where nobody's killed. In fact, nobody's even harmed by the discharge of the weapon. A single shot was fired, nobody was hurt, and then you have Marissa Alexander looking at a very lengthy prison sentence for what she claimed was defending herself against an abusive husband, who she had a type of restraining order against, a contact with no violence order. Don West: Marissa had just had a baby, who's in the hospital. I think when this happened, the baby may still have been in the hospital, and she was going back to her residence for the first time in a while where her husband and her husband's children were there, sort of setting the stage for the argument that then led up to this. Shawn Vincent: Sure. She was actually nine days after giving birth to her premature baby. The baby is in the hospital. She's staying with her mother because she's got this problem with her husband, the father of that new baby. She was going back to that marital home to get some stuff that she needed, and that's where Rico Gray, that's the name of her husband at the time, now ex-husband, and his two kids encountered her there. Don West: As I recall, there was an interesting lead-in to the argument. That's not the purpose of our podcast, but as I remember, some of the discussion that Ms. Alexander was showing Mr. Gray pictures of the baby, and actually handed him phone to him to look through the pictures, and while she was in the bathroom either collecting things or washing her face or what have you, he wound up scrolling through the phone and came upon some text messages, which apparently were between Ms. Alexander and a prior husband or someone with whom he was then accusing her of ... I guess Mr. Gray was then accusing her of some infidelity and maybe even questioning the father of the child. Don West: So, one innocent step maybe even that was a nice gesture on her part. Foolish. Can you think about how these things just go from zero to 100 in a half a second? All of a sudden, Rico Gray is angry because he questions if he's the father of this child. Oh, my goodness! Shawn Vincent: Alexander described it as a “jealous rage.” Yeah. I think what she said, part of it, is that some suggestion that the child that he thought they shared might not be his or some suggestion of that. So, he went off the handle. Now, clearly, with this restraining order, this contact with no violence order, Alexander had convinced the court that there was some cause for concern here to support her allegations that this was an abusive relationship. She actually claims to Mike and Stan in her podcast with them that her premature birth was induced by some of that violence. Shawn Vincent: So, he goes into his jealous rage, and she tells the story. She's in the bathroom. He goes in, approaches her there, and chokes her or attempts to choke her in the bathroom. She struggles against him, and is able to get away. She goes out to the garage. She claims to try to escape, but she can't get out. She doesn't have her keys. The garage door won't open. She ends up getting her gun coming back inside and that's where she confronts him in the kitchen of their house. Don West: Yes. I think that she had perhaps parked the car in the garage, but then when she went back out, she couldn't get the garage door to open, but she did have a firearm in the car, a firearm for which she was issued a lawful permit to carry concealed in Florida, and then she made that fateful decision to grab the gun, and instead of coming up with some other way to get out, she elected to go back into the house, which I would have to think she would expect there to be some verbal confrontation, if nothing else, but in any event, that's exactly as described it. Don West: She went back inside, where Mr. Gray was and then go ahead and describe how she saw these things unfold. Shawn Vincent: Well, I'd say since we have the benefit of Mike and Stan's podcast, let's let her tell this part of the story from her own words. Don West: Great. Shawn Vincent: I'll play this clip. Marissa: So, let me be clear. When I left out the room, it was to get into my truck and leave. It was not to go and come. He was parked out front, and came in through the front door. My vehicle was in the garage. So, in order for me leave, I needed to go to the garage where my vehicle was parked. When I got there, not only did I not have a key, the garage door would not go up. Marissa: So, at that point because I knew that I had no other way out other than to stay in the garage, which locks from the inside out, what I needed to go do is go back in the house and I couldn't go back in in the state that I was in with the assault that took place prior to in the bathroom and not be able to protect myself. Shawn Vincent: So, that's what Marissa has to say about this. So, we'll talk about in a minute the problems that had caused her in her case when she actually left a place of relative safety or she left a place of danger to a place of more relative safety, and then reengaged. We described ourselves into the kitchen. So, she fires this shot. Shawn Vincent: Well, here's another clip where she talks about encountering him there in the kitchen. Marissa: Right. So, that was in the kitchen where he came and he confronted me. He saw me with my firearm, threatened me, and then that's when I fired my warning, my shot. He didn't see my gun and run. He didn't do that. He saw it and decided he will threaten to kill me. Shawn Vincent: She says that after he saw the gun that he wasn't initially perturbed by this that he threatened to kill her, and that's when she fires the warning shot. So, here's a couple of questions for you, Don. How about this whole idea that a threat, a verbal threat to kill somebody? Does that open a door for reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death? Don West: Well, sometimes it can if they have the immediate ability to carry through. So, for example, if someone's carrying a weapon of some sort, and you're not quite sure what they intend, and then they announce their intent by stating, "I'm going to kill you," and they had the immediate present ability to carry that out. If it's a gun, it can be almost at any distance. If it's a knife, it's relative close proximity. Then, sure, I would think so that they have by their own action and ability to carry it out put you in jeopardy and you would have the right to defend yourself up to and including lethal force if you reasonably and sincerely believed that the threat to your safety of great bodily harm or death was imminent. That would seem to fit. Don West: It's a little fussy and a lot more difficult to assess when the person does not apparently have a weapon. The analysis is the same even without a weapon. I'm assuming here that Mr. Gray did not have a weapon. No one's ever said that he did. He maybe physically imposing, and we know that he has a history of violence. I don't think anyone has disputed that, that there has been physical violence caused by him in the past sufficient to get a restraining order, and Ms. Alexander knew that. She knew he was capable of physical violence, but she would have to assess, and then ultimately, the police and the prosecutor and to some degree, the judge if you have an immunity hearing, and then as she did, we can talk about that later. Don West: Then a jury, whether he in fact imposed an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death and was capable at that moment and intended at that moment to carry it out. So, in roundabout way to get to your question, just because somebody says, "I'm going to kill you," even if you accept that to be true, that is not from my perspective in and of itself enough for you to pull out a gun and shoot somebody. Shawn Vincent: In most of the cases that we've looked at, the real controversial cases usually involved armed defender who shoots an unarmed attacker. Don West: Yes, and then all of that analysis comes in to play the relative physical capacities, the knowledge of the history, the abilities of the individuals to defend themselves. There are several notable self-defense cases where juries have concluded that the armed defender was legally justified in using deadly force against an unarmed attacker. There is absolutely no requirement that the attacker be armed. Don West: However, the other analysis doesn't change. There still has to be that imminent threat of great bodily harm or death, and from ultimately the jury's perspective, all of that had to be reasonable. There's this overriding analysis that looks at the totality of the circumstances. That's a common phrase you hear in legal circles, the totality of the circumstances taking everything into account. Was the response to the threat reasonable? If so, then the jury should properly acquit. If they conclude it was not, even though there may have been a real threat, then they can justify a conviction. Shawn Vincent: Sure. On this idea of the reasonableness of the fear in the imminence of that reasonable fear, this is where we get back to what we talked about the controversy about her going into the garage and then choosing to come back into the main area of the house with the gun, right? I think that went a long way to convincing a judge in the immunity hearing, and then subsequently a jury in the trial that she wasn't that afraid of him if she's willing to go back to where he was, where she had been attacked by him before. Don West: There's that perspective how afraid was she, and I think equally important what happened in the house was effectively over at that point. There's nothing to suggest that she wasn't safe from him in the garage, at least to the extent he wasn't in the garage. She was there, she had a gun. I don't know if there was another door. I can't remember having been in a garage that didn't have a door- Shawn Vincent: A side door or something. Don West: ... as well as the garage door, a side door of some sort, but notwithstanding that had she gone out to the garage and armed herself and then tried to figure out where to go and what to do and reassess. Had he come in to the garage still angry toward her, I think that completely changes the dynamic of this. For her to arm herself, go back inside expecting to confront the person that she claimed had just threatened to kill her or was capable of and intended to harm her in some serious way, I think that changes the perspective and it puts her at a great disadvantage when the jury is trying to assess whether her actions were reasonable. Don West: There's an interesting conversation to have at some point. We should get a law enforcement officer to talk with about this, but in this use of force continuum that law enforcement are taught and to some degree a civilian use of force continuum that Mike and Stan have developed, it's an interesting notion of when you introduce a firearm into an escalating event is the introduction of the firearm an escalation or is it a deescalation? Don West: I think that it's such an interesting issue that law enforcement probably considers it a deescalation because the attempt is by- Shawn Vincent: When an officer does it? Don West: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Mm-hmm (affirmative). The goal at that point is not to shoot somebody, but simply to demonstrate that they have the superior force and the capability and hope that that modifies the behavior of the person that they're confronting. It might, but as we will know from other cases that we've had, it may be the very thing that causes the other person to go off. We can talk about other cases because we've had them where somebody displays a firearm expecting to deescalate, thinking the other person will back off, and it encourages them to get even more violent. Shawn Vincent: Sure. In the cases that we looked at, we've seen a couple where the presenting of a firearm stops the conflict cold, but more often than not, it inevitably triggers a gunfight in which somebody or both people get shot and killed. Don West: Yeah. You've just introduced fear and rage in the same mix. You're going to have a fight or flight reaction, I suspect. You're hoping for the flight of the other person, but you may very well wind up getting the fight instead. Is that what Ms. Alexander is basically saying that she made the decision. In hindsight, we can say we think it was a bad decision to go inside with the firearm. Is she saying then that once the firearm was presented, then he knew that she had it, that instead of backing off and just letting her leave as she claim was her intent, that he got further agitated and escalated his aggression toward her? Shawn Vincent: Yeah. She says that he threatens to kill her after he saw her back in the house in the kitchen with the gun. It's clear to her that he saw she was armed, and then he threatened to kill her afterwards. That's when she decides to fire the warning shot. Something I want to talk about on this point, though, that I think is going to be relevant to the CCW Safe members is: some states are stand your ground states, and some are duty to retreat states, but what we know is that in every state, there's a version of the castle doctrine, which means that in your home, there is no duty to retreat. Shawn Vincent: I think what an interesting thing comes up here is that even if you don't have a duty to retreat, if you do retreat, then leave the house or leave the immediate area of where the threat is, and then you decide to return to it with a weapon and reengage. Does that change the calculus on this a little bit? Shawn Vincent: Marissa Alexander, when she talks to Mike and Stan, argues that she never left her house. The garage was still the house. It's not a detached garage, but on the same hand, I think if the garage is different from the house, it's further away from where her attacker was. Shawn Vincent: If we look at the Zach Peters case, where the kid encountered the invaders in the kitchen, and then after he shoots them once, he goes back to his room, locks the door, and calls the police. If he had gone back out into the house and reengaged those guys, we might have a different scenario. So, what's your take on that, Don? If you've retreated from your home already, do you have a problem if you go back in to reengage? Don West: You know it's interesting. We have a partnership with Andrew Branca who wrote the book Law of Self-Defense and regularly produces video and live content on the legal aspects of self-defense, understanding what the law is and the various jurisdictions and also the basic rules of what you should do, and what you should really avoid at all cost. Don West: To distill this into a very simple statement, Andrew would say there's a huge difference between the fight coming to you and you going to the fight. He would say that if you go to the fight, you have changed the dynamic of everything, and you have put yourself in a legally vulnerable position, and that of those things to avoid, you should never go to the fight unless there's some other circumstance or factual need or other reasons why you had to do that to increase your own safety or to protect others. Don West: The notion of her from a relative position of safety to going to the fight I think puts her at a great disadvantage. Whether she would lose the right to self-defense at that point, I think that's almost a discussion that lawyers would have sitting around a coffee table or in a cocktail lounge, but the lawyers don't make the decisions of whether Marissa Alexander is guilty. The jury does. Don West: They do that by putting themselves in the position of the accused. Self-defense is pretty different than virtually any other kind of criminal defense where you are encouraging asking the jury to see what happened from the very perspective through the eyes of the person on trial, and through those eyes considering what they knew, what their background was, what their experience with this person, then all of that stuff seeing whether what happened was reasonable. Don West: I think what that really means is when a juror looks at a case like that, they're probably saying to themselves, "I get it. I understand what she was going through. Had I been in her situation, what would I have done?" If the juror says to himself or herself, "I sure wouldn't have done that," then there's an easy way for them say, "That's just not reasonable. I can believe everything she says, but I can still find that she violated a law because it's just not a reasonable for a person to act under the circumstances.” Shawn Vincent: Something that came up in the conversation with Marissa Alexander between Stan, Mike on their podcast was how often people who own a gun, they're concealed carriers or interested in home defense have a thought in their mind that they're reasonable people, and that should they ever be involved in a self-defense incident that it's going to be pretty cotton-dried, all the scenarios that they might pain for themselves and their mind of when they would need to use deadly force are clear, right? Shawn Vincent: We found in all the cases that we looked at that there are all these weird little factors whether you've misperceived a detail or you've mistaken an identity or there's these scenarios you can't imagine that complicated, right? So, here's- Don West: Right. The analysis of that is done after the fact like people in a somewhat sterile environment with all the time in the world to assess the reasonableness of the defender's conduct that probably took place in a half a second. This case, I think, more than any that we've talked about really turns on some of these little details that got lost in the media discussion that the public perception of this case is very different than what the actual facts demonstrated. Don West: We're calling this the warning shot case, for example. It's clear that Mr. Gray was not killed, and injured as you said earlier, but we also know from the physical evidence that the shot was pretty close to his head. It was shot in the room where he was in his direction. I think it went through a wall, and then ultimately into a ceiling where the claim was that it post a danger to his children, keeping in mind not her children. It was his children. So, when she went back in the house, she wasn't there to protect her children from him. Shawn Vincent: Right. They weren't there. Don West: He was there with his children. So, defense of others was not an issue. So, the people that called it a warning shot felt that it was in a sense an attempt to deescalate, to prevent him from being able to fulfill his threat to kill her. Others look at it as a miss, that this was an attempted murder and a miss, which is a completely different legal context than a warning shot. Don West: So, when I talk about little details, for example, you take a look at where the shot was fired from, where the bullet landed, and what the immediate risk was. Had that shot been 90 degrees, had it been fired into the floor of the kitchen or even into the refrigerator or someway where it was absolutely clear that it was not intended to hit him, then we have a true warning shot situation. Don West: Frankly, I think the analysis of the case changes. Certainly, the emotional impact of the case changes. Angela Corey who was the elected prosecutor in Jacksonville at the time would be far less able to stand behind a microphone and say that Marissa Alexander fired out of anger, not fear. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. Before we wrap up this section, this segment of our conversation, so she claims that she absolutely could have hit him if she wanted to. She was a licensed concealed carrier, she had trained with a gun. Her father was in the service for 27 years, and was a concealed carrier I believe in gun rights and self-defense. So, she's pretty adamant that it was a warning shot, but to your point, as a warning shot a few inches above and a few inches to the right of his head. So, there's some ambiguity there. Shawn Vincent: We talked earlier about you don't brandish your weapon. You don't defensively display a weapon unless you had been justified in using the deadly force. I think we got close enough to this where we think at that particular moment deadly force was not justified. Would you say that's right? Don West: Not to go on a side trip, but brandish is the notion of waving a gun around in a threatening way. Displaying it may be quite different than that if it's done for defensive purposes. Brandishing is a question of degree, frankly, whether it's a lawful display given the context or whether it's a crime of recklessness and threatening behavior. All of that stuff has to be analyzed exactly under the circumstances under which it arose. Don West: People that claim they displayed the gun in self-defense could wind up being arrested and prosecuted for a brandishing type offense because the prosecutor didn't buy the story or that sort of thing, but separate and apart from that, when you draw a gun and you point it in the direction of somebody, and you fire the gun, you have committed a crime right then, a very serious crime unless you have the legal justification to do that. Firing a gun is the use of deadly force. It may be arguable that displaying a gun isn't necessarily using deadly force, but certainly, there's no doubt that firing one is. Don West: Now, is there any legal difference between firing an obvious warning shot and shooting in the direction of somebody and missing? Not necessarily. The prosecutor in Ms. Alexander's case chose not to charge her with attempted murder, but they charged her with aggravated assault with the discharge of a firearm. Don West: Under Florida law, when you commit the crime of aggravated assault and pulled the trigger, you have taken a crime that is a serious crime, nonetheless, it's punished by a maximum of five years in prison. There's a three-year mandatory minimum for the aggravated assault, but when you pull the trigger and discharge it in that kind of threatening way even without the intent to kill, you now have a 20-year mandatory minimum. That's in fact what she was prosecuted for, and ultimately what she was convicted of. That's how she got the 20-year sentence, a sentence that the judge had no discretion, could not impose one day less than 20 years. Don West: Well, we'll talk more about that. I think the legal context of this case is really fascinating. I'm sorry I didn't really respond to your question, specifically, but- Shawn Vincent: Well, this wasn't a cross-examination, so you have the discretion to go off on a tangent, but to bring it around, I think we can argue and, obviously, because this is controversial, that at that moment after coming back in and reengaging with him across the kitchen unarmed that she was unjustified in shooting him at that point. Don West: Yeah. I think that's fair. That's certainly what the judge decided, and then ultimately what the jury decided. Shawn Vincent: Right, and our general rule here is that if you're unjustified in shooting someone using deadly force, you're also unjustified in either displaying the weapon in an aggressive way or firing a warning shot. Don West: Certainly, firing, and what we don't know for sure is whether the jury concluded that he didn't post an imminent threat to great bodily harm, that her claim that he was trying to kill her wasn't supported by the record. That's a possibility or that they didn't ... For all we know, they didn't agree that it was in fact a warning shot. They may very well have concluded that they thought that she just missed. The sanctity and security of the jury deliberation process unless they come forward and want to explain their thinking, they're certainly not required to. You may never know what it was that was important that pushed this thing one way or another. Shawn Vincent: Fascinating. Well, now, let's take a quick break. I want to talk next about her post-incident actions and some things that occurred immediately after this warning shot that caused her troubling her legal defense. Don West: Sounds good. Thanks, Shawn. Talk to you soon. Shawn Vincent: All right. Shawn Vincent: All right. Don, so we're talking about the Marissa Alexander case, the so-called Warning Shot Case. In our last segment, we had talked and gotten ourselves right up to the point where she fired the warning shot and Rico Gray leaves the premises. He was with his two children. They were, as Marissa Alexander explains it, at the threshold of the house on their way out when she encountered Rico Gray in her kitchen. He saw that she had a gun. She said that he threatened to kill her. She fires this so-called warning shot that was just a little above his head, and a little bit to the right, and then he leaves. Shawn Vincent: So, then here's part of it that's amazing to me, and it's a piece of her mindset perhaps. After this happens, she doesn't call the police to report it. She figured that she fired a warning shot, he left, and that was the end of it. I'm going to play a quick clip of what she said to Mike Darter and Stan Campbell in her podcast with them. Don West: Okay. Mike: So, what happened? Did somebody else call the police? Did he call the police? How did that transpire after that? Marissa: After that, he called the police. He called the police. Stan: Yeah. We talked to our members about this all the time being the first one to call 911. Us being police officers, we always state that usually the way we look at it, the one who called 911 is the victim. Is that pretty much what happened where you had the opportunity to do so or you felt that the warning shot would be enough to back him off, and you didn't need to call the police on it? Marissa: Right. So, that's basically what happened. To be honest with you, I didn't think I did anything wrong. I was in my home and nothing happened. So, I thought that that would be enough, and if he had come back, then I probably would have to, but at that point, that was my thinking. So, like you said the first one to call is apparently the victim. Shawn Vincent: So, she says, "To be honest with you, I didn't think I did anything wrong." What are your thoughts about that, Don? Don West: There's so much to unpack on that. I have to take her comment to mean that she was expressing that she indeed felt threatened, that he had expressed the intent to harm her, and that by firing the shot, she was completely legally and factually justified. So, in other words, she felt that she needed to do it in order to save herself, and that she hadn't broken any laws when she did it. I don't know how else you want to interpret a comment like that except I can offer that in many, if not most self-defense cases, certainly in all plausible self-defense cases, the person who defended and used force to defend themselves believes they didn't do anything wrong. They felt justified. That's the crux of the whole thing. That doesn't necessarily mean that you've stayed with, painted within the lines or that you're within the legal parameters and boundaries, but I think it's a common feeling that you didn't do anything wrong. You had to do what you had to do. Don West: Shawn, I think what we're leading up to, though, is the fact that she didn't call the police. So, even if she didn't feel that she did anything wrong doesn't make sense if you accept her at her word, doesn't make sense that she wouldn't call the police to explain that she was attacked in her home, that she had to display a weapon, and ultimately fire it to prevent this guy with a history of violence from making good on his threat. Go ahead. Shawn Vincent: I was going to ask, have you ever seen the show The Office, the American show with Steve Carell? Don West: Oh, sure. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. Do you remember the episode where we found out Michael Scott's in terrible debt, and somebody talks to him about the option to declare a bankruptcy and convinces him that he needs to declare bankruptcy? Then he decides that, yes, he's going to and he walks into the office and just yells out, "I declare bankruptcy." Someone has to explain to him that he can't just declare it, that it's actually a legal process. This is what I think about when I hear Marissa Alexander saying she didn't think she did anything wrong. It's like she just declared to the sky that that was self-defense. Shawn Vincent: Listening to you talk about the ramifications of that, in that feeling that you were justified, I have to look at it like this, and maybe we'll do a thought experiment. Anytime a gun is displaying in a threatening manner, discharged in a threatening manner or used to shoot somebody, I think we should assume a crime has been committed. Now, it's a question of whether that crime was justifiable or not, right? Don West: I think that's fair. Yes. We live in a community of very strict laws on the possession, ownership, and certainly the discharge of firearms. The presumption is if a gun is fired, something bad happened. Shawn Vincent: Yeah, and a self-defense claim is a legal claim. You can't just say it to make it self-defense. It makes me think. We talked about the Michael Dunn case, talked about Jacksonville, the loud music trial that Michael Dunn somehow in his mind, he tells his fiance Rhonda Rouer, "Don't worry. It was legal. It was justified. It was self-defense," as some excuse of why they would speed away from the scene of the shooting and not report it. Don West: Some of the materials in another podcasts and video series we did a while back, we talk about the aftermath of a shooting, and we talk about the reasonable responsible way to interact with law enforcement. We also talk about the importance of declaring, declaring that you acted in self-defense, that, sure, you were the person with the handgun, yes, you were the person that fired it, but that you were legally justified in doing it. Don West: Let me digress for just a moment to put this in context. When you get to trial, the prosecutor has to prove it was not self-defense, and that's true all across the country. However, until there is evidence in the record, it doesn't take a lot and it doesn't have to be all of that persuasive, but there has to be evidence in the record in support of a claim of self-defense before the judge will recognize it and give an instruction on self-defense, which allows the jury to consider it. Don West: Unless you get some of that evidence in the record, then the judge is not obliged to instruct the jury and the jury may not even be able to consider self-defense as a legal affirmative defense. So, there is a responsibility on the part of the accused to have some evidence, whether it's their statement about what happened or a witness' statement about what happened or some physical evidence that's compelling, that shows that the force that was used was in response to a threat, and therefore, there's evidence of self-defense. Don West: So, for Ms. Alexander to say, "I didn't call the police because I didn't do anything wrong," in no way puts her in a position of carrying that initial burden to demonstrate ultimately at whatever stage this case got to that she acted in self-defense. Shawn Vincent: Sure. Stan Campbell brings this up in that conversation from a police officer's perspective, whoever calls 911 first is the victim, right? So, the police come to this discharge of a firearm with only Rico Gray's side of the story. Let me play another clip from this conversation. This is from Marissa Alexander. Marissa: Well, you know somebody at some point they were contacting me on my phone, but I did not have my phone. So, once they were able to get a hold of me, and let me know that ... I believe he told them that I had barricaded myself in the house. So, that was the time from what I understand it was a call for SWAT to come out. I had no idea because I did not know where my phone was, but when I did find my phone and my sister was like, "Hey, down here," and I was like, "Okay." I took the officer's call and he asked me where I was. I told him. I told him I was going to come out. I told him I have my hands up, one hand on the black cellphone, and one up, and just don't shoot me. Shawn Vincent: So, the big thing I take out of this is that she believed Rico Gray told the cops that she had barricaded herself in the house, and that the police had considered calling the SWAT team to come. So, not only is there not a self-defense claim filed here, the police are acting as if they've got an armed deranged individual inside of this house, and they're attempting multiple times to call her on her cellphone to bring a peaceful resolution to this. That is the wrong foot to start off on when you're making a self-defense claim. Don West: Yes, I agree. I think that Ms. Alexander was probably agonizing over this for a minute even though she didn't think that she had done anything wrong. Legally, she had to have know this was messed up, and that maybe she was taking that risk like when you go to Vegas and you put everything on red or you pick on number out of 30, what is it? 36. Shawn Vincent: I don't know that. I'm a terrible gambler. Don West: Not a roulette player. You just hope that your number comes up or you hope in someways your number doesn't. I suspect that in her mind, her best outcome was probably if nobody calls the police under these circumstances and maybe she thought that because of Mr. Gray's prior history with the law and violent history with her that maybe he wouldn't either, and hope upon hope that this thing would just go away. If that's what her thinking was, then she miscalculated. Shawn Vincent: She made a bad bet. Don West: Yeah, she did. As I remember, though, some of the materials, this is a very convoluted and complicated case to sort out factually because Mr. Gray gave extensive interviews and statements. In Florida, you can do depositions in criminal cases on felony. He changed his story a lot. He was against her, and then he was in favor of her. So, factually, it was really hard to get a clear handle on it. Let's not forget that his two children were there, and I think they were both old enough to be competent witnesses, whether they were good witnesses or not, I don't know, but competent meaning that they know the difference between right and wrong. They are able to know the difference between a lie and not, that they were old enough that they could testify. Don West: I didn't read their statements exactly, but if they told the police that their dad didn't threaten to kill her, that when she came back in with the gun, the first thing she did was point it at him and fire it, and there was no actual threat, then there's a big problem with the case factually from a self-defense standpoint notwithstanding all the stuff that you and I have talked about so far. Don West: So, without her explicitly saying what her thinking was other than, "I didn't do anything wrong," I'm going to speculate and say that she thought that maybe directly involving the police wasn't in her favor and she would hope that he didn't either. As it turns out, he gave his phone to one of his kids and it was one of the kids, I think, that called 911 to initially report it. Shawn Vincent: That might be the case, but in what Alexander told Mike and Stan in their podcast was that essentially the father gave the statement to the police in the presence of the kids, then the oldest gave his statement, which essentially echoed what the father had said, and then the youngest was too young for them to really take that statement, so they didn't. They just did what the eldest son had said. Anyways, he had- Don West: Well, we've had cases and I've counseled people in cases whether they should call the police under the unique facts of their circumstances. It's not as clear as you would want it to be because sometimes you have no reason to think that the other person involved is going to call the police, no injuries, maybe no shots fired, that it happened very quickly, and that you're not sure that you want to involve the police either and start admitting that you had a gun and that you displayed it under questionable circumstances. That's a very difficult thing. Don West: On occasion, maybe from a strategic standpoint, the decision can be supported that you don't. That's pretty rare in my mind and I don't know that it's ever happened in experience when shots were actually fired at other human beings I would think. Our advice has always been get on top of that, get ahead of this because like you say, the first person to the phone is often identified by the police as the victim, and in this case, the story that the police got was the one most favorable to Mr. Gray, and then that was compounded by the lack of communication with Ms. Alexander, this notion that she was barricaded, and then by the time they actually had contact with her, this whole narrative of her being violent and armed and all of that was out there. So, she probably in some ways didn't get a fair shake in telling her side of the story. The snowball was already going down the hill at that point. Shawn Vincent: Let me play another clip, if you don't mind, from this conversation. She talks about once she surrendered to the police with her cellphone in the air walking out with her hands up what she experienced. Marissa: They "detained" me, and we just came out doing a proceeding, but they detained me and put me in a car, in the back of the car seat. I did not know that I was going to be arrested. I thought, "Well, okay. He was telling the truth. What happened?" The truth was not very helpful for me. So, yeah, I ended up ... Once I let him know I had a restraining order in place, I said, "Listen. This happened. Look it up." He did. He verified it, but essentially, it was their word against mine. Shawn Vincent: Right? So, she talks about now that she's surrendering to the police, and we've just been discussing how she surrendered to the police who have the other side's version of the story that's not kind to her, she starts talking to the police about what happened. She said, "Tell them the truth," but the truth wasn't on her side. When she says that the police detained her, she says in the way that has air quotes around it, where she feels in retrospect that she was under arrest from the beginning, even though they didn't tell her that she was. At a certain point, she realized she was in trouble. Shawn Vincent: She's not doing a great job now. She's behind the ball at getting her narrative out there once Rico Gray and his kids have already told their side of the story. Don West: I agree with that assessment. At that point, I think that probably from the very beginning that she should have taken the initiative and obviously in hindsight it's very easy when you see what this case turned out to be an absolute nightmare for her. We'll talk in another segment, I hope, about some of the legal process that she found herself in, and what was driving that, and how very, very quickly she was completely out of having any control over her life. She didn't write the laws that impacted her to the extent that she could have handled it differently at the beginning. She didn't. Don West: Then pretty soon, she was at the mercy of a very aggressive prosecutor. This became a political case. It was in the midst of other things happening in the media. This was going to trial around the time of the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case that had started with the shooting in 2012. Don West: This turned out to be a really big deal. When we sit here at our kitchen tables or wherever we happen to be at the moment and look back on it, it's easy for us to say what might have been different. I'm not criticizing Ms. Alexander. What I'm trying to do is point out at those moments when a different decision from our perspective may have resulted in her being treated differently, the case being viewed differently and possibly even a different outcome. Shawn Vincent: Sure. That criticism is an opportunity to learn lessons from her mistakes. Before we wrap up this segment and start talking about what her legal challenge looked like, which we'll do in our next podcast episode, one thing I think is fascinating about the self-defense cases is this first encounter with law enforcement because we say that we want you to be helpful and courteous to the police. We want you to make yourself defense claim, but we also don't want you to talk about a lot of details about the case or about what your experience was before you have a chance to meet with a lawyer, and do so only with their council, right? Shawn Vincent: That's easy to say, but you and I sat with Stephen Maddox, who gave in-depth recorded testimony, interviews with police about his experience and he knew intellectually that you shouldn't talk to police, but he also felt that he was absolutely justified. He was the one who called the cops, originally, and felt like he was making his claim and supporting his decision. Shawn Vincent: So, it's one thing to say don't talk to police, but a whole other thing to now have been part of the shooting to believe you're correct to feel now the weight of law enforcement coming on you and wanting to seem like the good guy. Don West: Being in that position having been involved in a self-defense incident whether it meets the high standard ultimately, checks off all the boxes that it was legal self-defense, we're talking about those especially using deadly force where shots are fired. I think when a shot is fired, whether it's characterized as a warning shot or a miss or something in between, it fundamentally changes the nature of the case. Don West: We've had lots of cases where guns were displayed, threats may have been made, but it's a whole different category when somebody pulls the trigger. I think law enforcement looks at it differently. I think the entire criminal justice system looks at it differently because when the bullet leaves the barrel of a gun, it's death in the air. If it hits somebody, there's a high probability they will die as a result of it. Don West: When you are involved in a situation like that, you can expect that you will be considered a suspect, truly a suspect. The police don't know what happened. They're working on limited information when they respond. If you weren't the one that called the police, they have some misinformation, no doubt. Certainly, they have one-sided information and for an individual to subject themselves to the investigative process on their own without the benefit of council is a highly risky and, in my view, a foolish thing, not just because of you don't understand how the system works. People that are friendly aren't necessarily your friends, and you won't understand the meaning, the real meaning of the questions. You won't know how to modulate your answers to say what's true without saying things also that could be construed or misconstrued as harmful. Don West: Plus, you've got the trauma that you've just gone through destroying your perception and making you perhaps feel that you really, really, really need to explain yourself, but we know in the Maddox case is the perfect example that you're not going to be very good at it. Shawn Vincent: So, he is in accurate about simple things like where did he live and how many children does he have- Don West: Yes. Here's a guy- Shawn Vincent: ... that you couldn’t possibly get wrong. Don West: Super professional guy, highly educated, lots of life experience, and you wouldn't know that he's so wrong when you listen to the recording. You would think this is a guy who's telling it like it is and yet when you go back through it, and you pick out some of these things, you'll realize just how much of what his statement was was a byproduct of that traumatic experience he'd been through. Frankly, some of it was simply unreliable. The most obvious being when he got that kind of stuff wrong. Don West: So, if we're going to take Ms. Alexander's situation and try to get some lessons from it, she should have called the police. I think that's pretty evident, and maybe said as little as, "I was attacked by my husband. He threatened to kill me." Shawn Vincent: "I have a restraining order." Don West: Yes. "I had to fire a shot to keep him from killing me. Fortunately, nobody was injured, but I wanted you to know that," or what have you. Then once the investigators and the detectives get there to conduct a formal interview, you do as we've always said which you provide the basic information enough to stake your claim of self-defense, and then you acknowledge that you will continue to cooperate, but you'd like the benefit of council before a formal interview. Shawn Vincent: Law enforcement will understand that. Don West: Well, that's the law, and they do understand it. They will acknowledge or respect it. If for some reason they don't and they try to trick you or come at you a different way, then what you say should not be admitted in the court against you. That's the whole notion of Miranda Rights. Don West: Secondly, you cannot be compelled to make a statement against yourself or you can't even be compelled without court process to make any statement at all. The idea is that you have the right to make a statement or not at your choosing, and if you want to make a statement, you certainly should have the benefit of council in such a high stakes circumstance. Shawn Vincent: It's a really difficult position to be in, but I think the lesson from all this is that you have to, and this is from the first segment, too, where Marissa Alexander said she didn't really think she had done anything wrong. If there's a discharge in the firearm in self-defense, you have to assume that you've committed a crime until it can be demonstrated that it was self-defense, and that you have to interact with a police as if you're the suspect of a serious crime or else I think in our case, nine times out of 10 it's going to blow up in your face and cause you trouble down the line. Don West: I think that's fair and good advice. In this case, it wouldn't have taken much of an investigator to walk inside the house and take a look at where the bullet entered the wall and positioned the people, and immediately conclude that she fired at him. He may have been or she may have been wrong about that, but the physical evidence becomes an incredibly important part of this. Don West: Having been through a traumatic situation, self-defense shooting, you're simply not going to be presently aware of all of the things that are important, the things that you may very well need to think through carefully to be able to explain convincingly when it's time to do that. It's so easy if you decide to give a detailed statement before you've processed it and digested it and better understood what the legal issues are, what's important and what isn't for you to make a statement that you simply can't recover from. Don West: I've said this before. I'll repeat it that I've tried a lot of self-defense cases. Frankly, the ones that are the hardest to try are the ones when we have to explain what the client said to the police and why that isn't accurate or why it wasn't complete or why, frankly, it wasn't lying if it was inconsistent. Shawn Vincent: Yeah, a nightmare. Well, that's a great preface for the long legal road that Marissa Alexander faced after the shooting. So, let's call that quits for today, and our next podcast is going to be dedicated to the torturous, twisted legal odyssey that she went through after that day. Don West: Thanks, Shawn. Looking forward to it. Talk to you soon. Shawn Vincent: All right, Don.

**Use Promo Code: TRACE2020 to save 10% on a pass to CrimeCon! Visit CrimeCon.com for tickets.On June 6th, 1993, a man appeared inside of a Be-Lo grocery store in Windsor, NC after closing hours. Brandishing a handgun, the man ordered the store manager and a cashier to empty the days earnings into a plastic bag in an apparent robbery.After gathering up the money, the armed suspect then corralled the two employees, plus the four person floor cleaning crew and bound them. After being tied up, the suspect stacked the employees into three piles of two people a piece and then he opened fire. After murdering three and severely wounding two others, the killer walked out into the quiet night never to be seen again. Some twenty-six years later the killer's identity remains unknown and investigators continue to work the case.For more information please visit: https://www.trace-evidence.comhttps://www.patreon.com/traceevidence Social Media:https://twitter.com/TraceEvPodhttps://www.instagram.com/traceevidencepod/https://www.facebook.com/groups/traceevidencepodMusic Courtesy of: "Lost Time" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/Sources: https://www.trace-evidence.com/the-belo-shooting-massacre

Western The best genre of Star Wars media? Brandishing yourself. Old west forced sack removal. “Real filmmaking” Werner Herzog’s surprising(?) praise. “Real filmmaking” in the wake of the prequel trilogies. Wooden green-screen acting vs sweet puppets and actual human beings. Unreal Engine LED walls and volumetric projection and camera tracking. Our new mythology Star Wars as our new shared cultural mythology the world over. Concern about disney’s stewardship and the private ownership of our cultural heritage. Streamboat Willie entering The Commons. Mandalorians Some past famous Mandalorians, this particular Mandalorian, and martial prowess. Mandalorian history and why the Mandalorians are the only ones who figured out how to fight the space wizards for some reason? Poop! Pooping space. Weightless waste elimination can be tricky. Floating turds. Freezing in carbonite Cryostasis. Cryopreservation. Avoiding ice crystals. Replacing blood with “antifreeze” Robo slavery Taking the most depressing angle on droid consciousness and freedom (or lack thereof). And then to make it worse: DRM! Baby Yoda Extra-long postnatal development. Big brains and incomplete gestation. Cuteness. Animatronics. Hairy rhinos! Elasmotherium. Whooly rhinos. Hiary…. eggs? Historical rhinos. Rhino evolution. Balut. Elasmotherium prehistoric rhino Boris Dimitrov CC-BY-SA-3.0 Rhino sizes evolution chart DagdaMor CC-BY-3.0 The Last Jedi: FTL ramming, salt geology, and real green milk: Decipher SciFi Star Wars: the death star, planet science, and appreciating the original Star Wars trilogy: Decipher SciFi Star Wars Meta: How to Star Wars, machete order, and the best Star Wars fan edit: Decipher SciFi Support the show!

  Don West and Shawn Vincent explore several cases where a firearm was used to threaten force, but no shots were fired. Some resulted in prosecutions, and some did not. Each helps concealed carriers understand the legal risk that comes with unholstering your weapon, even if you don’t fire it.    TRANSCRIPT: The Legal Risk of Drawing Your Firearm Don West: Well, I am ready to talk. I am re-caffeinated. Shawn Vincent: Re-caffeinated. Don West: I've never heard that before. I don't think I could have possibly made it up, but caffeinated and then of course decaf and all of that. But I am now re-caffeinated. I was heavily caffeinated earlier today, but I was losing my energy, and now I am re-caffeinated so I'm raring to go. Shawn Vincent: I had to stop with the caffeine. My heart rate gets a little high sometimes, so my doctor encouraged me to cut out caffeine altogether. So I am decaffeinated. Don West: Caffeine doesn't affect me dramatically. I know it does some, and I can really overdo it. But mostly, I like the taste of coffee. So that's my first choice, and the caffeine doesn't bother me. And I have this sort of slow, methodical approach. Actually, my ex-wife used to say that I'm so slow I have to speed up to stop. A little caffeine doesn't hurt me a bit. Shawn Vincent: I was explaining you to somebody recently Don, about how that slowness that your ex-wife talks about, I call thoughtfulness. Be very contemplative, right? I have this picture in my head, I'll say something to you that maybe is an interesting idea, and you'll stop and you'll stare for a minute. You might rub your head for a second, and then you'll start nodding your head and you'll come around to it. The best is when it's a joke, because you'll take it and you'll hold it in for a second, and then you'll get a big smile and then you'll laugh. It was a good joke. But it's a good two or three second delay. Don West: Unfortunately that's not something that I do on purpose and it's something that can be a little off-putting. Shawn Vincent: I've seen judges be off-put by that before. Don West: As a matter of fact, a couple come to mind, one in particular but no offense was intended. I'm sorry. I just need a little time to process and I want to maybe savor the moment for a second. I'm not afraid of gaps, just dead air, I guess we should call it, in radio biz. And this is who I am and how I am, and I do have to compensate for that every once in a while. Shawn Vincent: I, for one, find it very endearing. Don West: It's kind, thanks. My ex-wife wasn't always so kind. Regardless, we've all moved on. Shawn Vincent: And here we are. Don West: So how are you today? What are we going to talk about? Shawn Vincent: We're going to talk about -- we're going to talk about self-defense. This might be a surprise to anyone who listens to the podcast. I pulled out ... We talked about a pretty interesting case out of Mississippi not long ago, where the lady who was the attendant at the laundromat. Don West: Yes. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. One of the patrons got a little crazy about refund policy on the machines and attacked her. They went down to the ground, there were some scratches and some light bruising. The attendant got away, went outside, called the cops, got her gun, had it in, like, a low ready position. Then this crazy angry patron came back out to re-engage her. The attendant lifts the gun up, points it at her, and that was enough. But angry patron backed off. She got a car she left before the police arrived. And I thought it was interesting. It was one of the ... I thought it was interesting. It was one of the few cases that we've talked about, where a gun was used but not fired in a self-defense situation. And we got into a discussion about the differences between a defensive display and brandishing. And I know we've talked to Mike and Stan, founders of CCW Safe before, and they talk about that and you take some of these phone calls, right Don? Where I think brandishing is one of the biggest issues that our members might find themselves wrapped up in. Does that that jive with your experience? Don West: That's right. Probably if you just look at gross numbers, we probably get more calls that flow out of a brandishing type scenario than any other type. It can take many, many forms. But to be clear, brandishing has a pretty specific legal definition in most jurisdictions. There's crimes that are actually called brandishing. It's often more loosely talked about as sort of recklessly displaying a gun, maybe waving it around in a threatening way. But when we talk about brandishing, we're talking about an act of an aggressive act that is ... Well, it's a crime in and of itself. If you're convicted of a crime like brandishing, it can have very serious consequences with it. Defensive is not really a legal term. That's a term that's coined. Don West: And I don't know where I heard it the first time. I think I do, actually. I think it was Massad Ayoob, who will be a name known to do many of the listeners, I think. A very well-respected experienced firearm instructor. Has literally written the book, several books on things. He has an instructor program. He teaches classes -- group 20, 40 and 80, I think. And they represent the number of hours that are involved in his programs. A combination of self-defense techniques and law-based instruction and live fire shooting. In any event, he's a fairly prolific writer and speaker, and I remember him being interviewed and was being talked to about this notion of brandishing. And he characterized the other side of that as defensive display. But I don't think it has a specific legal definition. It's not really something you would find in a statute somewhere, I wouldn't think. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. But for the sake of our conversation, if you are in a situation that could be a self-defense situation, and you pull out your weapon and the threat of the use of force allows you to get away without having to use the deadly use of force, we're going to call that a defensive display as opposed . . . Don West: Yes. Basically, you're really talking about an escalating self-defense type scenario and ongoing escalating threat, and that the display of the firearm, in other words, showing that you have a gun to the other person who's being aggressive, is enough for them to back off. Shawn Vincent: That's right. Don West: To discontinue their aggression. Yes. Shawn Vincent: That's right. Don West: I think that's a fair thing to discuss, and a good definition of that. Shawn Vincent: Well, we've also seen cases where maybe that was the intent, with the person who showed the gun, maybe they thought they were doing a defensive display. Under the circumstances, law enforcement took that to be a brandishing scenario. So let's get into ... I found this case from Sacramento, California, a guy named Brandon Jackson. This is your textbook brandishing situation. He gets in a road-rage argument with this woman who's driving another car. They pull up to a red light. Jackson is annoyed and upset and angry, and he pulls out a gun and then he points it at the other driver. The other driver freaks out. She speeds through the red light, drives away. Jackson ends up going into a different direction. The confrontation is over, but she obviously calls in what happened, describes the car. Moments later, Jackson's pulled over, they find the gun. He didn't have a permit for it. And then they charged him with a weapons violation and then producing criminal threats, were the charges I read in the paper. So this is a classic brandishing. Don West: Yeah. In some places they call that terroristic acts even. It's the idea of, by displaying the weapon in such a reckless threatening way, that you're terrorizing the person. I don't know if he was charged with that, but I've seen that charge in a couple of places actually. Shawn Vincent: Sure. And I've looked these up as a whole, simple assault is one of the charges that I've seen thrown in when there's these brandishing type cases. So it seems like there'd be a whole recipe book full of different things you can be charged with when you display a gun like that, depending on the circumstances. Don West: The names are a little different depending on the jurisdiction. Brandishing is probably the one that's best known, depending on how the gun is displayed, and how threatening it is being used. For example, in Florida, if you point a gun at somebody in a threatening way, without firing it, and even without any intent to harm or kill, but certainly demonstrating the present ability to do that, that kind of threat is characterized as an aggravated assault. The firearm makes it aggravated. The assault is the threat by word or act. You combine those two and you can go to prison for several years, and many people do. And in fact, there is a mandatory minimum in Florida for that very act of threatening somebody with a handgun. Shawn Vincent: Is that 10 years in Florida? Is that a 10, 20- Don West: Last time I looked, the mandatory minimum for the crime was three years. The maximum was five, and that's without it being fired. Or any injuries or anything like that. So aggravated assault is typically a five year maximum felony with a three year mandatory minimum. Shawn Vincent: But you'd agree that this road rage incident, that's sort of a classic, even though he didn't get charged maybe officially with brandishing, that's a classic brandishing incident? Don West: Yeah. Yeah. Brandishing, aggravated assault. Any number of ways doing something like that could be characterized as a criminal act, and a serious one. There does not appear to be, in this case, any legal justification whatsoever, other than he's mad at this woman for something real or perceived- Shawn Vincent: And why did he want to be threatening and scare her? Don West: Yeah, he clearly wasn't responding to a threat of hers. There's no suggestion that she tried to run him over. No suggestion that she had a weapon, that she was in some way displaying. I guess whatever happened on the street just made him so mad he thought somehow, his way of addressing the problem would be to point a gun. And what an idiot. Of course, we say that often in these cases because it sets the stage for tragedy. And we've had other cases where something that starts like this results in one or both people getting shot and sometimes killed. Shawn Vincent: Right. So we recently talked about a case where there's a guy in his work truck on the phone with a friend. He's a veteran Marine by the way. And he cut off this other guy in traffic, and he knew it, and he knew it was his fault. So they pull up to a red light and he rolls down his window if it wasn't already rolled down, and he leans out to try to say, "Hey, my bad." His friend on the phone heard him say, "My bad." But that wasn't appropriate or good enough for the guy who got cut off. He gets out of his car, he has a gun. So here's this guy getting out of his car, walking up to the vehicle of a guy who he doesn't realize as a Marine veteran who's also armed. He pulls his gun, they have a shootout right there in the middle of the street. Both of them ended up dying. Don West: Yeah. Tragic, tragic consequences. And, well let's talk about that for just a second to compare what that case was, and this one that we're talking about, just now, in terms of the reaction of the driver. Not the aggressor, the driver in the case. I guess that was down in Florida, Davie, Florida. Shawn Vincent: That's right. It sure was. Don West: He decided to try to mitigate whatever it was that he had done wrong by apologizing. But in order to do that, he stayed where he was. He rolled the window down and engaged. We don't know what else he may have said, but you talked about it. Then the act of rolling the window down may very well have been perceived by the other guy who was hot enough to get out of his car with a gun, to be an act of aggression, or an escalation of some sort. Shawn Vincent: That's right. We talked about how in road rage incidents, almost nothing you can do can de-escalate it other than just getting out of there. Don West: So even if you assume he was de-escalating by rolling the window down, it may very well have been perceived as a willingness to engage, and tragic consequences. So I'd like to compliment this unnamed woman in this incident, in this I-80 case, for having the presence of mind to do nothing more complicated than just driving off. Just getting the hell out of there. Shawn Vincent: And then ended the confrontation. Don West: Yeah. It put her in a safe position. Not everybody can because of cars and being in front or around. But she had the presence of mind to see this guy with the gun, knowing no good's going to come out of her trying to reason with him. So she just got out of dodge and then also called it in apparently. And this guy, I guess, what he did there was he got on the interstate, because that's why they call it the I-80 case. He was eventually pulled over on the interstate driving. Don West: Let's talk about what's going on with this guy, because as a criminal defense lawyer, I've seen it from this guy's side, meaning I've represented people who have done these kinds of things. I believe as part of my criminal defense practice, I was doing public service work by accepting court-appointed cases. Sometimes I really didn't have any choice. I needed the money early in the career, and it was a good source of income. I'd spent some time at the public defender's office later on when I was much more established and financially independent. I didn't need to take court appointed cases, because sometimes they were a huge pain in the neck with hostile clients that are ungrateful for everything that's done. It just kind of comes with the territory. But I do think that it keeps the system honest if capable, experienced lawyers participate in the public defender court-appointed system. So anyway, I did it for a long, long time. Don West: So I've represented these guys, and as we joked in a prior segment, I see bad people at their best. So I'm seeing the best side of these guys coming in. But I can just imagine from the reports and the interviews, how volatile, and how quick the emotional triggers are. Many of them have ... I'm no psychiatrist, certainly not a neurologist, but many of these guys in my experience have a frontal lobe impairment of some kind. So whether it's an impairment caused by alcohol or drugs or physical abuse or any number of different conditions, can result in impairments in the frontal lobe, which impairs executive functioning or reasoning. And most importantly, I think impulse controls. Shawn Vincent: Sure. In our family, we call that a screw loose. Don West: Yeah. They just go off. And I don't know if they can control it or not. Some can better than they do, but I suspect there are many that just can't. And once they get started, it's going to have a bad outcome, and there's very little that can happen, good, when it comes to this. So let's talk about this guy. He's driving down the road. Something makes him mad. Mad enough that he displays a gun to this woman, who apparently had not threatened him in any way. So we know that's a crime. We know it's a crime that's worthy of the local deputies enlisting the help of the California Highway Patrol, chasing this guy, catching him on Interstate 80 and arresting him, finding the gun in the car, and he doesn't have a permit. I don't know if he has a criminal record that would keep him from getting a permit. There are lots of places in California where you just can't get one. I don't think Sacramento necessarily is that area. Don West: So here's a guy who's carrying a gun illegally. Shawn Vincent: Right. Don West: And threatens a woman with it, and then drives down the road, what? Thinking he's not going to get caught? Or doesn't process that well enough. Doesn't even think about what happened in the sense of, "Geez, I had to at least get rid of this gun. Don't you think?" Shawn Vincent: Sure. Well he's not considering the severity of the crime that he just committed. Don West: Maybe that's it too. Maybe he doesn't think it's a big deal. Maybe he does it all the time. But the list of charges is pretty lengthy. So the illegal possession of the firearm is completely separate and apart from the threatening use of the firearm. Now they're all part of this continuous event. But what he did to threaten this woman, the brandishing assault type behavior, is distinctly legally separate from what happens, maybe 10 miles down the road when he gets caught with the gun. And he's not allowed to possess. So he's got those charges. He's got the assault-type brandishing charge. And if he has any kind of criminal history, he's looking at a lengthy prison sentence. Why? Well, he was committing a crime all along by having the gun, but to be so reckless and irresponsible and volatile to display it in that way, as a guy that I guess ... Don West: Maybe the end of this long rambling story is, that's a guy whose his own worst enemy. That's a guy who's completely unpredictable. If you pull out a gun in that situation, what is it going to take for him to pull the trigger? Maybe not so much. So how do you reason, how do you conduct yourself rationally and logically when you're faced with somebody like that? And I submit you can't. You just can't. You have to save yourself, protect yourself, and depending on the dynamics of the situation, respond to it in such a way that will keep you safe. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. And I think if we all ... You don't have to have a frontal lobe problem to have a bad temper. Right? Don West: Yeah. I'm not offering that as any sort of informed opinion. And I'm certainly not offering it as an excuse. Shawn Vincent: No, but- Don West: I know from- Shawn Vincent: Go ahead. Don West: Well, I was just going to say, I know from my work, representing people that later after the cases, well months or years after the event has occurred and you're sitting there doing scans and neurological testing, and you're able to, with these instruments, actually identify some brain stuff that will help explain the lack of impulse control. And sometimes that's very favorable in a mitigation context, in a sentencing context, in no way makes you not guilty of the crime. It may warrant some lesser sentence if there's a significant impairment, but anyway, Shawn, I guess my point is there may be all sorts of biological and neurological and substance abuse components to this. But the bottom line, the behavior is scary and threatening and very dangerous. Don West: To your point, you're absolutely right. I don't know why people fly off the handle. I would agree not all of them have some diagnosable identifiable brain injury. They could just be what? Assholes, maybe. Shawn Vincent: Sure. Or just ... I have had very strong reactions in the car when my kids are in the car, especially when they were little, and somebody did something dangerous in traffic. And I've felt a sort of anger at that threat to my children's safety come over me. And I guess I'm always looking for what are the lessons for concealed carriers. Anyone who's listening to this podcast comes to this with a responsible gun ownership mentality. You're not listening to this podcast if you're not interested in being the most responsible gun owner you can. But if I'm looking for lessons in these cases for us and for our listeners, it's knowing yourself, and knowing what circumstances might cause you, because I think everyone can get irrational at some point under the wrong circumstances. You tell a story all the time about a guy on a jury who decided he was a concealed carrier, but he didn't put a gun in the car cause he gets too hot tempered. It's about knowing yourself, right? It's about knowing yourself and when's it appropriate to carry it, and when's it maybe not a good idea for you? Anyways. Don West: No, that's well said. Shawn Vincent: So let's look at the complete other side of this. Another case where a gun is displayed, but there's no charges for the guy who pulled it, right? We're going to go to Allentown, Pennsylvania, right? And there's this road rage incident where one guy who probably has frontal lobe issues, Don, freaks out, chases this guy for a couple of miles, apparently. It ends in, I don't know if it's a an alley or some dead end there. They're out of the car. The guy who was losing his mind has a knife, attacks the guy he had been chasing. That guy punches him in the face. They wrestled each other to the ground. And then that's when this third party comes by and he's a legal concealed carrier. He pulls out his gun and tells the guys to stop and essentially holds the attacker at gunpoint until police arrived. Somebody else calls the police. Shawn Vincent: And so police show up and here's two guys lying on the ground. There's a knife some distance from them, and there's a guy standing, legs shoulder width apart, in a shooting stance, both hands on his gun pointing at these guys. And he was referred to in the reporting I saw as a Good Samaritan. So here's a case where- Don West: I saw that. There was interesting choice of terms, right. I guess Good Samaritan in that he was able to put to a stop whatever was happening at that point. So there was no more violence because he was the one who was then in control. Shawn Vincent: Sure. So he intervened into somebody else's self-defense scenario, I suppose. And he used the threat of deadly force to stop it. Whatever he did, however crazy and angry this attacker was, the sight of the gun caused him to reconsider his aggression, and he stopped. But I don't know. You tell me. We talk often about Andrew Branca's idea of legal risk when you use a gun for self defense, that if you're bring the gun out, you're opening some non 0% chance of legal consequences. Did this guy take a risk by pulling out his gun and holding these people at gunpoint until the police showed up? Don West: He clearly took a big risk because he needed to make some decisions, and he may have had to take sides as to his interpretation of what was happening. Now it's like so many of these cases, the deciding points are often buried in the details. So we don't know exactly when he became knowledgeable of this. He probably didn't know anything about the car chase and the circumstances that brought these two guys together in this parking lot. Shawn Vincent: So would he know even who is the first aggressor was? Don West: He wouldn't. I wouldn't think he would know who had a weapon first, or who threatened first, or what may have led up to this, or maybe one of the guys was trying to chase down a bad guy in some sense. That's the thing. And Andrew Branca points that out, that you put yourself in the shoes of the person defending, and that your rights typically don't extend beyond what that person could have done. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. Don West: So you need to be right. Now, in this case, he probably saw an unarmed person being attacked by an armed person- Shawn Vincent: Sure. The knife. Don West: The way the circumstances are described when these two cars came to a stop, and we should talk about how on earth that happened. But in any event, these two are- Shawn Vincent: Yeah. If someone's chasing you, why do you stop and get out to confront them? Don West: Yeah. Why don't you, if you're going to stop your car and some guys chasing you, why don't you stop it in front of a police department and call 911 and say, "There's some idiot behind me who's been chasing me through town for 20 minutes"? But in any event, he sees, I'm assuming, two guys out of their cars, one of them with a knife who's being very aggressive to the other. And that he decides to put a stop to it. So when I looked at the video, I got the sense that maybe he wasn't actually taking a side- Shawn Vincent: No. He seemed like holding the gun on both of them until the cops got there. Don West: Yeah, yeah. That he was just making them stop and trying to communicate that whoever ... If they both don't stop, one of them is going to have a problem if they continue the aggression. So my guess is if the guy with the knife hadn't dropped it, or if he'd tried to stab the other guy, the guy with the gun may have very well have intervened at that point. Shawn Vincent: Sure. And in the video you talk about, you can see a fourth party come over and pick up the knife, kind of with just his index finger and his thumb, and carries it away. Understanding that it's evidence, trying to keep his prints off at as best as he can. Don West: Well, maybe that's one interpretation. That's why these things are so tricky, Shawn, is because I saw that video and he did exactly what you described. Kind of pinched the end of the handle of it and carried it open. He may very well have had the presence of mind to show the guy with the gun that he wasn't a risk. So he was holding the knife in such a way that he couldn't use it as a weapon, and got it away from these guys to be sure the guy with the gun knew that he wasn't going to involve himself- Shawn Vincent: And then of course in this case, there's a fifth guy who's the one with the cell phone camera. So there's a lot of people. It's a well-documented moment, a well-witnessed moment. But you know, another consideration on this is, when the police show up on a scene, I don't ever want to be the guy standing there with a gun drawn. You know what I'm saying? Don West: Talk about a confusing situation. How are the police supposed to figure this out? And they're rolling up and they see a guy with a gun. Shawn Vincent: Yeah, that can be a very tense situation very quickly. Don West: Now, let's assume he had the presence of mind that once the police presence was known, that he did the right things too. But in any event, when you see a story like this, obviously your mind races because there's so many variables. Any one thing that happened differently could have resulted in one or more people being killed. I'm wondering if the guy that was so mad, who had the knife on the ground, made some sort of aggressive movement even after he was disarmed. Would he have been shot? He can't, at that point, if he's disarmed, he's laying on the ground, wrestling around with somebody, he's not in the act of threatening somebody with great bodily harm or death. To shoot him would be very disproportional, I think, under that scenario. And then all of a sudden the good Samaritan's looking at a serious crime. Shawn Vincent: Sure. And we had said before, that maybe not in every scenario, but in most scenarios, you'd be justified in the display, the defensive display of the weapon if you would have been legally justified to use the weapon. Right? Don West: Yes. Shawn Vincent: So if you were justified in shooting and killing, then you're certainly justified and defenseive display. And what we're looking at here is once this guy's disarmed, he doesn't have the knife anymore and you just have two guys in a fistfight, are you allowed to shoot somebody to break up a fist fight? Is the question. And the answer is no, in most cases, right? Don West: I agree. Yes. Shawn Vincent: And then if you're not justified in shooting them to break up the fight, then it becomes a lot murkier about whether you're justified in the offensive display. So there's that legal risk. Don West: MSo you've got a situation here where if you really wanted to drill into it and even break it down frame by frame, there are moments, I think, where the Good Samaritan has some legal risk, frankly. But we're also given, assuming it's exactly as it was described, that's where the law enforcement and prosecutorial discretion come in. That's something that Andrew Branca talks about is those kinds of cases, you probably will get the benefit of the doubt from the prosecution or from law enforcement. But you don't have to. If you have legal exposure, you can be prosecuted for it. And while many prosecutions that technically could go forward don't, because of the good judgment and the good sense of law enforcement and the State Attorney or the DA, seeing that this isn't the kind of crime that should be prosecuted, nonetheless, there are many gray area cases where someone gets charged. Or there's a couple of additional facts that cast some sort of shadow on it that tips the- Shawn Vincent: Well, here's another case where a gun comes out after a fight. We're going to go to ... This is a dance competition. It's at a high school gym. It's not hosted by the high school. It's another organization that's hosting it. But let's just say there's eight, nine, different troops of young women, girls who are in dance troupes and they're competing here. And the winners of the dance competition get announced. Some people obviously feel that they were jilted and the argument ensues. A fight breaks out. And then at one point you see cell phone picture, a woman pulls out a gun. And then we find out even later that that turns out another woman pulled out a gun in this situation. And the one they knew who it was, she got arrested and charged. This is the one where they had the simple assault charge amongst others, and then they're looking for who this other woman was who brought out a gun. So here you got a fight going on. Now the gun's introduced and there's no question that anyone here's a Good Samaritan. They're looking to criminally prosecute people. Don West: So this is in what? A gymnasium at a school. Even though it's a private event, it's a at a school facility. Shawn Vincent: That's right. Don West: I got the sense there were hundreds of people there of all ages, including a lot of the kids that were participating in this competition, and their parents. Shawn Vincent: That's right. I think about those wooden bleachers that you pullout in high school gyms, those seemed pretty filled with people. Don West: Yeah, and I guess I shake my head in disbelief, to think that someone would ... Well, I'm going to assume that it wasn't illegal to possess the gun there. I'm probably not right if more facts were known. I'm going to assume that even though it was a school where guns would likely be prohibited otherwise, that because it was a private event. . . Shawn Vincent: She was charged with brandishing, simple assault, and carrying a firearm on school grounds. So. . . Don West: Well, then they've already made that decision that there was no exemption for that because it was a privately held event, rather than the school being used as a school. So the audacity to take a gun there, and then the circumstances under which it was displayed are shocking to me because, as I read the report, all of this was happening because they disagreed with the outcome of the competition. Shawn Vincent: Right. Don West: And if that wasn't enough, another woman has a gun and it comes out, and there's video of her holding it. That's the one the individual that hasn't been identified yet. Shawn Vincent: That's right. Don West: Oh, I'm just shaking my head. I can't. It's scary isn't it? If you think that people exercise that kind of judgment, that they ... We talk about being a responsible gun owner. First and foremost, if you're going to assume the incredible, awesome responsibility of carrying a firearm, that that carries with it so much more than what life demands of you otherwise. You can be a hothead, you can be a jerk, you can get in people's faces and wag your finger, and you can tell them how whatever the low-life they are, and how stupid they are, and you can pick fights if you want, as long as you don't break the law. But to introduce firearm into a children's event like that shows such irresponsibility and such bad judgment that, well, frankly, I hope all of the individuals responsible and do get prosecuted. What an inherently reckless and dangerous thing to do in a public event like that full of kids? That's shocking. Shawn Vincent: And since that's so clear, I wanted to show that as a contrast to the 'good Samaritan' who pulled out a gun to stop a fight. And I guess the question is, are you trying to stop the fight or are you escalating the fight? And I think that's a sense here, that these women who pulled out the gun seemed to be escalating as opposed to getting a fight to breakup. And I guess a gun is probably a bad way to break up a fight anyway. Here's a. . . Don West: It's a terrible way to win an argument, I can tell you that. And that's probably how it started. That there was an argument over who the winner should have been, and that got more and more heated. And then pretty soon somebody threatened to kick somebody else's butt, and then pretty soon it got to the point where, "Oh yeah, really?" And then a gun comes out. And then of course that's as far as you can take it without shooting somebody, right? Shawn Vincent: That's it. It's there  . . Don West: And now they believe that they were at risk of being shot. So the response, the way I take it is that ... Then another gun comes out. And I can imagine. Shawn Vincent: And here's where that goes, right? So we'll talk about another case that you and I have touched on before. But when we talk about brandishing, you can be arrested for it and have real jail time, right? It's a serious offense, but there's a worse consequence to it. So we're going to go to Indiana, right? You'll remember this case because we talked about it years ago. And there's a guy. He's a Indiana firefighter. He owns his home, he's working. He's got a big yard. He's got a fence between his yard and his neighbor's yard. He and his neighbor who sort of was this wacko, crazy guy ... He reminds me of ... What's Laura Dern's father, that actor? Don West: Bruce? Shawn Vincent: Bruce Dern, if he's one of his roles where his hair's all crazy and he's wild-eyed and crazy, this is what this guy reminds me of, right? So he's got a Bruce Dern character as his neighbor. And they'd gotten in this fight before, that involved bite marks on each other. This is the kind of animosity these guys have towards each other. So they're at it again. They're yelling at each other over the fence. There's a security camera that picks up this. So the, the Bruce Dern character, then, you can see him on his riding mower tractor go by the frame of the camera, and he pulls out a revolver that turns out to be his live-in girlfriend’s revolver. And he kind of jangles it in the air. Like, "Hey, I got a gun. How about that?" Shawn Vincent: Well, apparently, the firefighter, he kept his gun on him while he was doing yard work. He's got a, I think, a Glock with 16 rounds in the magazine. So he pulls out and he just unloads the whole thing out of it. He shoots his neighbor four times, he falls behind the tractor and then the tractor absorbs the other 12 bullets. Miraculously, the guy didn't die, actually stood up, flipped him off and walked back into his living room where he collapsed. And I think he ended up surviving that episode. And the prosecutor looked at this case and he said that it was justifiable self-defense, although he didn't want to be seen as validating either the men's behavior. Shawn Vincent: But I guess I say this in all to say that some brandishing best case scenario, you get arrested for it. Worst case scenario, you get shot and killed for it. And we've seen cases where you introduce a gun, you've just given somebody else a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Would you agree with that? Don West: You put a little history behind it as these guys did, even if the history becomes an exchange of angry words and gestures and those sorts of things during the onslaught of a road rage incident of some sort, and pretty soon the reason you're not dead is because you were lucky that the wounds weren't fatal, and that could go either way. As soon as people start shooting at each other with a gun, the fact that no one actually dies is just luck, as opposed to any plan. We know, we've seen how many cases where one shot results in death, and four or five doesn't. But that's not to say that anything good came out of the one where he didn't die other than the fact that he literally didn't die. Shawn Vincent: You just don't know. Don West: And, yeah, in many instances, everyone's surprised. That's a case where it's what? One upmanship. We see that in varying degrees too, especially with these ongoing disputes. The violence starts with arguments over the fence and then escalates, sometimes, as in this case, with some prior physical contact. Wasn't there even a knife introduced at one point? Shawn Vincent: Yeah, I think that's right. Don West: And like you said, all that stuff. So I suppose when the prosecutor looks at this, if they looked at it fairly objectively, they would say, "Well, the guy on the lawnmower is the one who introduced the firearm into it. It had been an escalating ongoing sequence. And as soon as he showed he had the gun, it's fair to believe that he intended to use it. Why wouldn't he under those circumstances?" So the fear was reasonable. If the fear of great bodily harm or death was viewed as reasonable under the circumstances, then the use of deadly force in response becomes reasonable. And so long as more shots aren't fired than necessary, and in this instance maybe there were, but they weren't necessarily ones that hit their mark. . . Shawn Vincent: That's just it. I think the first four shots may have been justified. The last 12 shots, if he had actually killed his neighbor with those shots, lying on the ground, we would have a whole different story here, wouldn't we? Don West: Oh, sure. Yes. Without question. Crazy stuff, huh? Shawn Vincent: It's crazy stuff. And we look at this too ... Yeah. I'm trying to find, what's our lesson, because I feel we've said it before in this segment that our listeners are responsible gun owners. They've come to CCW Safe because they have ... You don't buy insurance, right? If you're irresponsible. The thing you need to do to protect yourself is a responsible thing to do. And we're looking at some really irresponsible uses of firearms in this case. And I don't think that our members are going to be in these situations, but there's something to be learned from them, which is, I think, how quickly ... Maybe the lesson is just how quickly things can escalate, and the temptation of when you're armed. I think the lesson, especially when it comes to the brandishing, is that if you're not justified in using deadly force, you're not justified in showing the gun. Don West: And that follows immediately by, once you show a gun, there is a very predictable response. Either it ends it, and the other person goes away, or they escalate it because . . . Shawn Vincent: And now you're in a gunfight. Don West: And now it's on. Shawn Vincent: And here's the other lesson that I think I'd like to draw from this, and we'll go to the good Samaritan case on this, and the legal risks you take when you draw your weapon. And that's this idea of all these variables you don't know about, right? We talked time and time again about whether a self-defense use of force incident is considered justified or not really rests on a lot of these nuances. Right? And when we were talking, we talked about a case where a guy shot some intruders who were trying to get into his house through his front door, which we generally not recommend shooting people you can't see who don't pose an imminent threat. But in that case, he knew who they were. He knew that they weren't there for good. There were two of them that are going to try to break into his house, and he was justified. Shawn Vincent: But you said something interesting then, which is if you're going to use force to prevent a forcible felony, right? Use your firearm prevent a forcible felony, then you have to be right. Right. And you have to be certain because if you're wrong about any of the details, then you could be in real legal jeopardy there. And if this good Samaritan were wrong about the circumstances, he could have found himself in legal jeopardy there. Don West: I think that's especially true when you are employing the defense of others, when you sort of step into the shoes of the other person. And there are certain scenarios that are clear. I remember a case in Florida where a good Samaritan came upon a deputy sheriff being brutally beaten by someone, another motorist, I guess. And he had a gun. He got out of his car, had the gun, and the officer said to him, "Shoot him. Shoot him." And of course there was no mistake at that point who the victim was, who the attacker was, and that in many regards, all of that ambiguity of what was going on was resolved. And I think he shot the guy. I believe that he did and certainly was not being prosecuted. Don West: So that kind of scenario made it especially clear, unless you have something that you've watched unfold from the beginning, there's certainly going to be subject to a misinterpreting what's going on. And that just makes you at greater risk. At the same time, this guy was brave enough to stop what he believed to be a very dangerous situation for somebody, because the other guy had a knife and was swinging at him. So to the extent that he was able to stop somebody from getting hurt, he was gutsy enough to do it. Fortunately, it turned out well for everybody. Shawn Vincent: And he had the judgment to not fire. And it would've been a different scenario if he had actually fired the weapon and hurt or killed somebody with it. Don West: Yeah. And thankfully he didn't. And thankfully he didn't need to. That that display was enough to make them stop. Had he displayed the gun, and the attack continued, then he would have had another set of considerations, and ultimately another decision to make, and thankfully that didn't happen. Shawn Vincent: Well, here's something that I can count on, is that in the next couple of weeks, there's going to be at least five more self-defense stories that pop up in the news. And we're always going to have something to talk about. But I think I've been really deeply influenced by my conversations with Bob O'Connor, the retired veteran career homicide detective that we both know. And he talks about judgment and mindset. And when we go through even some of these ridiculous cases like these women pulling out the gun at the school dance competition, I think just going through them and thinking about them in a critical way is a way to build that mindset, right? Because we don't know as concealed carriers, what circumstance we're going to find ourselves in when we have to make a life and death situation, if that ever happens. We're not going to know all these nuances, but I think the only way to be prepared for it is to have thought critically about the types of situations that can and do occur, and have that mindset going into it. Don West: I think that's very, very well said. A terrific observation, and I encourage our listeners to check out some of the work that Bob ... Some of the written work that Bob has done, submitted to CCW Safe. It's been posted, and the podcast that you did with him. I don't think it's been . . . Shawn Vincent: Yeah, by the time this one's released, that one will be up, so people can go back and hear that. We had a great conversation, not just about mindset, but also about you and his involvement in the George Zimmerman case. Don West: Yeah. Bob was the captain at the Sanford Police Department when the incident took place. Shawn, you said something about the mindset, but more importantly to me what caught my attention is, I think you were saying we really don't know how we might react in those situations, because we've either never been in them or never been in them with a gun. And we've never really been tried and tested, in terms of the triggers that we all have. Shawn Vincent: Sure. Not that trigger on the gun, but the triggers for our temper, or that spark our emotions. Don West: Yeah. That set us off, that make us crazy in any given situation. So thinking about that stuff, visualizing that stuff, hearing the bad things and good things that have come out of some of these stories, and I think helps us better understand how we might react and force us to think about it. Let me just add that depending on where you are, and where you get your concealed carry permit, there may be as little as only a couple of hours of training, maybe no live firing. And that, I think CCW Safe has in mind that no matter how much training you had to get the concealed carry permit, it's not enough. It's not enough to prepare yourself for these kinds of things. Don West: So the training is an ongoing process. The act of training with the operation of the firearm and the act of training with the strategies and tactics involved, and then of course, as we've talked about before, understanding the legal parameters of these. And frankly, we do some of this stuff because we want people to learn from other people's mistakes. And I think that's possible. I know I have already, just by talking to you about these things, I've looked at scenarios differently than I might have otherwise. And really focused on some of the legal boundaries, as Andrew Branca talks about it, rather than the emotional aspect of it. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. Well, I've ... I think we do this right, then people go into scary situations with a better mindset, more prepared, and we might just save a life from being needlessly taken, and save a solid citizen, and a responsible gun owner from facing maybe an unjust and life changing prosecution. That's the mission. Don West: Agreed. Shawn Vincent: Well Don, I really enjoyed it and we'll talk again real soon. Don West: That's great. Thanks Shawn. I enjoyed it as well, and looking forward to our next get together. Take care.

  Don West and Shawn Vincent explore a tragic road-rage case that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of both the defender and the aggressor. The case illustrates how, for concealed carriers, road-rage is a no-win scenario.   TRANSCRIPT:  Shawn Vincent: Hey there, Don. How's it going? Don West: Great, Shawn. Good to see you again. Shawn Vincent: It's good to see you. So often, we record these things when we're in our own nomadic offices. What do we call this thing that we're doing, where we can work out of our home sometimes, or we work out of a hotel room, we work out our rental car? Don West: Isn't technology remarkable in that sense for us who need to travel as part of the way we make a living, have the luxury of traveling as well so that when we're not traveling for work, but otherwise enjoying life, we can still do the things that are important from a professional standpoint, we can still have conversations with each other and others. We're no longer tethered to the desk. Shawn Vincent: Tethered to the desk, which is case in point. I don't have an office that I go to every day. I work from my home. I work from a hotel. Yeah. I work where I need to work, sometimes from the back porch of my house, and the weather's good enough. But today, we're in a library in Winter Park, Florida. I have to say I'm surprised at how noisy librarians are. Don West: We actually had to move the room. Shawn Vincent: We moved the room here next to the employee break lounge. The librarians wouldn't shut up. They're too noisy. But here we are. Don West: That's the beauty of it. Here we are in the same part of the country for the first time in quite a while. Shawn Vincent: It's been  months anyway. Yeah. Don West: We can find a local spot. We have portable equipment, and we have laptops and cell phones and lovelier microphones. Now, we have a broadcast studio. Shawn Vincent: That's right. Even if it's a slightly echoey room. But yeah. Here's what I want to talk about with you today. You've mentioned last time we spoke that you tried your first case that involved a violent crime before a jury about 30 years ago. Don West: Yeah. I've been thinking now probably early '80s. So we're talking probably '82, '83, in that range. I was working at the public defender's office in Seminole County, Florida, which turned out to be the same venue more than 30 years later for the George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin trial, which is kind of the backyard for Mark O'Mara and me for such a long, long time. My first self-defense case, lethal self-defense case to a jury was a local Seminole County prosecuted case. It was domestic in nature. My client was a woman who stabbed and killed her husband in self-defense, and it goes back that long ago. There've been a number of them since. They're all unique, even though there are common threads of course and common legal issues. Don West: Interestingly enough, in that case, there was a reversal on appeal because she was convicted of a lesser offense because of jury instructions. The court denied her the opportunity of the castle doctrine. Then on appeal, the appellate court said, no, she was in a home that she lived in. Even though they were estranged, and she was just there temporarily, it was still her house. So she had no duty to retreat, and then reversed, got a new trial, and the case resolved. Shawn Vincent: That's really interesting. So castle doctrine doesn't have to refer to only your primary residence if it's a home where you have a right to be. Don West: They were equal occupants. Shawn Vincent: Equal occupants. Yeah. Don West: That's right. Shawn Vincent: That's interesting. You're just as protected by castle doctrine at your beach house if you're lucky enough to have one as you are in your primary residence then. Don West: Yeah. It was interesting because one of the factual issues that led to that was that she had an opportunity to leave without re-engaging him and chose not to. The confrontation turned lethal, and she had been denied the defense basically of the castle doctrine. The jury was instructed she had a duty to retreat under the circumstances. Even though they didn't buy the prosecution argument that it was murder, she was still convicted of a lesser offense and sentenced to a prison sentence. So the case was appealed. We won on appeal, and the whole thing worked out in her favor at that point. But it was a good example of how one... We talk about so often how one- Shawn Vincent: About the nuances. Don West: ... little thing makes such a huge difference. Frankly, let's fast forward, how many years to the Marissa Alexander Case in Jacksonville? Shawn Vincent: You were talking about that. It made me think of Marissa Alexander situation. Don West: I hope we do a deep dive in that case at some point. But long story short is she was prosecuted for essentially firing a warning shot at an estranged... I don't know if they were still married, but it was an ex-relationship of sorts. She felt threatened and fired a gun, had lost, I believe, the self-defense immunity hearing, went to trial, was convicted and initially sentenced to I think 20 years in prison. Shawn Vincent: 20 years. Three 20-year sentences to be served consecutively because there was the husband or the estranged father, some children, and two children were present. So she fires one shot, which she called a warning shot that struck nobody, went into the wall and then to the ceiling and the room next to her. Angela Corey and her crew, who we've had experience with, decided that they'd charged her with attempted murder times three. Don West: Yeah. Not to get too far off-track, but in that case, she was convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term and won a reversal. I think out of all of that stuff that was so controversial and was so divisive, even within the legal community, she winds up I think getting a new trial because of a jury instruction issue. Don West: So she comes back. She gets a redo and gets some new lawyers and some maybe new prosecutors. But in any event, there's a resolution of the case that's favorable. But she spent at least some time in prison. I believe is a convicted felon even as a result of what turned out to be negotiated outside. Shawn Vincent: So I promise you we are going to do a deep dive into that case relatively soon. I also have some bad news for you, Don. 1982, '83 was way more than 30 years ago. Don West: Oh, Shawn. Say it isn't so. Shawn Vincent: So they get closer and then- Don West: Oh my goodness. I guess you're right. Shawn Vincent: 37, some years ago. You and I were talking one time, and he said, "A few years ago something happened." I said, "Is that an actual a few years ago, Don, or is that like the old man, 15 years ago actually, but it feels like just a few years ago?" Don West: That does feel just like a few years ago to me. I say 30 thinking that- Shawn Vincent: That's long enough. How could anything have happened 30 years ago that I can remember, right? I'm middle-aged now, which I'm starting to get into my head that... When I climb stairs, it becomes apparent to me that I'm middle-aged now. Or when I tell the same stories over and over again, which I'm prone to do. My kids know, I apologize. I'd probably told you this story before, and like, "Yeah, Daddy. You have a lot of stories that you tell over and over again. Mommy has one story that she tells over and over again." That's the difference that my kids have determined. Shawn Vincent: So I bring that up only because I think you've told this story before, and some avid listeners may have heard it. But because we're getting older and it's our prerogative, we're going to tell this story again. Because today we'll be talking about a road rage case. You told me about a self-defense case, a road rage case where you're quizzing potential jurors during jury selection and got a surprising answer. Don West: That's exactly right. I remember it clearly as well as I can remember anything, clearly. Shawn Vincent: Was it 30 years ago? Don West: At my advanced age. Yeah. It wasn't 30 because it was clearly... I think it was after the first one I was telling you. [inaudible 00:09:30] has long since gone beyond the public defender's office and full-time practice criminal defense laws, state and federal in private practice and the Orlando area and places beyond. But in any event, I had this jury trial, was a case that could not be resolved. My client was charged with second-degree murder, with the use of a firearm, which would have likely resulted in either a life sentence or such a long sentence that it would have effectively been the rest of his life. Don West: We picked a jury. We're picking a jury. The overview of the case, and I don't name names in these cases because these are people that are with us right now, somewhere maybe even in this community who as a result of this event were prosecuted, were facing lengthy prison sentence. By good luck, and I'd like to think some good lawyering and some favorable facts are no longer facing that, that they were acquitted. They got to live the rest of their life, and I see no reason to bring them back into it now. Don West: I can certainly swear to you that none of this is made up. It's part of the life experience of individuals that we know personally because we've been involved in their lives and the life of criminal defense lawyers and litigation consultants. But we were picking a jury, and obviously, one of the issues we want to know and explore with jurors is their attitude about firearms, the use of firearms, self-defense, even generally attitude about the second amendment and their views. Firearms, the use of firearms, licensed, unlicensed, possession of firearms has always been controversial. Don West: Fortunately, in Florida the lawyers have wide berth in personally questioning the jurors during the voir dire, some people pronounce it, the jury selection process. I was kind of humming along, talking to jurors, kind of in my own mind, selecting the ones I would like to keep if I could and mentally getting ready to challenge the ones I didn't think would be good for this case. The overview of the facts that my client and some friends had gone to a nightclub. My client had a gun. He left it in the car, as he should have, to go into the club and inside the club was being hassled by somebody. I never understood exactly why someone who may have had a connection to one of the other friends, but no big deal. Don West: Then they leave at the end of the night, go out into the parking area, and this guy shows up and starts harassing my client again. It gets a little bit physical. My client retreats to the car thinking that it's safe there, purposely trying not to engage them, and the guy's not content with letting it go and essentially attacks the car, start slamming into it, kicking the windows. Eventually, it got so frightening to my client. He felt so threatened and vulnerable. There was no place for him to go that, as he smashed the car one last time, he shot the gun, and tragically, it killed him. He was being prosecuted for second-degree murder. Don West: From a legal standpoint, my client was the passenger in the rear seat, could not control the car. The driver of the car wound up testifying that he was stuck in traffic. Everybody was leaving at that point. There was nowhere he could go- Shawn Vincent: Sure. Pinned in. Don West: ... to try to go away, pinned in. Whether it was good luck again or brilliant lawyering, I don't know. But before the trial was over, the driver actually testified that he was scared, and had he been my client, he would have done the same thing. Shawn Vincent: Sure. Out of reasonableness standard. Don West: Yeah. So back to the jury selection issue. I'm questioning jurors about their knowledge of firearms, whether they have guns at home or in their cars and how they feel about self-defense in general. I was talking to a juror who was very pro-gun. He had a lot of firearms. He was proud of it too, was an advocate for the Second Amendment and outspoken about it. I'm initially thinking this is pretty good stuff for me. This is a guy who starts for me defending my client from the right perspective. Then I wanted to get a little bit more information about his practice and views, especially when it comes to cars. Don West: So I'm talking with him, and I say, "Well, I know you have firearms at home, and you believe in the right to protect yourself and others. Do you have a gun in your car?" In Florida, you can have a gun in your car without a concealed carry permit if it's under certain circumstances. So people can have guns in their cars that don't otherwise not allowed to carry them concealed. I just assumed it would be true, and I said, "So when you're out in your car, do you have a gun? Do you keep it in your glove box or somewhere?" He goes, "Oh my goodness. No." Shawn Vincent: No. Don West: It threw me back. I couldn't believe. Here's the guy. I thought it was a softball question. I never expected “no.” So in jury selection, you actually should ask why or why not, questions you would never ask on cross-examination because you really- Shawn Vincent: Sure. But those sorts of conversations, you really bring up other people's opinions, right? Don West: You want to know what they think, right? Whether it's good or bad, you need to know what it is. So I say, "Why not?" He goes, "I can't trust myself. I have a quick fuse when I am in a difficult traffic situation, and somebody cuts me off or flips me off. I don't think I can keep myself from reaching for that gun and waving it around. God forbid that I should ever take it to the next step, but I purposely don't have a gun in my car because I can't trust myself not to use it when I'm so pissed as I get when I'm driving a car and some idiot cuts me off." Shawn Vincent: Wow. That's some remarkable self-awareness, right? Don West: It is. It is. To his credit, I guess, whatever works for you because we have encountered our own series of road rage cases, whether it's doing this kind of work or just in the cases that we've touched and in legal work to know how volatile and how deadly that stuff becomes sometimes for apparently no reason, at least no good reason. Shawn Vincent: We see these cases where inside the course of a minute, you can go from running errands to being in a gunfight. Don West: Yeah. People that have never known each other, never expected, never would have known each other, but for the circumstance that brings them together. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. Now, aside from more than 30 years as a criminal defense lawyer, you're at your national trial counsel for CCW Safe? Don West: Yes. Shawn Vincent: What does that mean? Don West: As national trial counsel for CCW safe, I see in some way or another, all of the cases involving our members that come to the company, all of the claims, I see them at some point. Most of the time, I take the phone call from the member who has just experienced or is currently even involved in a self-defense scenario to help identify the resources they need. I identify and retain counsel on their behalf. Oftentimes I'll go to the location where the incident took place, attend court proceedings and become involved in marshaling and monitoring and helping fund their defense. I even consult with their local counsel for strategy. In some cases I've had a lot of contact with the member through the process, discussing the case and even doing mock examinations, practice cross-examinations, this sort of trial preparation stuff that helps the members feel confident that they're able to communicate effectively with the court and with the jury. Shawn Vincent: Sure. There's a lot of other podcasts in the CCW Safe family of podcasts. Specifically, I'm a litigation consultant. I've had the great privilege to work with a lot of great attorneys on very interesting cases. I get to help pick juries from time to time. You and I have picked juries together before. I've been able to help you in voir dire. The focus of our podcast is to talk about the legal ramifications to a use of force incident, when somebody feels they need to use their weapon in justifiable self-defense, that next fight that we talk about. They've survived the first fight with the aggression that they faced, and now, there's this potential legal challenge to whether they're justified or not. So we look at these- Don West: We look at the broad spectrum of that from post-incident when the smoke has cleared. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. Now, how does the law look at that? Don West: Now, what happens? Yes. We hope by providing this kind of information and written stuff and communicating with the members even one-on-one, the first interaction with law enforcement, for example, and from that point forward, what to expect if the case is referred for prosecution? What happens if you're arrested? What to expect in court. How much it would cost, frankly, if you were funding it yourself. Fortunately, CCW Safe members don't pay anything for the cost of the legal defense should they be involved in a self-defense incident. Shawn Vincent: So now, as you're in your role as... trying because you've had a chance to talk to a lot of members. Don West: Yes. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. You've told me before that when we look at these road rage incidents, those are one of the most likely scenarios where concealed carriers could find themselves in a very difficult whole situation very quickly. Don West: I've been involved in road rage cases on behalf of CCW Safe where shots were fired, where people were prosecuted for that, again, to people that never knew each other, that somehow get involved in something that escalates to potential lethal violence. But a lot of it is the loss of emotional control that ends up from a legal standpoint in a brandishing or an assault, somebody that displays a weapon under circumstances that are as considered reckless or threatening and winds up in somebody getting arrested and being prosecuted. We see that, frankly, all too often. In my experience, it's the easiest way for people to wind up that are otherwise living normal lives in a potential lethal situation and often in a legal situation that results in being prosecuted for something. Shawn Vincent: Right. You're trying to specifically just about brandishing a weapon. You're in your car, things have gotten heated with somebody else. Maybe you feel threatened, maybe you're just angry, and you have a gun in the dashboard or in the center console, and you pull it out and show that you have it. Don West: Yes. Exactly. Right. We see more of those in a road rage context than under any other fact pattern that I can think of. Shawn Vincent: Kind of just lose their minds on the road. Don West: That's a great way of saying it. They just become crazy, don't they? Shawn Vincent: Yeah. Don West: Everyone listening, and I know I can give you half a dozen incidents myself that I remember that moment when something happened that took just driving down the road to the next level where I wanted to react. I did react emotionally, maybe by yelling or perhaps more gesturing. But to think how quickly that can go when two people are willing to engage, both people then feel offended and violated, and then it just climbs the ladder to the point that somebody takes- Shawn Vincent: They introduced a gun, and to the situation, they can get violent. Yeah. I'm pretty sure the first time my children ever heard the term “douchebag” was because of some sort of traffic incident that I was involved with. So let's look at our road rage case, right? This is going to be unique in the cases that we've looked at, in that, in this case, nobody was charged because everybody involved ended up dead. A lot of the cases- Don West: This is as tragic as any case we've talked about and is unnecessary as any case we ever talked about. Shawn Vincent: Right. A lot of the times, the worst case scenario in a case is that somebody is dead, and the shooter's determined to be unjustified even when there seemed to be some reason for them to have reasonable fear. So this case, we're going to go... This is Davie, Florida, so famous in Florida for being the first stage of ground state. We have a guy named Keith Byrne. He's a 40-year-old father of three. He's a Marine veteran, and he's driving a utility truck. He's on the phone with a friend, probably shouldn't be, and inadvertently cuts off another guy who's driving a blue BMW. It's 22-year-old Andre Sinclair. He's also a father. In fact, he's got the mother of his child and his child in his BMW. Shawn Vincent: They come to a red light. Now, Byrne reportedly rolled down his window and said, "My bad." This is what the friend of his who was on the phone with him testified to. So he says he hears, "My bad." So we think that Byrne's trying to apologize for cutting the guy off, and then he hears shots fired. What we learned from local reporting and from the law enforcement agency that investigated is that Sinclair gets out of his BMW. He's armed with a gun, and he approaches Byrne's truck. I think I remember hearing some suggestion that Sinclair fired first. Don West: Here's where I was confused, just for a second, as you were outlining those facts, because I had read at least one article on this. I think maybe Sinclair might even have been a passenger in the BMW. Shawn Vincent: That might be true. Don West: I think maybe his girlfriend was driving the car, and their child was in the car. Clearly, that Byrne cut him off and was apparently ready to acknowledge fault, I guess whatever traffic incident there was. So this even becomes a little more confusing and complicated. But let's assume all of that to be true, that Sinclair is the passenger in the BMW, his girlfriend drives, stops the car. Even under that scenario, Sinclair gets out of the vehicle to approach Byrne's utility truck. Byrne rolls the window down and by the account of the friend who overhears some of it on the phone call was preparing to or had already begun apologizing and accepting responsibility for whatever traffic incident took place. Shawn Vincent: Right. But what happens instead is there's an exchange of gunfire. Perhaps Sinclair fires first. Byrne returns fire. Byrne is struck in the chest. He dies in the seat of his utility vehicle. Sinclair is struck less critically, but nonetheless fatally. He's taken to the hospital, and he dies later. Now, the police come immediately, and they investigate this. One of the officers who does the PR for the law enforcement agency said that they would have, after a brief investigation, arrested Sinclair had he not died of his injuries. So from what we know, he's clearly the aggressor here and by that account, Byrne justified in returning fire. You get someone pulling a gun and approaching your vehicle, especially if they're shooting, that's as justified as you can get, right? Don West: Yeah. It may not even matter legally at that point who shot first. If Byrne is there in his truck, and he sees Sinclair approaching him, sees a weapon and sees Sinclair prepared to use it, you put all of that stuff together, and looks to me like an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death, the ability to use deadly force. I don't know what may have been said. This is another one. We don't know what happened. We only know the roughest outline because we don't know if Byrne saw Sinclair with the gun and reacted to that right or who fired first or whether Sinclair got the gun with the purpose of shooting Byrne as he got out of his car and approached him or if Byrne sees the gun, reacts to that, Sinclair reacts to Byrne's gun, who had reacted just . . . Shawn Vincent: Those are all those nuances that you've talked about, the fact that. . . We've looked at nine different cases where we followed them all the way through the court case right up to verdict and sometimes into appeal, and during that process, lots of details come out. Some of this stuff, we're only able to talk about what reporters who were there in the courtroom talked about. You and I know there's all sorts of other stuff that jurors saw and beyond that stuff that the lawyers fought to keep out from the case, right? Don West: Of course, yeah. Shawn Vincent: So you can thin slice these things to the most minute degree. So we're talking in broad terms here about these cases. But in this case, what I see is here's a guy who, in all accounts, was justified, this is Byrne, in using deadly force. What little good that does him now because he's dead. There's something that Sergeant Leone from the law enforcement agency said about road rage scenarios. If you find yourself in one, just leave the area, even if you have to turn on a different street, right? I think one of the four elements of self-defense that we talked about in those nine cases that went to trial that we examined, one of those elements is deescalation, right, and that when you're a concealed carrier, and you have the weapon that can end all confrontations, that you have a responsibility to avoid confrontations whenever you can. Shawn Vincent: We're talking about how angry people get in traffic and how quickly you said that these road rage instances are the only things we can go from zero to 100 in seconds, right? Don West: You lose your mind. Yeah. This is the first time that we're really talking about some of those actual nuances. But let's take a minute, even if it doesn't get us anywhere at the end. Let's take a minute just in our human experience and our human experience with road rage and our experience understanding human nature and stuff and just imagine a couple of ways that this could have played out. We know the end was tragic. Both people died. We can assume the worst, especially on Sinclair's part because he got out of the car with the gun. He clearly started it. But can't you imagine that Sinclair is angry because he got cut off? We don't know what Byrne may have done, whether there was other stuff said or done or what have you. Don West: Let's say Sinclair gets out with the gun being a jerk with the idea of just scaring the hell out of Byrne and saying, he gets out the gun and he wants to wave it at him and point him. He wants to brandish it. Not that he intends to shoot him at that point, but let's say he wants in his mind to teach him a lesson. Shawn Vincent: He doesn't know that this guy is a gun packing Marine veteran. He thinks he's only one with a gun, and- Don West: So he wants- Shawn Vincent: ... "I'm going to show him." Don West: Right. "I'll show him." So he gets out with the gun. He walks up to the car. Now Byrne's pretty confused. Here's a guy that he wants to apologize to for the traffic violation, and now he's coming at him with a gun. What is Byrne's natural response going to be to that? He has to think. He just has to think that Sinclair got out of the car with the gun to come up there and shoot him. It isn't likely statistically that that would happen. It's probably much more likely that he intended to scare him or just be a jerk. Shawn Vincent: But that's not a gamble anyone wants to take. Don West: No. He has to assume at that point. He got out of the gun for the purpose of walking up there and as stupid and ridiculous and as criminal as that is that that's a very possible outcome. So he has to get his gun, doesn't he, at that point to defend himself? Who knows that at that point Byrne doesn't see... I'm sorry, that Sinclair doesn't see Byrne's gun, and now it's two guys within a few feet of each other with guns, both of them feeling the other one's going to shoot them. In fact, that's what happened. Both guys are shooting, both guys die. Don West: I think all of that because Sinclair got out of the car with a gun under circumstances that could never ever warrant that kind of response. It was stupid to get out of the car even if he wanted to give Byrne a piece of his mind. He walks up there and yells at him and walks away. But as soon as he escalates it to the point that- Shawn Vincent: Sinclair, that is, brings the gun out. Yeah. Don West: Yeah. Sinclair escalates it to the point that Byrne thinks he's in a life-threatening situation. There's no place to go. Shawn Vincent: So essentially, it's mutually assured destruction, right? That you've got two people who are armed in a confrontation that happened with low context, right? They're not communicating. All of a sudden, the first attempt to communicate may have been seen as an escalation. You roll down your window. Maybe he's planning to get into it. That's a complication. Don West: That's a terrific point that, from Sinclair's perspective, as he approaches the vehicle, the window goes down, and he may very well have interpreted that as a willingness for Byrne to engage. Shawn Vincent: To increase the engagement. Don West: Right. Why would he think that, all of a sudden, Byrne was going to apologize, right? Shawn Vincent: Right. That doesn't seem the most likely. Don West: So that is a recipe for disaster. Shawn Vincent: Well, yeah. So as soon as the guns are introduced in that scenario, if both people are armed, you've just lit a fuse, right? It's almost- Don West: It's like the- Shawn Vincent: ... a point of no return here. Don West: It's like the two guys standing in a pool of gasoline each holding a match. I'm sure you've seen that poster somewhere, right? It's assured mutual destruction. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. So nobody's going to argue in this case that Byrne did anything wrong, right? Necessarily. He's certainly justified, and even the police are going to put all of the blame on Sinclair. If they both lived, Sinclair is the one that gets arrested and charged with murder or attempted murder if they both lived, right? Don West: Sure. Shawn Vincent: But that doesn't change the reality for Byrne that now that he's in this situation that this horrific result is most likely the one that's going to come across. Don West: Absolutely. Shawn Vincent: So what that means is if you're a concealed carrier, if you have a gun in your vehicle, then you want to avoid at all costs the confrontation that could potentially light that fuse and get you in a no-win shootout over whatever minor traffic violation that happened. Don West: You can in hindsight look back and try to pick some points in time where something different could have happened. This is maybe a once in 100 million scenario. At the same time, the only way that would have stopped it for sure was for Byrne not to engage even in an attempt to be pleasant about it. Shawn Vincent: Right. Even to go into a step further and just change course just to get away from the guy. Right? Even if he's going to a couple blocks in the wrong direction, just get disengaged completely because there's no way to apologize in that situation. Don West: I think if Byrne sees Sinclair get out of the car, I'm going to assume for a moment that they were both at the red light, so that Sinclair's car was legitimately behind. They weren't both pulled off the side of the road, stop, but that Byrne stopped at a red light and that Sinclair's girlfriend stopped behind him. But as soon as Byrne realizes Sinclair gets out, he has to run the light. He has to do something to physically get away because there is no good outcome at that point. He can't take the chance to engage for fear of exactly what happened. Shawn Vincent: Now, we talked about all the interactions that you have with CCW Safe members. I recall you talking about a member who shared a story with you about a road rage incident where he was able to disengage. Now, we're not going to use names or anything. But you remember the story where they ended up at a stop sign in a relatively rural place? Don West: Yes, yes. I do remember. I'll just kind of paint a very big overview of it. But there was the potential for a serious road rage incident. I don't know if it started with someone being cut off or some perceived injustice. As often happens, one person starts following the other closely. You've seen those people that run up, and tailgates are real close, or they pull out around and slow down in front of you. Shawn Vincent: Sure. I've heard about that. Don West: Just being aggravating and trying to get you to engage. This was a similar scenario, where the guy got in front of him and then stopped at a stop sign or a stoplight. The member ultimately who was behind him at this point saw him start to get out of the vehicle. Essentially, he was blocked in from the front, and I think, if I remember correctly, he either believed he was going to get out or didn't even want to take the chance that he might get out and engage face to face. So he did the one logical thing that he could do. Fortunately, under the circumstances, he put his car in reverse and he just simply drove back 75 or 100 yards and watched what happened. I think, yes, at that point, the guy got out of the car, looked at him, then got back in the car and left. Shawn Vincent: It's such a befuddling move at that point, and it was clearly a disengagement. It was as simple like, "I'm not messing with you. You win." Now- Don West: Now, at that point that if the other driver attempts to engage, he's got 100 yards to walk or 50 yards to walk where the other driver can then reassess and calculate and decide what to do at that point, what other kind of evasive action to take or what have you. I thought that was so smart. It's gutsy to me in the sense that you don't want to give in. You don't want to throw up your hands and surrender. You want to meet face to face the idiot who if not causing the problem to start with is reacting unfairly to you, blaming you for something that even if you did it wrong, it wasn't that bad. It certainly doesn't warrant that kind of disproportional reaction. All of a sudden, it just starts churning, and people do such incredibly foolish and dangerous things. Shawn Vincent: I know. I know. Some of the best marital advice I've ever gotten was the idea, do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy, right? So I’m quite content being wrong and happy frequently. I think in self-defense or something, somebody said, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be alive, or do you want to be right and have someone's blood on your hands from a conflict that could have been avoided?" Don West: Anytime you decide to engage somebody in one of those situations, you are making the assumption that they will act reasonably and rationally even under an emotional circumstance. That's a bad assumption because there's a lot of crazy volatile people in this world, and even otherwise pretty stable normal people have trigger points, and for some reason, it seems to be, driving is one of them that- Shawn Vincent: Yeah. At the beginning of this conversation, you were talking about how often you'll field phone calls where people are in trouble for brandishing while driving, right? So brandishing is in most places, I think in Florida, it's just true is considered an assault, right? If you brandish a weapon, that's a threat of deadly force. Don West: Yeah. It depends on where you are. Not all states have the crime of brandishing, but they all have some variation on assault. Assault is typically a pointed threat to someone. For example, if you point a gun at somebody, you're often guilty of the crime of aggravated assault. That would be assault without the intent to kill. It means non-justified assault, essentially. Shawn Vincent: As opposed to a defensive display. We've talked about that before, where you're neutralizing a threat by demonstrating that you have force and are willing to use it and -- Don West: When you would have the right to use force. So the reckless display or the aggravated assault is when you don't have the right to do that. Assault is often intentional and pointed in a lot of places, has a mandatory prison sentence that involves a firearm. Brandishing is more of a reckless kind of waving around, threatening, not necessarily pointed at somebody for the purpose of shooting them or even for the purpose of making them think you're going to. But it's kind of a reckless display and is still a criminal offense. It can be a serious criminal offense. Shawn Vincent: Here's why I bring this up. Don West: But non-justified. It's not brandishing if you did it in response to a legitimate bonafide threat. Shawn Vincent: Sure. Don West: The problem is a lot of times it's not. It's too much force. It's trying to win the argument to prove that you're the one who's capable of using force. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. So here's why I bring that up. I'm thinking about this case. We talked about, way some time ago, Indiana, south of Indianapolis in a rural community. We have two neighbors, one of them is a firefighter, and the other one is this crazy-haired wild guy. You know Laura Dern's father? What's his name, that actor? Don West: Bruce? Bruce Dern. Shawn Vincent: Bruce Dern. Picture Bruce Dern with his hair all crazy, acting crazy like Bruce Dern does. This is his neighbor. Apparently, they'd been at it for years. There's a fence dividing their property, the firefighters out working in his yard. He's got a security camera out there, full-color security camera recording for some reason, maybe because he's had problems with his neighbor before, right? So the neighbors there. They get at it. I don't know if you can hear what they're saying, but they're shouting at each other. This Bruce Dern neighbor, he's on his riding mower, and they exchange words. I think there's finger flicking exchanged. Then the lawnmower goes off frame, right? Then it comes back on frame. The Bruce Dern character on the mower picks up this revolver. He puts it in the air, and he shakes it. Kind of there's waves that like, "Hey, asshole. I've got a gun." Shawn Vincent: Well, his neighbor, when he does garden work apparently is carrying his pistol that's loaded with 16 rounds, and he pulls it out and just unloads the whole thing on this guy. Couple of rounds hit him, and he falls off. The rest of the rounds hit the lawnmower. Miraculously, the neighbor stands up, walks back inside and calls for help, and he dies in his house. But all this is to say that brandishing may be illegal but is also the best way to get yourself shot. Don West: Oh, sure. Shawn Vincent: Right? Let's imagine in this case that Sinclair didn't have any intention to murder Byrne for cutting him off, but was trying to most likely really be the big shot here, right, by introducing the gun into it. You don't know who's carrying and who's not. I think Sinclair assumed Byrne didn't have a gun and that he had no control of this situation. Don West: I think that's highly more probable than that Sinclair had gotten out of the vehicle with the intent of shooting him. I think you're right. He lost control, and all hell broke loose. It's interesting when we're talking about brandishing because, picture this scenario if you would. We talk about things that are really a bad idea. But they aren't necessarily against the law. Picture yourself in a parking lot, and two people are vying for a parking space. One of them sneaks in and grabs it, and you're angry because by all rights, that was your spot. Shawn Vincent: He unclaimed it. Don West: Yeah. You had been waiting for it, and this guy sneaks right in front of you, and you pull right behind him, and you get out of your car and walk up to this guy's window to give him a piece of your mind. That's not illegal. You can cuss out somebody. You can yell at him. You can go up there and criticize his driving and say, "You low life, what a lousy thing to do? I hope your kids don't see what kind of a ..." Shawn Vincent: S.O.B. you are. Yeah. Don West: Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a free exchange of ideas. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. Ideas. Don West: Okay. But if the guy behind the wheel, and if the guy doesn't threaten him, if he doesn't raise a hand, if he doesn't do anything other than yell at him, you don't have the right to use force in response to that. You can't hit him because he thinks you're a lousy driver. Shawn Vincent: Meaning you the driver of his car. You can't- Don West: Yeah. You can't reach into your glove box or on your seat and raise a gun to point out to him because you don't like what he says. Shawn Vincent: Because he's in your window giving you a piece of his mind. Don West: A lot of this stuff I think starts out even like that. A guy that's a bit of a hothead but not necessarily intending any harm or any violence and just- Shawn Vincent: Not necessarily wrong about the traffic, right? Don West: ... puts themselves in a situation where it becomes volatile, not intending that it will ever go anymore. But they just want to vent. They want you to know for sure what a jerk you are, and then one little thing compounds, and another little thing. Pretty soon, somebody feels a little bit threatened. Then, in response, to the other person feels threatened. Then, pretty soon, either it escalates to violence, and the person who hits first is wrong, they're committing a crime, or the person that raises the gun has now introduced lethal force into what's otherwise a non-self-defense scenario and is guilty of a crime. Shawn Vincent: So this makes me- Don West: That is brandishing. Shawn Vincent: This makes me think of the Ronald Gasser case. Don West: Wow, sure. Shawn Vincent: So we got to- Don West: What a road rage case that is. Shawn Vincent: ... New Orleans. It's Ronald Gasser. So he doesn't know that this guy that he cut off is Joe McKnight, a former Jets player, a local football hero who made good. Don West: And the son of one of the sheriff- Shawn Vincent: I don't recall that detail. Don West: I may be mistaken by that, I apologize. I thought even his family may even have been connected to law enforcement. Shawn Vincent: He's a local hero. But they didn't arrest Gasser originally. There was a lot of pressure to make an arrest. There is a racial thing too. Gasser's white, McKnight's black. The community was upset when there wasn't an arrest immediately. But notwithstanding, Gasser cuts off McKnight. There's a several mile, what the law enforcement described as a tit-for-tat road rage incident. They're cutting each other off and driving. People thought they were drag racing down. They had security cameras from multiple businesses showing them going till at least a couple of miles later. They come to an intersection where there's cars behind them. There's no room to navigate anymore. This scenario, no one's going to back up 100 yards. Right? Don West: Sure. Shawn Vincent: What we know is that McKnight gets out of his car and comes over to Gasser's vehicle whose window is down. There's at least one witness who suggests that Gasser said, "No, you come here." As in they were engaging with each other. McKnight comes to Gasser, leans into the window of the vehicle, meaning his hands, forearms, crossed the threshold of Gasser's rolled down driver's window. That's when Gasser says he felt threatened. He had a gun that he had already pulled out on a seat. He fires three times. McKnight dies. Gasser's eventually arrested. Eventually found guilty of second-degree murder. I think he just lost his last appeal. Don West: He has a substantial prison sentence as a result of it, I think. Shawn Vincent: Yeah, at least 17 years. Yeah. So McKnight wasn't armed. We know that actually there was a gun in the vehicle that he was in. He didn't bring it out with him. But this encounter, I don't know if Gasser was trying to apologize, like Byrne was in this scenario that we talked about earlier, but you've got somebody coming up to your window. You're penned in in traffic. You're strapped in with a seatbelt. You're very vulnerable. It's a scary situation. But- Don West: But apparently, Gasser rolled the window down. There's no evidence that McKnight smashed the window. Correct? I think what was really in dispute was what McKnight's intentions were, even if he put his hands on the window frame of the door. Was that a threatening gesture, or was he just sort of resting there as he leaned in to give Gasser a piece of his mind. Shawn Vincent: The appellate court just decided that that was not an aggressive gesture. Right? That that didn't because- Don West: So you could not respond to with force. Shawn Vincent: That's right. Because in Louisiana, they actually have on the books a law where crossing that threshold could open the door to a use of force incident, like a breaking and entry kind of thing, right? You've told me before that reaching into someone's vehicle in some places can be considered a felony, right? Don West: A very serious felony. If you were to reach through an open window and hit somebody in the face that could under Florida law be considered burglary of a conveyance with an assault or with a battery, which could make it a very, very serious felony, as opposed to a misdemeanor if you just happen to hit somebody -- a battery. When you combine that with penetrating the space of the vehicle, it's like reaching through a window of a house and hitting somebody. It's a protected space. So the crime is additional crimes and enhanced crime. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. But if you rolled the window down, or if you open the door, you're changing the scenario a little bit, aren't you? As- Don West: Yeah. It's an invitation. It's consent of burglary has to be nonconsensual. So you can't open the door of your house or your car, invite someone in and then claim that they burglarized your place. If you invite somebody into your house, and then you get into a fight with them, and they hit you, that doesn't make it a burglary. Shawn Vincent: Right. So we did the case out of Dearborn, Michigan, Ted Wafer case, where he shot Renisha McBride, where there's that threshold where the big mistake was that Ted Wafer opened the door in the middle of the night to a person who was pounding on it. He thought they were trying to break in, but you don't open the door for someone who's trying to break in, is the lesson there. So I think the lesson here, where we're always looking for the lesson for the concealed carriers in these cases that we look at, and the lesson here is you don't roll down your window in a road rage incident. I don't think anything can ever good come of it. It's an escalation. It's an invitation. Don West: You made a great comment when we were talking about what Byrne did obviously in an attempt to begin accepting responsibility and apologizing how that could be misconstrued as a willingness to further engage and is not going to be assumed as being a friendly gesture. I think that it's going to be assumed as enhancing the level of hostility, frankly, misinterpreted so easily. Shawn Vincent: So what I've written about this case, I basically called road rage a no-win situation for a concealed carrier. I think that the end, the only way to avoid it is to go. Don West: Even if you're right. Even if it's the other guy's fault. Shawn Vincent: Especially if you're right. Yeah. Just go the other way. Get out of the way. Drive conspicuously in the opposite direction to send the signal that you're not going to engage, that it's over, and then only if they've relentlessly followed you- Don West: I made the comment that Byrne should have run the red light. I don't mean literally run the red light, but maybe- Shawn Vincent: If it were safe for him to do so- Don West: Maybe if- Shawn Vincent: ... or to turn right or to ... Don West: Whatever it took for him to improve his position of safety rather than exposing himself to the risk of not knowing what Sinclair had in mind as he was approaching his vehicle. Frankly, if he got a glimpse of the gun, he would have to assume the worst at that point. Shawn Vincent: That sounds like a good last word on this case. Always a pleasure to chat with you, Don. Don West: We don't always know where we're going, but we eventually get there, and- Shawn Vincent: That's true about every place. Don West: I enjoy these conversations greatly. I think that sometimes we may cover the same ground, but it's slightly from a different perspective, maybe from someone else's eyes as opposed to the way we first talk about it. I have to think that this stuff isn't hard, but that doesn't... It's not complicated, but that doesn't make it easy, I guess. It takes a lot of thinking and visualizing and frankly being very, very conservative in how you deal with people. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. You approached me with the opportunity to work with CCW Safe and tell some of these stories, right, to communicate to the members some of the benefit of the experience that we've had together and what we- Don West: Sure. That's right. Shawn Vincent: ... see from here. I was excited about the opportunity because I believe in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the right to defend yourself. But I've seen, through my work, so many people get it wrong and people I think should be free go to jail for the rest of their lives because I don't think they had the imagination to understand what would happen to them after the fact. Most defendants that I've had a chance to work with don't even understand how a trial unfolds. When they pulled the trigger, they had no concept of all the legal nuances that they would face for doing something that they felt and had felt for a long time they were justified in doing. Shawn Vincent: So like you say, it's difficult, but it's not complicated. I think really what we're trying to do is open people's imaginations as to how these things actually play out, how the aftermath of these things actually unfold in real life through stories that we find from people who've gone through them. Don West: I think we learn by that. I know that when I used to study for a test, it was always good for me to take practice tests to put myself in a similar situation. That was usually more helpful to me in figuring out how to pass the test. I was going to take than it was just studying the material in a vacuum, actually looking at it in -- Shawn Vincent: What's the practical application that you're going to be facing -- Don West: Exactly. I think we do that a little bit. I think every time we expose people to the things that we've learned, that we've been exposed to by looking at this stuff and having experienced it, that we create an opportunity for people to connect with the information that they might not connect with if they just read a pamphlet or read a book on self-defense law. So that's -- Shawn Vincent: There you go. Don West: ... enjoyable. As always, thank you. Shawn Vincent: Thanks for talking. Don West: Look forward to the next time we get together in person or across the country. Shawn Vincent: Or through the powers of technology. Don West: You bet that, Shawn. Shawn Vincent: Don, take care.

Mark Steyn, International best selling author and host of The Mark Steyn Show joins Alex to discuss.

Brandishing a dodgy video camera and capturing exclusive video for the Dark Dark Individuals(Patrons), Jordy and Ed C. are back in the D.D.Room! This week's episode boasts an assortment of topics; some falling under the umbrella of true crime, while others venture out into the rain. First, Ed C. informs about the wild animals that have become his pets by infringing on his property(3:18). Next, the hosts take a deep dive off of Mt. Everest, discussing 2019's particularly deadly climbing season(7:00). This discussion leads Jordy to question the immorality of personal wealth(28:05) and the hosts call Financial Expert Brian to help them come up with an answer(38:31). The episode ends with some true crime current events: a young woman faces a capital murder charge after she used the promise of sex to lure a man to his death(48:51); a dozen schoolgirls were attacked by a knife-wielding madman at a bus stop in Kawasaki, Japan(57:40) and R. Kelly just can't stop racking up counts of sexual abuse(01:04:48)! * To support Dark Dark World: http://www.patreon.com/darkdarkworld * Twitter: @darkworldpod * Instagram: @darkdarkworldpodcast * Facebook: @dark dark world podcast * Email: darkworldpod@gmail.com * Thank you for listening! * 

can u draw trump, brandishing rake, riding air tanker over w

Do you ever feel nervous and awkward in front of the camera? Do you find yourself wondering how actors and actresses communicate so easily and effortlessly? Then you’ll want to stay tuned for this week’s episode of Communicator. On today’s show, I chat with Natasha Zuvela about video marketing and the art of being your best self in-person and on-camera.Since her first gig at MTV Australia and Europe, where she hosted the #1 rated MTV show for 3 years straight—reaching over 60 million viewers—Natasha’s been helping clients transform their businesses, and their feelings of self-worth, through her company, Video Mastery. Natasha and I cover everything from persona to charisma and the magic that happens when the camera starts rolling.We touched on many other topics as well, including:What it takes to stand out from the competition on-cameraHow to channel your most charismatic personaHow your self-confidence and self-worth can skyrocket overnightNatasha’s strategy for growth and achieving successWhy you should be looking at yourself on cameraThe secret to moving past your deepest and darkest fears Links:Video MasteryNatasha Zuvela’s Twitter

Tom talks about the consequences of road rage and brandishing a gun, and using your training to avoid conflict. Tom Gresham's Gun Talk®, 2.11.18 Hour 1

1.18 pours over the '17 all-star selections (0:40), brandishes with alacrity an obtuse argument about fantasy vocabulary (2:25), checks the pulse of pre-season stolen base analysis (5:55), drinks from the game logs fire hose (18:16), gut checks Harry Potter primary source rankings (29:20), and wraps with a poky review (31:49).

We finally got around to digging up Shakespeare, and how better to break him in than with his earlier digging up of a Roman dignitary? Brandishing the knives: Allison Page, Michael Howley, Rebecca Rubenstein, Jennifer Dronsky, OJ Patterson, and Ms. P. Life imitating art note: this took place in the same hour the GOP was measuring its weens in a nationally televised debate.

Abraham and Matt talk about faith... its virtues and the non-virtues. They consider the irony of hundreds of Islamic worshipers being trampled to death in Mecca. They also look at the Biblical admonitions to have faith in order to know God and the different choices of faith to live.

Prolific and amazing, Pat Simmons' upcoming release No Easy Catch is just one of the many things we'll be discussing tonight! Excerpt: Chapter 1 excerpt February 2014     St. Louis Cardinals baseball outfielder Rahn Maxwell had made some wrong turns in life—women and money, to name a few—but this wrong turn could prove deadly if the pair of blinding headlights racing toward him didn't slow down. He had just left a nightclub in downtown St. Louis, where he had met some friends. A construction sign had instructed him to detour off Interstate 64, and now his GPS attempted to recalculate. The darkness around him was thick as fog. “Turn around when possible,” his GPS kept advising, as if it sensed danger. That would be a good idea, but at the moment, he had a more pressing issue. Since there wasn't time for Rahn to get out of harm's way, with a car speeding behind him, he braced for impact. Seconds later, the anticipated crash never occurred. An old Camaro shrieked to a halt alongside his pearl gray Mercedes-Benz G550 SUV, blocking his exit. Rahn experienced a bad gut feeling. The front passenger window of the car descended, and a dark-skinned man wearing dark glasses snarled at him. Brandishing some type of machine gun, he ordered Rahn to lower his window. Great! And he had just declined the dealer's recommendation of armor-plated protection for his luxury vehicle. Now, Rahn wished he had followed his advice. How come hindsight couldn't be foresight?

Driven by a relentless passion for electronic music from across the musical spectrum, Mathieu Josso a.k.a M.Mat, has, of recent, become an inimitable stronghold for the Indian house and techno scene. Leading the underground Mumbai based collective Bhavishyavani Future Soundz, he has over the years headed events across the country with artists such as Laurent Garnier, Mathew Jonson, Chloe, dOP, DJ Koze, Dixon and Cobblestone Jazz - continuously touring some of the most exciting acts ever to have played India to venues across Mumbai - and that's why we like him. His time as one of the country's movers and shakers actually traces back to the early '00s, but it's his recent role as one of head honcho's and resident DJ's of the BFS collective that has catapulted him to another level. Brandishing him as a musical entity all by himself. Originally from France - and now spending most of his time in Mumbai, Josso is a regular fixture behind the decks - and if we were to be honest - has been meaning to get us this mix for a very very long time. Running for just over an hour, it kick starts with Uffe's lovely roller 'When The Sun Rose' - gently pushing into tracks such as 'Magico Disco' from Margot polishing off with likes of Die Vogel's 'Mesmerize', truly showcasing his ability not only as a DJ but as a selector of varied dynamic ranges within a very consistent and playful tempo. He'll be playing Magnetic Fields Festival alongside long time collaborator Charlee in an festival exclusive B2B format - and we're pretty sure it's going to be a landmark performance, representing everything there is to know about house, disco, techno and electro - both old and new. Well, maybe not. But you get the idea. "This mix was recorded in one go without touch up as a condensed version of a mix I would do in a longer club night exploring sound around disco, house, techno, electro, old, new, well known and obscure tracks. Probably best heard at an after party." - M.Mat For a tracklist and further info, head over here: http://www.thewildcity.com/EN/music.xhtml/article/4760-wild-city-066-mmat

Johnny B, Weingarten, and Murillo hunker down for an extra long episode! They discuss 3-ways, a JB drunken flashback story, Fantasy Football recap, Top 10 Florida criminals, the word "Brandishing", shitty British accents, cookies, and JB's phone call with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. There's other stuff too.

Learn about the first book in the Cowboys Royale miniseries, which features royal heroes and one royal heroine. Rita Herron crafts a tale of intrigue, deception, danger and romance.

These Milwaukee-based seasoned veterans blend Celtic, Blues, Americana, Shanty, Jazz, Creole, Folk, Art-Rock, Reggae, Comedy and original songs into something that can only be described as “eclectic acoustic.” Brandishing an impressive arsenal of musical instruments (resonator guitar, mandolin, ukulele, fiddle, pennywhistle, squeeze box, flute, harmonica, doumbek, djembe, and bodhran - just to name a few) they bring new life to tales of old, old sounds to tales of today, and twisted takes on tales never meant to be told. waterstreetbridge.com

THIS WEEK'S PODCAST TRANSCRIPT: 1861: the notorious countess Lola Montez dies in New York; 1899: a small boy defends himself in a San Francisco courtroom. January 17, 1861 Countess Lola Montez -- in Memorium As was undoubtedly marked on your calendar, San Francisco's patron saint Emperor Norton died last week, January 7, 1880. But his was not the only January passing worthy of note. Ten days later (and nineteen years earlier), we lost perhaps the most notorious personage ever to grace the streets of our fair city. I speak, of course, of Countess Lola Montez . Yes, that's the one -- "whatever Lola wants, Lola gets". You already know Lola's story, of course. You don't? The breathtakingly gorgeous Irish peasant girl with the soul of a grifter and the heart of a despot? How she -- with a few sexy dance steps, a fraudulent back story involving Spanish noble blood and the claim of Lord Byron as her father -- turned Europe upside down and provoked a revolution in Bavaria? Still doesn't ring a bell, hmm? Well, Lola's whole story is a little too large for this space. She'd already lived about three lifetimes' worth of adventure -- and burned through romances with personalities from King Ludwig the First to Sam Brannan -- before conquering Gold Rush-era San Francisco with her scandalous "Spider Dance". If you missed the Sparkletack podcast about this amazing character, you might want to rectify that little omission. After her European escapades, Lola found that freewheeling San Francisco suited her tempestuous eccentricity to a T. Brandishing the title of "Countess" -- a Bavarian souvenir -- she drank and caroused and became the absolute center of the young city's attention. It's said that men would come pouring out of Barbary Coast saloons to gawk at the raven-haired vision sashaying through the mud with a pair of greyhounds at her heels, a white cockatoo perched on one shoulder, and a cigar cocked jauntily from her lips ... and do I even need to mention her pet grizzly bears? read on ...