https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXUrW-ouEuk
[expander_maker id=”8″ more=”Click for entire transcript” less=”Read less”]
Brad Johnson it is June 20 of 2020 and I
00:04
think one of the most indicative events
00:07
of the strange reformatting of rule of
00:10
law to suit the narrative is how these
00:16
people various people involved with the
00:18
Atlanta
00:18
Wendy’s shooting of a fellow who had
00:22
broken and had broken several rules
00:26
which allow the police the use of deadly
00:28
force and consequently this guy was shot
00:31
that’s after massively drunk driving
00:34
fighting with police resisting arrest
00:36
stealing a Taser and shooting a guy and
00:38
now the charges against him are
00:41
ludicrously over against the officer are
00:44
way over the top they can’t possibly
00:47
stick and no real prosecutor would have
00:50
done it
00:50
and that’s other peripheral people that
00:54
are whose lives are being destroyed for
00:56
simply stating the facts
00:59
can you give me some details on that yes
01:02
it’s just another interesting twist to
01:05
this sort of thing it shows how this is
01:07
blown out of proportion to just too
01:10
extreme now and a lot of the things that
01:12
are being done all by the left and no
01:15
what happened is I just recap quickly
01:17
the the ratio of Brooks has apparently
01:23
drunk or messed up in some way or
01:26
another we don’t know for sure if it was
01:28
drugs or what precisely yet but
01:30
apparently was alcohol so he pulls into
01:33
a Windies and is in the drive-thru line
01:36
laying and falls asleep at the wheel so
01:39
he’s hit his car asleep blocking the
01:41
drive-through for Wendy’s so of course
01:43
you know what do they do they go out
01:46
kind of try to tap on the window and say
01:48
the guy you know move your car dude and
01:51
you’re blocking so he just you know his
01:53
the unconscious or asleep or whatever in
01:55
the car so they call the police
01:57
and which is you know what what else are
02:00
they going to do that is their business
02:02
especially this day and age with covet
02:04
is the drive-through so the police come
02:08
and get this guy moved and are talking
02:11
to him on the street for apparently
02:12
quite a little while and then he you
02:15
know they’re arresting him and that’s
02:17
what he starts to fight the police this
02:19
is well documented there’s a lot of
02:21
videos of this that are showing from
02:23
security cameras from Wendy’s I assume
02:26
but the police will have their GoPros so
02:28
we’ve all seen the show where the guy
02:29
gets away steals of a taser from the
02:32
police and is fighting him and turns
02:35
around and shoots at the one place where
02:36
the policeman pulls out his gun and
02:37
shoots him and unfortunately shot him
02:40
dead now the problem with this case from
02:44
the very beginning is that very much
02:47
unlike the other famous case with Annie
02:50
on the neck bunny on the neck is not
02:53
taught by police procedure and is not
02:55
something that police are trained to do
02:58
so that police officers in real trouble
03:00
in this case the policeman was following
03:04
precise procedures he did what he was
03:07
trained to do and that is if you know if
03:11
the if somebody fighting the police
03:13
steals a police weapon and then tries to
03:16
use it on him and that specifically
03:18
includes a Taser because both threat
03:21
then is that if you get tased and you’re
03:25
even if you’re just knocked out laying
03:27
there unconscious all the guy has to do
03:28
is come over to get your you know
03:29
service weapon and put one in the brain
03:31
case so it’s all over so the training is
03:34
that that then is a lethal case where
03:38
the policeman has to take is in should
03:40
take lethal action to stop this to make
03:43
sure it doesn’t get out of control now
03:46
Rashard Brooks thought the police and
03:48
for quite a little while and stole a
03:50
weapon so to place all the blame on the
03:54
opt out of this is of course you just
03:57
you cannot and and it with using any
04:00
honesty put 100% of the blame for this
04:03
situation on the cop so and again he
04:06
followed procedures he followed the
04:08
training he was given so if there’s a
04:11
problem with the training then that’s
04:13
really not that officers fault he did
04:17
what he was essentially told he was
04:18
supposed to do so the training is wrong
04:21
that’s a management problem not the law
04:24
enforcement individual law enforcement
04:26
officers problem so this whole thing is
04:29
all cracked up in that sense so now his
04:31
stepmother was defending him
04:35
she works at a mortgage company as the
04:38
HR Human Resources you know in charge of
04:41
personnel for this mortgage company and
04:43
so she wrote something on social media
04:45
defending him saying this is all
04:47
nonsense default procedures needs a he’s
04:49
a good a good officer and out of that
04:53
this woman was then fired by that
04:55
company because they said in quoting
04:58
that she was creating a hostile working
05:00
environment now she wasn’t stomping
05:03
around the office you know complaining
05:06
to everybody there about you know to
05:11
them about any of this case it was
05:12
something she’d said on social media and
05:14
she was giving her opinion now a lot of
05:18
the left always likes to talk about
05:20
things like your First Amendment rights
05:22
now where are her First Amendment rights
05:25
she took a look at the case and analyzed
05:28
it much like I’ve just laid out to you
05:30
not that there’s not problems with this
05:32
case but it’s certainly not a clear-cut
05:34
case of where this cop has got real
05:36
trouble that’s not clear from this and
05:39
as you pointed out you know he’s been
05:41
wildly overcharged for the Penny’s
05:43
circumstances so yeah you know it’s one
05:47
of those cases where you can look at
05:49
as she did it’s a reasonable argument to
05:53
make to say that he individually didn’t
05:56
necessarily do anything wrong and that
05:58
he’s a good officer that he’s not racist
06:01
and there was me in no way did he shoot
06:03
this guy because he was black you know
06:06
that is a reasonable analysis of the
06:08
situation for what she was fired so you
06:12
know out of this I hope this is one of
06:14
those cases where her First Amendment
06:16
rights have been pretty seriously
06:19
trashed and I’m not sure that this
06:21
company is not in some legal trouble on
06:24
this and I would be very surprised if
06:26
this this mother-in-law of the cop
06:28
doesn’t have lawyers knocking on her
06:30
door right now but hey well you sue
06:32
these guys this is a pretty good case so
06:35
I think that’s what’s gonna happen I
06:37
think we’re gonna see a civil court case
06:39
and this woman suing saying that her her
06:43
First Amendment rights were violated
06:44
because you know really in what universe
06:47
is it so bad to defend your stepson you
06:51
know your family member where there’s
06:53
certainly evidence to suggest that you
06:56
may not have done much wrong if anything
06:59
wrong now again that needs to play out
07:02
it all needs to be looked at there’s a
07:04
lot more information and footage to come
07:05
out of the GoPro cameras if the
07:07
policemen have all of those things need
07:09
to be done but again you cannot look at
07:12
this situation and say that Rashard
07:14
Brooks was completely blamed free did
07:17
absolutely nothing wrong
07:18
it was you know with the angels on this
07:20
whole thing and guilt that did not
07:22
happen he fought the police and took a
07:26
weapon from them so you know you cannot
07:29
hold him blame free on this so therefore
07:32
you have to logically give some level of
07:36
defense to that police officer for his
07:37
actions now how that plays out does he
07:40
have any share of the guilt for all of
07:41
this she did not have pulled out his
07:43
weapon even though that’s what he was
07:44
trained to do you know okay those
07:46
arguments can be made that’s for the
07:47
court to decide but there’s two sides to
07:50
this story and everyone should be
07:52
say that and that is what our
07:54
Constitution allows with freedom of
07:56
speech the First Amendment well I
07:59
believe the charges that are leveled
08:00
against the officer are impossible
08:03
they’re impossible in terms of actual
08:06
practice of law to get a conviction
08:08
because it would require premeditation
08:11
they should the worst they could do
08:14
would be manslaughter I think they’re
08:15
charging them with felony murder which
08:18
is which is crazy it doesn’t apply so
08:22
it’s just just it’s just a theater or is
08:26
this a way of getting out of the
08:27
difficult situation and making it look
08:29
like they’re acting I don’t know
08:31
but certainly there’s a lot wrong here
08:35
surely this is political theater these
08:38
charges were done for political reasons
08:40
as the officer as officers lawyer has
08:43
said this is an election year for that
08:45
district for that Attorney General
08:49
District Attorney whatever it is to be
08:51
state’s attorney this is an election
08:53
year for the state’s attorney there and
08:55
Georgia and he wants to and and the
08:58
black voting bloc is big in Georgia and
09:01
so he wants to make sure that you know
09:03
he or she whoever it is wants to make
09:05
sure that they’re on the right side of
09:07
this politically so now what they’ve
09:09
done and when you bring a very fair
09:10
point is what they have done is
09:12
guarantee these charges would be thrown
09:14
out because and there’s zero chance this
09:16
was some sort of pre made it
09:17
premeditated thing if they wanted to
09:20
nail that guy with some charges the one
09:22
thing where I he may be weak it looks to
09:25
me and you know get another lawyer but
09:27
apparently he had a stray around go into
09:30
a car that had people in it that was
09:33
what that was beyond where Rashad Brooks
09:36
was you know running along there and so
09:38
one of those shots went wide and hit
09:40
that car so he’s charged for the sole on
09:43
them now that you know to me I mean
09:47
getting on lawyer analysis
09:48
if any charge makes any sense out of any
09:50
of this that one does the you know it
09:53
may or may not be one that sticks like I
09:55
said I don’t know how those laws are set
09:57
up and how they would work but at least
09:58
that’s you know somewhat reasonable
10:01
thing to try to argue but first-degree
10:03
murder premeditated this guy trying to
10:05
do it you know who’s just zero chance
10:07
that it’s gonna work what they’ve done
10:08
with those overcharges is make sure that
10:10
that cop don’t get off on them
10:18
you
10:20
[Music]
10:35
yo
[/expander_maker]
