 At a major, the ruling that everybody was, everybody was waiting for the Chauvin, the policeman, who killed, who called George Floyd. And, you know, was today found guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder. And I think was a second-degree manslaughter, although it's kind of weird that, you know, I think, second-degree murder covered it all. It's kind of weird that you have to kind of, I think they charged him with all of them. Just in case he didn't get the guilty, they didn't get the guilty verdict on second-degree murder, they hoped to get the guilty verdict on one of the others, so they charged him on all of them with the hope that one of them would stick. And of course, if he's guilty of the second-degree murder, then all the others follow because second-degree murder, in a sense, includes the standards for all the previous ones as well. So it's not surprising that once they got a guilty verdict on the first, that they would get a guilty verdict on all of them. Let's see, what was I looking for? Yeah, I was looking for kind of that. I was interested in the differences between first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and so on. So here's something I found in one of these legal, it's not a $3,000 Super Chat match. My goal is to raise $3,000, and the first $1,000 would be matched by John. So nobody's matched the other $2,000. If somebody wants to jump in and agree to match the whole $3,000 or the extra $2,000 above John's $1,000, then we'll have a $3,000 match. I don't want to, I don't want to, is Hutzpah an anti-concept? No, Hutzpah is an actual, actual concept, and Bernie Madoff did not have Hutzpah. He just had, he was just an idiot. So I thought, you know, explaining a little bit about the differences between these would be helpful. So first-degree murder, I think we all know, it usually falls into one of the following two categories. First-degree murder is either premeditated intentional killing of somebody. But intentional killing that was, there was kind of in advance, and it was thought through. So if you just get angry, if it's an act of passion in the moment, that does not count as first-degree murder, usually. It has to be premeditated and intentional, or felony murder. The felony murder is you murder somebody in the act of committing a felony. So let's say you're robbing a store, and a gun accident goes off and you kill the clerk, or you get really, you get into a fight with the clerk and you kill him. That's first-degree murder because you're already committing a felony, and the murder happened in the context of that felony, so that all counts as first-degree murder. I think it's clear that in this case there was no grounds to charge Chauvin, the policeman, with a first-degree murder. What is second-degree murder? Second-degree murder is generally either an unplanned intentional killing, that is, you're reacting in the heat of the moment when angry. You get all passionate, excited, you're pissed off, you really, and you can't control yourself and you pull the trigger. That would be second-degree murder, or a death caused by a reckless disregard for human life. So a death caused through your action, it wasn't premeditated, it wasn't necessarily in the heat of passion, you would say, but it was reckless. There's plenty of reason to believe that you could have stopped yourself from doing what you did and you didn't. So you were just a reckless disregard for human life, and I think at the end of the day that is probably what Chauvin was convicted under. It wasn't he was angry and he intentionally killed him, but I think it was under the idea that it was as a reckless disregard for human life. That he should have known that what he was doing was killing George Floyd. It wasn't necessary for his own self-defense, he was trying to subdue, but it got to the point where it was recklessly disregarding George Floyd himself. Said he couldn't breathe, bystander said, take, you know, you're killing him, he can't breathe, he paid no attention, he kept the foot on the guy's neck for nine minutes. And that is considered, that would be considered in a context reckless disregard for human life, because he should have known that what he was doing was killing him and there was no reason to kill him. That is, it wasn't an issue of self-defense to kill him. So the difference between first and second degree murder is certainly intentionality, and the mindset, the mindset of the killer, right? Was it intentional, or was it, it wasn't planned, was it unplanned, was it intentional, was it just reckless, what actually brought about the actual killing? Third degree murder, or manslaughter, is an unplanned, unintentional killing, so an accident basically, that is not part of another felony. And here I think this is why they convicted him of, this is why they convicted him of manslaughter as well, because it kind of qualifies as unintentional. He didn't intend to kill him, but in this, it says it doesn't rise to the level of reckless disregard for human life, but you still, you know, it's still kind of an accident, it's something you didn't, you weren't reckless, you didn't intend, right? So it says here, a person committing third degree murder still shows ill will toward someone else by harming them, but doesn't intend to kill them, but does kind of accidentally kill them. Third degree murder charges actually only exist in three states, Pennsylvania, Florida, Minnesota, I think in this case it wasn't third degree murder, it was a second degree manslaughter, right? So I think manslaughter in Minnesota kind of overlaps with third degree murder in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Minnesota. So those are kind of the standards of prosecution, this is what they're going after Chauvin for, and what the court, what the jury convicted him of is second degree murder, that is, he acted in reckless disregard of human life. It convicted him of manslaughter, which is basically, you know, he killed somebody. I think again, it's superfluous, once you convict of second degree murder for all the rest, they charge you with all the rest in order to cover their asses so that if one, if the jury doesn't convict you of the one, they might convict you of the other. All right, let's see. So in this case, you know, we all saw the video, we saw some testimony, I didn't follow the trial that closely, it didn't seem the trial itself didn't seem really that interesting. I think the evidence was, you know, some of the arguments that we heard before the trial about why George Floyd died seemed to have been refuted by the prosecution, it didn't seem like he died because of drugs, or from other things, it seems like Chauvin really did kill him. And there was some conflicting evidence in terms of the police, in terms of whether he followed procedure, didn't follow procedure, but Minnesota police from different ranks of the police all testified that he had in a sense, recklessly disregarded human life, that he was not in the right in doing what he did and he should bear the consequences of his actions. You know, there was nothing in the trial that would lead, I think, anybody strongly to think that a jury would find him innocent. There was some debate about whether it would be second degree murder or third degree murder under Minnesota law, but you know, a reckless disregard for human life is pretty broad and you can see that nine minutes is a long time, being handcuffed on the ground, white as a knee have to be on your neck, seemed pretty reasonable that that was reckless disregard of human life, particularly given all the shouting and all the people arguing that the guy was, you were going to kill him and there was no reason. So overall, I really don't have any problem with the verdict, it seems like a reasonable verdict to me. Again, I didn't follow the trial minute by minute. If I was on the jury, maybe I'd think differently, but from everything I could tell, this was not that difficult of a case. I think what's much more interesting about this trial is everything that's going on around it, everything that happened around it. Complete politicization of our legal system, the fact, the disgraceful fact that before the verdict came out, politicians, democratic politicians, particularly one whose name slits my mind right now, I know she's from California, politicizing, the politicization, is that a word, politicization? Hold on one second. I had some notes of my laptop that I forgot to transfer to my computer that I use for this. So let me just make seem waters. Thank you. But let me just get this so I have it. But yes, so my seem waters comes out and says basically yesterday, I think it was yesterday. She says, or did it before yesterday, she says basically, if you don't convict, we're going to stay in the streets, we're going to demonstrate. We might write it and we might do more. In other words, a representative of the United States government of the of the of the legislative branch of the US government threatens the judicial branch of the US government. That if the verdict is not a verdict that she is happy with, she, a member of the legislature will promote basically insurrection, the abandonment of the rule of law, the negation of a jury trial, and that there would be she would actively promote rioting, the destruction of property, the destruction and a complete negation of any rule of law. This is this is a member of the House of Representatives, somebody who's supposed to be a representative of the US government, somebody who's supposed to be acting in the name of the law. The judge in a case actually said that given that statement by Maxime Waters, that the defense would probably have a good case to take this case on a peer to appeal this case on the basis of the jury was tainted, because Maxime Waters basically threatened the jury. It's truly unbelievable. She went out and threatened a jury, just in case, and try to basically influence how they voted. It's completely grounds for an appeal. I don't know if the appeal will work. I don't know the exact legality of these things, how it exactly works. But, you know, I think it would be reasonable for an appeal to be filed on this basis. The jury in a sense has been threatened and tampered with. It is absolutely absurd. And it doesn't even matter in terms of the jury itself and the children of the trial itself. The idea that again, a representative of the House of Representatives were threatened riots if they didn't get their way. And I think there was a motion in the House to reprimand her. It failed on complete party line vote, which is pathetic. Republicans are pathetic, but Democrats, God are they pathetic? I mean, you think that some Democrats out there would agree that what she said should constitute a reprimand? Unfortunately, no. Every single Democrat voted against reprimanding her for the censuring her for what she said. But it didn't end there. A little before the verdict came out, I think earlier today, earlier today before the verdict had come, but everybody knew the verdict was going to come out now. Now granted that by this point, the jury had been sequestered. So this, you could argue, is not an attempt to influence the jury because the jury didn't hear this, supposedly, if you believe they were really sequestered. They were isolated in deciding the trial. I don't understand why the jury wasn't sequestered from the beginning, from the beginning, given the notoriety of the trial, given the political pressure, given the political implications, given everything that surrounded this trial. The jury should have been sequestered from day one, from day one. It was only sequestered during deliberations that is yesterday and today. So the jury heard what Maxine Waters said. They didn't hear what our great President Biden said today. This reminds me of the kind of criticism I used to lay at Trump. But this is just as bad if not worse. Here's what Biden said this morning. I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. If you, Mr. President, followed the trial, evaluated all the evidence, heard all the testimony, and are you now making a claim of fact based on all the evidence that was available to the jurors that you know what you would vote in terms of a verdict? No, I'm sure none of that is true. You know what you think the verdict should be. You know what politically the verdict should be. But for President, the President of the United States, not to wait until a jury makes a decision, but to pray the verdict is the right one because that's the right one. You think ignoring again the rule of law, the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty according to U.S. law, that Chauvin, like him or not, hate him or not, was innocent until the jury declared him guilty. It's just pathetic. Now, again, this is the kind of thing Trump did all the time, intervening in legal matters, intervening as president and things that the executive branch should never intervene in. And look, this is, these are precedents. Every president is going to do more and more and more and more of this. Now, I'm not saying you cannot have a view as a private citizen, but then it's incumbent of you if you're going to make public statements. That's why I'm not making a big deal out of this. You would need, you would need to make a public statement. Thank you, Wes. That's very generous. You would need to make a, you would need to listen to all the testimony. You remember Leonard Peacock, I don't know how many of you remember this, but Leonard Peacock after the OJ Simpson trial did an amazing show, an amazing show, really on epistemology, showing how, you know, reality, a rational epistemology reason, facts were all ignored in the OJ Simpson trial and that the verdict had nothing to do with the evidence. Now, I don't think that's what happened here, but that's clearly what happened in the OJ Simpson trial, but Leonard in order to do that, literally listened to all the testimony for days and days and days, analyzed it and came to conclusion as if he was a jury member based on the facts. And it was one of the best shows he'd ever done. I mean, it was just a magnificent example of integration and a use of an objectivist epistemology to analyze a court case and to show the injustice and horror of the way the jury just ignored facts, evidence, reality. Again, no evidence that that has actually happened here. The idea that a president has an opinion is praying for, has a side, his side versus other people's side, a side in a court case in front of a jury and expresses that publicly is again, despicable. There's a separation of powers. He is not a legal expert. He is not a criminal law expert. And I doubt that he listened to every one of those. What if the jury had decided that he was not guilty of second degree murder, which would have been, I think, not crazy, not crazy. The jury didn't ignore the Florida autopsy report. They weighed the various experts' interpretation of the Florida autopsy report, and they agreed with some and disagreed with others. It was not clear cut in terms of the expert witnesses that were testifying that he had died. You know, it seemed like it was clear cut from most of the expert witnesses, medical expert witnesses, that he died from the knee and didn't die for the drugs. Again, I'm not a medical expert, but that's what I think the prosecution spent most a huge amount of time trying to prove that that's what exactly happened. Again, the political issue here is what interests me. It's that a president of the United States now intervenes in criminal law because it has political implications. And of course, the only reason it has political implications is because somehow the left has construed this trial as a trial about systemic racism. When it's not. This trial was about, whoa, George, thank you. Thank you. Excellent. This is, that's amazing. So we're now over the $1,000. As I said earlier in the show, I've shifted the goalposts. I've shifted the goalposts. The goalposts have now moved to, shifted the goalposts. The goalposts now to $3,000. And George, with regard to your question, so I'm just going to read this quickly. It is $500. So he's cutting the line and that's fine. Joanne, you interviewed Dr. James Thule last year about his entrepreneur adventures in private education. I'm happy to say that his book finally published last week. I'm happy to be credited in his acknowledgments. This is George Tibbetts. I would be happy to get your complimentary copy. I'd be happy. I'd be loved to get one. Can I entice you into doing a review of the book? Absolutely. I'd love to do a review of the book. I'd love to have Thule back on the show to discuss the book. So let's get James back on the show. What I really love, here is what I really love, maybe you can pull yourself from me. I'd really love the permission to go into the UK without 14-day quarantine, given that I've been vaccinated. And interview James Thule at Buckingham University where he teaches. That would be fantastic. So George, yes, let's send me a copy and let's do it. Brad, thank you. Really appreciate that. Brad is John's son. John, happy birthday. We made it to $1,000 and we're now shooting for three. So we're at, what is it? Well, Alejandra is a little bit, she's ambitious now. So she's going for $5,000. But I'll be happy if we make this the second best super chat we've ever had. And that would be $3,000. But we're already at basically $1,399. And I think somebody still owes us a couple of hundred bucks. So I think we're clearly at $1,500, a halfway to the $3,000 mark, which is my mark, a little bit further away from Alejandra's goal of $5,000. All right. Now what makes this such a political issue? It's that this trial has turned into a trial about systemic racism. When this trial has nothing to do with systemic racism, this trial is a trial of a policeman who in my view, based on everything I've seen of the evidence, abused his power, showed disregard for human life. I mean, Judge Floyd is not some saint, but Chauvin did not have to do what he did to him. I don't want policemen like Chauvin on duty. I don't want policemen who might do that to me, to my kids, to my friends. I want better police. I want police well-trained. I've talked about police training over and over and over again, so I'm not going to do it again. But I want well-trained police. I want police that I can trust. Now, I know the anarchists among you are rolling your eyes and saying, police, we can trust, we can trust police. They work for the state. Well, I'm not an anarchist. And I think you can, with the right training and with the right laws, laws that limit the scope of what they do, exclude, for example, drugs. But this is not about racism. There's no evidence that Chauvin was a racist. It seems to be evidence that he was a bad policeman, bad policeman. Indeed, we need fewer police because we need fewer laws. If you decriminalize or legalize drugs, you can have a lot less police out there. What we need is police who do their job diligently, who are amazingly trained and are amazingly physically fit. Who can subdue a victim without killing them and take them to trial. And what we need to avoid, need them to avoid, is this kind of violence. And what we need them to avoid is not just, I mean, we got this week, the last week, the female policeman who pulled out her gun instead of a taser. The gun is on the right hip, the taser is on the left hip, and she got right and left wrong. I mean, God, it should be instinctual. Instinctual is the wrong word. It should be automatized. That's what training is for. To automatize so that when you're in an emergency, you don't have to think. You don't have to think. It's truly unbelievable. No, we're not at 1500 yet. I'm waiting for Daniel to pony up and then we'll be over 1500. Now it's not a bad time, Daniel. Daniel still owes me 200 although I haven't gotten to its topic, so we will get this topic and then he will, he will keep promising me $500 if I included unions in the topic today, which we will get to in a little bit. But this is not a trial about racism. They said nothing to do with racism. Yeah, but over 1000, so you're good to go. This is a trial, this is a trial about a bad cop. And how bad we could argue better bad cop. I am a pandera. What's wrong with pandering? But my rage against politicians doesn't end with Maxime Waters and George Floyd. The most comical statement, the most ridiculous statement. If you are the most evil statement of all of them was actually Nancy Pelosi's statement. I don't know if you saw this. I assume this is a real video. It seems so ridiculous that maybe it's one of these fake videos, you know, where they place Maxime Waters and give a word she didn't say, I don't know, but it looked real. The video looked real. This is what Maxime Waters said in the video, which is truly shocking. This is after the verdict came out. And this is the kind of evil of altruism. This is the kind of evil of the politicization of the police and the whole approach to what's going on in terms of race today. In America. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you, Chris. Somebody says, yeah, even on a topic like this, I managed to piss off left and right. And yes, I'm proud of my ability to piss everybody else. I try to be objective, which nobody believes in anymore. Yeah, I mean, JJ JJ JJ, whatever says, who in their right mind would volunteer to be a policeman? Well, you don't volunteer, right? You actually get paid for this to be a policeman in America today. These days are thankless and dangerous job. It's not a surprise that tracks the worst kind of people. Yes. And I think it's dangerous because of our politicians because they create awful laws. It's dangerous because of our politicians who do not provide funding and do not provide support for training properly and don't require training property. And it's dangerous because even when you shoot somebody justifiably, and in many of these cases, the shootings was justifiable. I don't think in the case of Chauvin, it was justifiable. But many the killing many times it is justifiable. And yet they're still forced to resign. They still have to go to court that, you know, and in some cases they should go to court because the court should decide whether it was justifiable or not. But the presumption is that they are guilty. The presumption is that they are racist. The presumption is that they are wrong. Even this woman who killed this guy, she shouldn't kill him. He shouldn't resist the arrest. You know, he's a villain, the guy who got shot, but shows she for making such a ridiculous mistake between a gun and a taser. But she's a victim of a system that doesn't train her to have that automatized. And why would you want to be in a profession where you don't get the appropriate training? You don't get the appropriate training. And then if you make any kind of mistake, you're out. Or was an aim who was killed because of the no knock warrants. Now I'm against no knock warrants. They're set up to lead to disaster. And particularly they're set up for drug raids, which I'm against the whole drug trade being illegal. And yeah, the police shouldn't have been there. They should have done it. It was a mess. It was a disaster. But it's a mess and a disaster because of the laws we have. It's a mess and a disaster because these kind of no knock warrants are allowed. Yes, Brianna Taylor, thank you Alicia. It's, it's a mess. You know, yeah, we should get rid of the FISA courts. I mean, there's so much about our legal system that has to be changed. There's so much about our legal justice system that has to be changed. And in the meantime, yes, the police get the brunt of this. I find it curious though. I just thought of this, you know, I'm pissing off the right and the left on this. Why is this a right or left issue? Oh, we've got Peters here, Peters here spamming us. Don't donate to me. Don't donate. Donate to the CTO, your local charity. Who the hell is that? Who's CTO? All right, let me block him because this is, this is that. Whoops, that didn't work. Corey, I'll try not to block you accidentally. That's what happened last time. We got one of these guys in and I blocked Corey accidentally instead of blocking. The idiot who was harassing, harassing me. Yeah, you know, don't worry. The people who don't support me are not, are not actually. Who should I block? Don't block him, block him. Not, not Corey. Corey's, Corey's okay. I'm pretty sure Corey's okay. I block Peter. Let's see. Yeah, I was going to talk about Pelosi. Anyway, I mean, this whole thing about, this is about racism. It's not. There's no evidence. I didn't see anything in the trial that suggested the one motivated Chauvin to kill George Floyd was the fact that George Floyd was black. There's no evidence that suggested if George Floyd was white, Chauvin wouldn't have put his knee to his neck and killed him anyway. And indeed, we've seen police, stupidity, police, brutality, police, disregard, complete disregard for, for human life applied to white people as well. Ah, Brad, you're asking a question that I'll get to when I get to unions. We'll, we'll, we'll link the two issues when I talk about unions. That's good. So here's what Nancy Pelosi said today. I'm hesitant to even say it because of how insane this is. This is Nancy Pelosi. She had a press conference. So she was prepared. She had prepared remarks. And this is what she came up with. Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice. Because of you, and because of thousands, millions of people around the world who came out for justice, your name will always be synonymous with justice. Speechless. Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice. Nancy Pelosi said that. Thank you for dying for the cause. What cause? Remember, he, he broke the law. He didn't ask to die. I'm sure he'd prefer not to die. I'm sure his family would prefer he not die. I'm sure Chauvin would prefer he didn't die. Thank you for your sacrifice. Talk about altruism. Because there's a higher cause here. You, you, you brought out what the, the, the, the, the obvious injustice in our police force. The systemic rate. What, what is it exactly? That he died for? No, I mean, his death is horrible. And, and again, it's not so much that I mourn his death as much as I don't want policemen like Chauvin on the beat. Because next time he might actually kill a really, really good person. George Floyd, but it's not a particularly good person. He shouldn't have killed him either. But the reason you want to get rid of police like Chauvin is because they do harm. I mean, what can I mind? Thanks a person for dying. No matter what the cause. I mean, unless the person went into battle in defense of your values and you, you know, thank him for fighting for the cause. But, but George Floyd didn't fight for any cause. George Floyd didn't put himself in danger so that Black Lives Matter would arise as an organization to, to, to whatever. George Floyd is not some kind of hero here. He's definitely a victim, but he's not a hero. He's not somebody to celebrate, certainly not celebrate as a sacrificial hero for a cause. What cause exactly? Now, so it's, it's, wow, it's just, yeah, what is she thinking? What is she thinking? But Nancy Pelosi, she's, she's nuts. She really can't think, Daniel, are you going to do the rest of the money in two 99 bits? It's going to be interesting. We're going to be here for a long time. It's, she's truly, truly, she doesn't think before she speaks. And again, this was, this she had plenty of time to think about what she was going to say if this was happened. Chauvin did not die for a cause. He died and a cause was built around his death. A cause that did not match his death because the cause was eradication of systemic racism, supposedly systemic racism that doesn't really exist as systemic racism, the cause of abolishing racism. But Chauvin, but, but it's not clear that he was killed because of racism. So again, I'm repeating myself. There's no, there's nothing here. So it, notice how all of this Nancy Pelosi and everybody else is completely distorted. The whole case is distorted in the name of a political social agenda, which is a social agenda that is, is anti freedom, anti the individual. A social agenda that is, is racist in its emphasis and viewing everything as race based and race motivated and race inspired. Thank you, Nicholas. And it's, these are politicians. It's, it's truly, truly scary. And the, you know, a president intervening or commenting in the way he did a congresswoman encouraging violence if a voting doesn't go her way. And, and then a congresswoman thanking a victim of violence for his victimhood. But this is altruism, right? This is, this is altruism. Altruism is, is, is the idea that the whole purpose of life is to sacrifice for greater good. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you, Gupta. It's the idea that it's good. It's virtuous. It's normal to sacrifice for the greater good. And whether you do that accidentally or purposefully, I guess, is irrelevant to them. So another sad day in American politics, you know, probably the right verdict, but also kind of brought a spotlight on the quality and on the, on just the, the, the horrific nature, the horrific character of our political class. And the fact that politics now is everywhere in everything cannot be escaped, that our judiciary is really at risk of losing its independence. The rule of law, the rule of law is in danger of being suppressed for the sake of political expediency. And that we have to thank both Republicans and Democrats for. Don't forget the Cruz Lee Holly bill to penalize the MLB because the MLB made a decision the Republicans don't like. It just goes on and on and on and on. What we need today, what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelation. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. All right, before we go on reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figured at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But at least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share and you can support the show at your own book show dot com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals. And show your support for the work for the value. Hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe. Because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those please.