[00:13] Speaker 1: Welcome to Leo Roundtable at leoroundtable.com. My name is Chip The Block and I'm your host. We're a group of law enforcement professionals that talk about today's news and issues, but we do it from a law enforcement perspective. And, uh, I'm gonna go and introduce the crew, guys, if you don't mind waiting for the video portion of our show. Uh, we've got Dr. Joel Schultz, retired police chief. He's also at schultzco@gmail.com. Author, um, you know, he is, uh, he is known all over the place, so thanks so much for being on the show, Dr. Schultz. Also, we have Attorney Vaughn Klim from Force Science. Needs no introduction. And, uh, they are, they are absolutely killing it across the country educating people about, you know, the, the, the science behind what we do, and they're, and they're helping get cops out of the grease in the meantime (laughs) , so you gotta, you gotta love that, so, uh, so thanks for being on the show, gentlemen.

[00:58] Speaker 1: Uh, shout out to our sponsors, you know, our title sponsor is gaulus@gaulous.com. We also have compliantetechnologies.com, our satellite sponsor, gunlearn.com, mymedicare.live, safeguardrecruiting.com, our streaming sponsor, and yes, thanks to them, during the live show, we're streaming to, um, to hundreds of thousands of, uh, of, um, of subscribers and followers. We've also got tubellus.com, they built a new online store at leoroundtable.com. And also, Brian Burns for the Tampa Free Press, thanks for carrying our content, Brian, at tampafp.com, and also Ray Detrick with formerlawman.com, and finally, Travis Shakes with lawofficer.com. Thanks to all these entities for helping make this show happen. And now, what in the world are we gonna be covering today, guys? Here's the lineup, e- assuming that we have time to get to the stories. Our first one, main topic, uh, and, uh, I w- I gotta admit, I was surprised to read this, um, not that happy about it.

[01:48] Speaker 1: Trump shakes up the DOJ, Pam Bondi's out, Todd Blanche is stepping in as the acting attorney general. We're gonna be talking about that. Then we have a judge tossing a lawsuit filed by the parents of cop city protester who ended up being killed by troopers, and you guys might remember that. We got a couple stories with video components back-to-back, a video of a, a domestic violence call that ended, uh, with a deadly ph- uh, Phoenix police shooting, and then we've got a Jacksonville Police fatal shooting involving another DV, domestic violence, disturbance when the suspect pulled out a gun. And if we have time to get to them, we've got, um... Well, you know, I'll probably put off the LA County one because we got, uh, uh, Chief, uh, Chief Ralph, that is, that is from his agency, so I'll probably wait to hold that one. We got another story with a video component, Greenville Sheriff's Office determines that a deadly deputy shooting of a knife-wielding suspect that he- it was justified.

[02:40] Speaker 1: And, uh, we've got, um, gun bans in national parks, we got somebody trying to change that. And then a a- a man armed inside of a Jack in the Box is injured, uh, in a shooting after he points a gun at deputies. Don't do that. And then Houston police officers fatally shoot a guy in response to him pointing a gun at a woman. So there you go. So let's, uh, if you guys are ready, let's start off with the main topic that we have. Trump shakes up the DOJ, Pam Bondi's out, that's our attorney general. Todd Blanche is in as acting attorney general. So the article, um, at, uh, at the, uh, tampafreepress.com, it says that they, uh, Trump has announced this major leadership change at the DOJ, Department of Justice, confirming that Attorney General Pam Bondi will depart her post to transition into a new role in the private sector and he said that this follows a Wednesday night meeting in the Oval Office just before he did the, uh, presidential address to the country on the conflict in Iran.

[03:32] Speaker 1: And in a statement released on Thursday, the president praised Bondi, uh, praised her time here, said that she's a great Amer- American, uh, patriot, a loyal friend who served for the past year. He specifically highlighted her efforts in law enforcement, stating that she oversaw a significant reduction in crime and that murders reached their lowest point since 1900 under her watch. And he said, "Hey, we love Pam," and that's no secret, he, he absolutely loves Pam Bondi. He's just noted that her new private sector job will be announced in the near future, so I, I have no clue what that's gonna be. I'm curious. We have Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. He's been tapped to serve as acting attorney general in her place. He's a former defense attorney and current high-ranking official within the department. Uh, Blanche has been described by the president as a very talented and respected legal mind.

[04:20] Speaker 1: He, uh, issued his own statement on Thursday expressing gratitude for the opportunity and he also acknowledged, uh, his predecessor's work, uh, Pam Bondi, and saying that, "Hey, Pam led, uh, Pam Bondi led this department with strength and conviction and I'm grateful for her leadership and friendship," and he pledged to maintain the department's current direction, stating that, "We will continue backing the blue," thank God for that, "enforcing the law and doing everything in our power to keep America safe." And it goes on to say that the current EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, uh, is being considered for the potential permanent replacement to the AG position, but that's all we know right now. Um, gentlemen, I don't know if you were caught off guard, like I was. I had heard some April Fool's stuff and you never know what to believe in stuff, but, uh, Chief Schultz, did this take you, uh, by surprise?

[05:06] Speaker 2: Well, a little bit. Um, but, you know, the most en- entertaining thing about this in, in my view is watching all the pundits doing all their guessing and postulating and, you know, forecasting who's gonna be who, where, when, uh, because we just don't know. But, uh, the, the themes that have come out of the discussion about this are the Epstein files, um, her congressional testimony, um, and lack of, uh, prosecution of, uh, you know, the, the big anti-Trump figures that were, um, allegedly conspiring to, you know, to do things to, to dethrone him and to throw his, uh, campaign off for the presidency. Um, and, uh, so I, I think, uh, you know, they're, they're making some, some observers are making some comparisons to the Kristi Noem thing where, you know, their profiles-... um, were not reflecting on the president the way the president, uh, wanted them to.

[06:05] Speaker 2: And, and, and Vaughn may be able to address this theory, uh, m- much better than I because he's, he's flown in, in much higher circles than I have. But, um, y- y- you know, she was AG in Florida, right?

[06:19] Speaker 1: Oh, yes she was.

[06:20] Speaker 2: So, so that's an elected position where she's the boss. And now she's in the White House in an appointed position. And I think it's just a different game. And if you don't know how to, how to, how to play well, uh, in White House circles, um, it's... Even though she's had h- high profile state positions, I, I think it's just a different ballgame. And, and, you know, uh, Vaughn's been in Washington DC so he may address, you know, whether those cultures are dramatically different or not. But, uh, a lot of factors together. Um, I, I, I know that, that Trump doesn't like to be upstaged. He doesn't like people to speak for him when they're not absolutely accurate in what they say, uh, that Trump would have said, um, which Noem got in trouble for particularly. Um, and, uh, you know, he wants things done.

[07:06] Speaker 2: I, I think it was, you know, in the context of him coming to the people, which he probably should have done earlier in talking about this, uh, uh, Operation Epic Fury and explaining and talking about timelines, talking about strategy, talking about short term suffering. Um, he, he wants some precision and some action and, uh, I, I maybe think he did not see that in, in Pam Bondi. And Pam Bondi... And, and I've already told you more than I know-

[07:33] Speaker 1: (laughs)

[07:33] Speaker 2: ... um, about this whole thing.

[07:35] Speaker 1: Well, uh, Vaughn, what do you think? Of course, she was part of Trump 1.0 and, uh, you know, she wasn't the AG but she was there. Um, and, uh, your mic's muted, just in case you don't realize that, but any, uh, any words on this, Vaughn? All right.

[07:50] Speaker 3: Yeah, I do. You're... I think you're getting, you're getting smart to remind me about the muted mic. Um, yeah, I look at this just a little bit different, um, e- because of the military timeline. Anything I know is not from my access to DC. On this particular case I could have... What I know about this I probab- or what I suspect I could have probably done from anywhere, um, 'cause I'm watching it on TV as much as anybody. But I do fall asleep listening to this stuff. And interestingly, my take as a former military officer is, you have a commander-in-chief, whether it's in the executive role or as military role, he's, he's your senior executive, and there's this concept of loyalty and that, that Trump, we know, holds in spades. Like, he has... He, he believes in loyalty, uh, and I think Pam Bondi's greatest strength was her loyalty. She mi- she may have become a distraction because of the Epstein and because... Fair enough. But that...

[08:40] Speaker 3: My understanding, if you go back and look at her history, she oversaw the drawdown and the security of the, of the, of the border, right, during her time as... And she's the senior law enforcement officer, so whatever's happening with Noem, whatever's happening with our federal agencies, ultimately she's gonna have a big role in setting those priorities and supporting those priorities. So her, her massive influence was focusing on things that, for us as a country, we may not realize were surely the priorities. Regaining the executive power, the Article II powers of the president. There's like 12 Supreme Court cases roughly that sh- that her office pushed.

[09:16] Speaker 3: Now, she didn't personally argue 'em obviously, but, but she and her adminis- Trump's administration with her at the helm, uh, put forth a massive effort in reclaiming the Article II powers at a time where we had a Article III judiciary courts, uh, these lower level courts just fighting tooth and nail to restrain Article II powers with Trump specifically. It was law fair at its finest. And her office was magnificent and unprecedented in the effort and pushback they did to reclaim those Article II powers. That was massive. So while we got distracted by things that I think were important like the Epstein files, because that's a different issue, you have... You almost have a- an administration that has a lot more information than we do, they always do. Any of us who've worked in the military or law enforcement know we always have more information, um, and our leadership should have more information as they're making these decisions. So it's hard for us to understand their priorities.

[10:13] Speaker 3: The other thing is all of their resource management, priority management is... Yes, all these things can be important but we don't get to dictate the priorities. Ultimately, I think what's happening here is, is the public pushback on Bondi because of Epstein and because... I mean, frankly, I, I have never heard anything bad about her as an attorney behind the scenes. Uh, her, her public facing oral presentation, uh, uh... I've seen her, uh, speak live a couple of times. Um, she... It seems to me her strength is behind the scenes driving that train, but she also had the secondary role of being the face and the voice of that office. I didn't see her as being as comfortable there and so it's... I felt like sh- we need to get her back out of the spotlight, get the distraction off the administration. And I think it was purely pragmatic. Um, it's very different than Noem.

[11:07] Speaker 3: I think with Pam Bondi you got, "Okay, look, we're becoming, she's becoming combat ineffective with all of this negative publicity surrounding something that is important but not as important as Iran, not as important as the border, not as important as the massive historical crime drop in the United States," at which time she was the senior law enforcement officer of the country. So I think there's a, an amazing good news story in, in her being in that role for when she was.

[11:36] Speaker 4: (Instrumental music)

[11:36] Speaker 3: I think Trump being practical about it is saying, "Okay, that... You've been as effective as we can have you. We're moving... We're blasting past the distractions now and we're gonna keep moving forward."

[11:46] Speaker 1: Thanks, Vaughn. Perfect timing. Guys, it's time for our first commercial break. Stick with us, we'll be right back. My family only cares about one thing, that I come home safe.

[11:58] Speaker 5: At Galls, every order begins with a promise made with purpose.Stitched for support. Back with pride. Answered by dedicated hands. Delivering the standard you have sworn to uphold. We serve more than the mission, we serve the person. Each piece is engineered to help get our first responders through the shift and back home safe.

[12:51] Speaker 1: Welcome back. Leo Roundtable at leoroundtable.com. The law enforcement talk show, my name is Chip The Block and I'm your host. We're joined by Attorney Von Kleim from Forest Science, and Dr. Joel Schultz, retired police chief, and we're talking about the replacement of Pam Bondi as the Attorney General for the United States by President Donald Trump. And, uh, I, I, I think, Von, I think that you were talking with the commercial break. Any, uh, any more words on that before we, before we move on guys?

[13:18] Speaker 3: I, I, uh, the, all of these people serve at the pleasure of the president and I don't read too much in him moving pieces around, and he does it quickly. He, when something becomes a distraction, okay, let's move past it. He does not, he does not tolerate slowing things down. That's why they call it in Trump time, and if, if, if the, if the attention is pulled from where he wants the attention to be, he will pull it right back. And, uh, and I think the people that work for him have to appreciate that, understand that, salute smartly, and move out. And, uh, any of us who've been in the military know that is exactly right. And, uh, I was really impressed that she didn't immediately get on the airways and start badmouthing the administration or badmouthing Trump. There's just been too much infighting recently anyway, and it doesn't mean reasonable people can't disagree on the priorities and the efforts, that's absolutely our, our rights and duties as responsible Americans.

[14:14] Speaker 3: But my military brain just keeps going, "Listen, you cannot undermine good order and discipline by undermining decisions once they've been made." You go in behind those closed doors and you fight e- for, to persuade, uh, and be a, a zealous advocate for your position and then once you've been heard, the commander makes the decision and then you shut up and you execute smartly. That seems to be a problem with all of us Americans right now who don't have all the information anyway.

[14:43] Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.

[14:43] Speaker 3: Don't understand the priorities, um, and, and also understand reasonable people can disagree on the, the, the trade-offs that every political decision has. And so a lot of people just like, "I disagree with the priority and the trade-offs," and they equate that to, uh, to, uh, sometimes levels of corruption or incompetence, uh, when it really just comes down to either A, we don't have all the same information, or two, it's just a priorities issue. There are all these, all of our concerns are probably relevant, but you, you have to, you have to amass your efforts towards one priority at a time.

[15:18] Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I, I, I'm, I'm, I'm pleased she did it. I think she did a gem of a job. I, I know the, the... I have my own theory about the Epstein thing. I mean, Pam, I know her, she's sharp. She, uh, you know that whole thing about there being the list and stuff, I think that, uh, you made a comment, Von, that there's things that we don't know, and, and, and it, that should always be. We should never know everything, especially when you're dealing with the presidency and things go on behind closed doors. That happens for a reason. There's national security issues, and just things simply that are not within the purview of what we need to know. I, I, I think that with the Epstein file, uh, it's hard for me to imagine that there would not be a list. Um, I think that she was reined back in on that. I, I think that, you know, that she was out of respect for the people that she works for, um, that she reined it back in, and that it kinda, it was hard to recover from that.

[16:05] Speaker 1: I don't for a second think that that was a FUBAR on her point, or, or on her part. I think that it's just, I think it's something that happened and the information may never see the light of the day on what really happened with that. I kinda hate to see her being out on that. James Comey, she tried to get him indicted. Uh, that was a hard sell in the DC area from what I understand, uh, but, um, you gotta respect the Commander in Chief's decision too. So I, I, uh, she will land on her feet and, uh, and be okay, but, uh, I'm glad we had her for as long as we did.

[16:33] Speaker 3: Yeah, I... I, I am too, and I tell you what, the senior, the person at that senior position, if they're smart, they're, it really is about executing the president's agenda. And, and then amassing your resources and, and aligning them and leading them in... But they're not the ones arguing at court. They're not the ones writing the motions, they're not usually, or they don't need to be, even if they're incredibly smart, they don't need to be the intellectual firepower behind the legal issues. Uh, losing someone like Pam Bondi or putting her in a different position where she can still be effective with the skillsets she brings, to me, is great. Uh, Harmeet Dhillon over at DOJ, that would be a tragedy to lose. That is somebody we should be jealously guarding to keep in that position at the Civil Rights Division.

[17:23] Speaker 3: She has done, quietly in the background, done massive work for, for law enforcement, for Americans, for resetting the whole DEI agenda and the, the, the disparate treatment based on races that sh- our country shifted to. Harmeet Dhillon, uh, I would be, I would be a whole lot more concerned about losing her in the position she's in. Bondi-

[17:46] Speaker 1: I think we talked about her yesterday on this show. I think we had a segment, so.

[17:50] Speaker 3: Yeah.

[17:50] Speaker 1: Um-

[17:51] Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I think-

[17:52] Speaker 1: ... Chief, final words before we move on?

[17:53] Speaker 2: Yeah, I, I appreciate, uh, uh, Von's kind of admonition to say this, this is not what the headlines are showing. You know, shake-up, um, uh, chaos in the White House. It, it, it is, you know, a, a day in the life. I'm looking at the-... tenures of the, of, uh, uh, AGs since 2015. Pam Bondi for 14 months, Merrick Garland stayed four years, William Barr, Bill Barr, it was two years. I love Bill Barr. Uh, Jeff Session, 1.75 years.

[18:21] Speaker 1: Yeah.

[18:22] Speaker 2: Loretta, Loretta Lynch two years, which is two years too long. Eric Holder six years, also too long. Janet Reno eight years. How he, she survived her scandals, I don't know. But, uh, these kind of major shifts are, it's, it's really, uh, I mean, it's a big deal in some, in some ways, but it, but it's not a big deal in others.

[18:39] Speaker 1: Well, gentlemen, thank you, and, uh, Pam, wish you the best of luck and thanks for what you did. Uh, and, uh, yeah, we're, we're, uh... I, I, I know you're not gonna be totally out of the mix of stuff. I know that you're gonna be in the news and the headlines, so can't wait to see that. Um, moving along, we've got a update story from usnews.com. Judge tosses a lawsuit that was filed by the parents of a Cop City protester who was killed, uh, by troopers. And at the end of the article, it kinda tells what these cops... It wasn't like these are just protestors and stuff. I mean, this guy had some special problems. So, I, I can, um, appreciate the fact, kinda, a little bit, that the parents, you know, they lost their son, but this guy's responsible for what happened. So we're gonna move to Atlanta real quick. A federal judge has dismissed a civil rights lawsuit filed against, uh, or filed by the parents.

[19:26] Speaker 1: They call him an, an environmental activist, he probably doesn't even know what envi- what en- environmental, you know, issues are, uh, who was shot dead by Georgia State Police troopers saying that their actions were objectively reasonable when they shot pepper balls into the activist's tent, and ultimately fired fatal gunshots after this 26-year-old shot one of the troopers in response. Now, the January 18th, 2023, so i- it's been a while, it's been three years, shooting of Manuel Paes Teran, and, uh, it was a galvanizing moment. It says it, th- they were trying to halt the construction of what they called Cop City. It's a police firefighter training center that opened last year, and it's in the forest area, uh, in a former prison farm just outside the Atlanta area. Now, this, uh, bad guy, and he was a bad guy, this bad guy's family later sued three law enforcement officers and, uh, who said that they had planned to carry out the raid against the protestors.

[20:18] Speaker 1: Now, I'm looking at my clock. I'm 15 seconds away from a commercial break (laughs) , so you guys are gonna have to bear with me here. We'll come back to it after the commercial break. We'll be right back. All right, guys. It's time to talk about Compliant Technologies at complianttechnologies.com, and they are committed to providing non-lethal solutions to help officers gain the upper hand safely and rapidly in a humane, low-ontics manner, utilizing their CD3, which stands for Conductive Distraction and De-Escalation Device technology. Now, their flagship product we all know by now is called The Glove. It's helped officers not only tens of thousands of times, but they had over 250,000 deployments. No injuries, no deaths. That's an amazing stat. They've actually achieved non-lethal status in an arena that predominately can only offer less lethal results.

[21:01] Speaker 1: And when it comes to weapons retention, transitioning to a sidearm or conducted energy weapon, The Glove at compliantetechnologies.com. They have virtually eliminated weapons confusion. So stay ahead of the game with Compliant Technologies and the revolutionary CD3 that hundreds of agencies have already turned to nationwide. And friends, take it from me, when it comes to safety, this is one of the most common sense, hands-on solutions that's ever come along. Go to complianttechnologies.com and tell them Chip sent you. Complianttechnologies.com. Welcome back. Leo Roundtable at leoroundtable.com, the law enforcement talk show. My name is Chip DeBlanc and I'm your host. We're joined by Attorney Von Klebe from Forrest Science, and Dr. Joel Schultz, former police chief. And, you know, we left off talking about a, a judge tossing a lawsuit filed by the surviving parents of a Cop City protestor in the Atlanta area who ended up being killed by Georgia State Troopers.

[21:49] Speaker 1: And so let's, let's go ahead and pick this back up. So our guy, uh, Paes Teran, his family, they sue three law enforcement officers who said they planned to carry out the raid against the protestors who had spent months camping in the woods near the DeKalb, uh, County construction site. The lawsuit says that the troopers violated their son's free speech rights and they used excessive force against the activists, who then panicked and began firing shots. So they're acting like that, it was what justified, you know, what he did. Um, an autopsy, and this blows my mind, so listen to what they could tell from the autopsy. An autopsy commissioned by the family concluded that Paes Teran, their, their bad guy son, who used, uh, they and them pronouns, that he, they determined from an autopsy that he was sitting cross-legged with hands in the air, um, when shot more than a dozen times. And they determined this from the autopsy, so think about that for a second.

[22:44] Speaker 1: Uh, in a ruling on Monday, US District Judge Steven Grimberg noted that as the plaintiffs ha- have acknowledged, their son fired at the troopers, wounding one of them, which the judge said makes the trooper's, uh, lethal response reasonable. The judge also said that prior to the shooting, the troopers were within their right to fire pepper balls at this guy after the activist, who was accused of criminal trespass by the way, did not. He refused to comply with their orders to leave the tent. The judge also ruled that the officers had qualified immunity, and, um, you know, from violating his rights or anything. So, uh, Paes Teran's parents, Belkis Teran and Joel pe- Joe Paes, they're devastated by the judge's ruling according to their attorney, Jeff, uh, Filippidis and attorney Wingo Smith (laughs) . Who gets these names for attorneys? I mean, well, of course, we got a guy named Vaughn on our show, too. But, uh, but anyhow, that's where we're at right now.

[23:35] Speaker 1: It goes on to say that activists formed the Stop Cop City movement and they were protesting the construction of this ... i- it's kinda cool, a 85-acre Atlanta public safety training center, and they said that they didn't like it because it was gonna d- damage the environment by cutting down these trees and stuff. And it was being built in a predominantly, uh, Black neighborhood, and they also opposed tens of million dollars of public funding because it would be a training ground (laughs) for urban warfare, if you can believe that, and protests against the facility. This is how bad it was. Uh, there was violence, uh, they were torching police cars, the construction equipment. They were trying to stop the project from going on. And there was a racketeering indictment, um, against 61 protestors back in 2023, and although it was kinda, uh, shut down on some technicality issues, I believe, um, Attorney General Chris Carr is a- appealing, uh, the ruling and trying to bring it back.

[24:27] Speaker 1: So, that's what we have. Attorney Von Klebe.

[24:30] Speaker 3: Yeah, no, what's important about this case that can be lost on people is f- frequently, uh, when courts are evaluating a qualified immunity, uh, uh, motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, they- they're looking at it under- under two things. One, was there a constitutional violation, right? And meaning it was unreasonable, and it- and it would have been obvious to any reasonable officer it was excessive, right? That's the first thing. And then second is the- was the law clearly established, which goes to that obviousness. So was there a constitutional violation? Even if there was a constitutional violation, the second part of qualified immunity is, okay, but would any reasonable officer have known beyond a doubt that what they were doing was excessive? Well then the courts can skip that. They can go just straight to the, uh, second prong and say, "Well this wasn't clearly established.

[25:19] Speaker 3: This is kind of a weird case, close, so no matter what we decide..." And they can just skip the whole reasonableness analysis. And oftentimes they do that. What they did here was they did both. They said, one, "We find that this was actually reasonable under the facts as alleged." And why that's a big deal is the plaintiff gets to make up their facts. Now, they're bound only by ethics, but they get to basically portray whatever facts they want, and then the judge is bound to interpret the facts in a light most favorable to the- to the plaintiff, right? Because, uh, a- and that makes it very, very difficult, right?

[25:55] Speaker 3: So the judge, even in a case where the plaintiff got to allege the facts and the judge is required to interpret the facts in a light most favorable to them, they said, "Even under your facts, this is just reasonable."

[26:07] Speaker 1: (laughs)

[26:07] Speaker 3: However, they didn't stop there. They went and said, "But even if it was unreasonable for purposes of argument, we're gonna go to the second prong and say it was not clearly established. It would not have been obvious to any reasonable officer that you could not do this." And they do that to protect the appellate record, because an appellate court might disagree on the first prong and say, "Well, we disagree that it was reasonable," but then they- then they still have to contend with the second prong. So a court doesn't have to do that. They can rely on either prong in either order. Uh, in this case, they did both, and so every time I see a judge say, "Not only was this clearly established, but this was absolutely reasonable on- on- on the- on the facts alleged by the plaintiff." So that's a- that's- for those who aren't familiar with that, that's a very strong ruling by the judge.

[26:58] Speaker 1: Good to know. What do you think, Chief?

[27:00] Speaker 2: Well, I- I was interested in this whole Cop City thing because, you know, this happened at the same time everybody in the country was yelling, "Cops need more training, cops need more training." And so, okay, we're gonna make this huge training complex, get more training for cops. Oh, no, you can't do that, that's- that's urban warfare. And they- they couched it under this environmental thing, or you're- you know, you're- you're destroying some- some pretty country here that used to be a prison compound. Um, so it- it- you know, the whole thing was just- just, uh, ideologically kind of confusing. And- and this, uh- this- this, uh- uh, deceased person, uh, they were claiming that he was a- a very peace-loving, peacenik, you know, non-violent guy who just happens to be toting a gun and decides to take a shot at the police. Um, so there's- (laughs) that- that- that- that kind of threw me off. I- you know, I've been to a lot of au- autopsies.

[27:49] Speaker 2: I was a death- death investigator for the coroner's office for- for five years. Um, I'm skeptical of that autopsy outcome.

[27:57] Speaker 1: Do you think? (laughs)

[27:57] Speaker 2: I mean, there- there's some rules of physics where you can look at ange- angles and, you know, those kind of things, but I'm- I'm- I'm very skeptical of that very specific posture, um, y- y- you know, in that- in that particular thing. And, you know, also, um, and- and Von knows the, uh- the mind of- of, uh, plaintiff's attorneys, uh, obviously more than- than the rest of us, um, you know, why not- why not file a suit? I mean, you know, the- the chances of getting a check out of somebody are pretty high. For an attorney, they either get a contingency or if it's a 1983 federal case, they get to bill even if the person hasn't- you know, if they only get a $1 judgment, uh, the- the attorney still gets to bill and gets their money. So it's a- um, I- you know, it's not 100% guarantee that- that some dollars are gonna c- come into an attorney's, uh, pockets, but, uh, it- it's, uh, probably a- a- a pretty good bet. And I don't know what the percentages are.

[28:51] Speaker 2: Von, you know, may, um, but, uh, it- y- you know, it's- it's- it- it's really more surprising when there's an officer involved, uh, shooting that there isn't a lawsuit or some kind of claim of wrongdoing, because there's- you know, there's some deep pockets involved.

[29:08] Speaker 3: Mm. Yeah. That's 100% right, and this is the thing that confuses. I'm on- I'm on, uh- this conversation comes over the community groups quite a bit, and the thing that frustrates them is how often qualified immunity attaches and how often officers are not held accountable, as they say, and how often people back the officers. And their disappointment is because they're relying on the facts as alleged by the plaintiff. They hear the media account, they hear the allegation against the cop, and they did not realize that the plaintiffs are allowed to simply leave facts out or manufacture facts, uh, so- so long as there's even just a colorable argument in support of the fact. You know, we had a case where we had video footage clearly showing that the suspect had taken the officer's taser, but at the point where the court got it, the plaintiff was able to allege he never took the officer's taser and he was in control- the su- officer was in control of the- of the suspect the whole time.

[30:12] Speaker 3: Well, those two things, if you had any- if you had any sense watching the video, you can see that's not what happened. But the judge was required to interpret it in a light most favorable and to- and to receive the facts as alleged at that first motion to dismiss. And so-The community would be outraged because they would hear the facts and then hear that the j- later the officer's found not guilty, or the case is dismissed if it's a civil case, um, or qualified immunity applies. And it's because there's a massive gap between the facts as alleged by a plaintiff and what the case will ultimately show in the overwhelming majority of these cases. Um, if the facts alleged by the plaintiff are even close, that's when you start to see settlements.

[31:00] Speaker 3: You don't see people contesting cases that, uh, that- that they're gonna drag-

[31:06] Speaker 1: Night and day.

[31:07] Speaker 3: ...for years, that-

[31:08] Speaker 1: Yeah.

[31:08] Speaker 3: ...that don't look, that look anything, that, if they actually look anything like the plaintiff's version. And so that's what we're always battling. And we know who the- the- the normal frequent flyers are, who you're gonna see them. And they have to get on the podium, they have to get their national news story out as fast as possible, because once they set that narrative, the community outrage will then drive the political response, will drive the settlement, will drive the pro- prosecutions, will drive the- the- the, uh, yeah, the settlements and the prosecution. And you just sit there, especially those of us who have access to the case files, and you're just like, okay, what they allege looks nothing like what actually happened in this case. And I would say that's the overwhelming majority of our cases that we've worked look nothing like the media portrayal.

[31:55] Speaker 1: Wow. All right, again, perfect timing. Von Klem. And guys, it's time for our, I'm losing track here. I think it's our third commercial break. We're gonna be talking about GunLearn.com and coming back and covering a story with a video component. Stick with us. We'll be right back. All right, guys, time to talk about GunLearn at GunLearn.com. But hey, there's some new stuff going on with GunLearn. They've actually announced an exciting new partnership with Smarter Degree. And if you've gotten that GunLearn certification, and you know, they've been offering it for a while, but you can become a certified firearms specialist. Even if it's five years old, you can convert that into college credits. And, you know, by hooking up with Smarter Degree's university partners, whether you're pursuing a degree or simply looking to maximize the value of your education, the partnership, it actually opens up a new pathway to academic recognition for your firearms training.

[32:41] Speaker 1: And GunLearn, of course, is the first and is the only company they offer that step-by-step program that takes you from your present knowledge level to become a safe, accurate, and competent certified firearms specialist. But now it's worth college credits. And they provide citations from federal law and ATF rulings for every point taught to ensure accuracy. And their training is approved by major physical organizations, by law enforcement agencies and firearm manufacturers. Go to the GunLearn.com to get more information, and check out the firearm specialist opportunity. Welcome back. LEO Roundtable at LEORoundtable.com, the law enforcement talk show. My name is Chip Deblocq, and I'm your host. We're joined by attorney Von Klem from Force Science, and Dr. Joel Schultz, retired police chief. And we're getting ready to go to a story with a video component.

[33:20] Speaker 1: But first, since Von Klem is with Force Science, and I know I've got this discount code on the screen right now, and- and I'll let him talk about that and what they have going on at Force Science. Von, the floor is yours.

[33:31] Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you so much. Hey, for those of you who aren't familiar, we have a new Force Encounters online course. That is the, that is the course that talks about human performance and the potential influences on decision-making during critical incidents. Uh, for those of you, it's 15% off through the audience. It's, uh, you'll see that on the screen, but it's FS15OFF. FS15OFF for those who come on to ForceScience.com, find that online course, and, uh, use that discount code. You will, uh, if you haven't been to Force Science training, you will never look at Force Encounters the same again. I promise that. The- the other thing is, don't forget we have our upcoming Fall 2026, uh, Force Science conference. Uh, it is an outstanding lineup. We had 12 slots of instructors. We had 81 instructor applicants that were, that we ended up doubling our instructor slots. So we now have 24 really highly qualified top experts, uh, across multiple industries who are gonna be at that conference.

[34:28] Speaker 3: I'm excited for the conference. Um, and if you sign up now on the website, EARLYBIRD26, EARLYBIRD26, you'll get a, a, I think it's $100 off your registration code.

[34:40] Speaker 1: Oh.

[34:40] Speaker 3: So sign up quick, because that is going to sell out. And, you know, I will, I will humbly say, uh, I'm one small part of that conference. And year after year after year, the attendees tell us it is the best conference of the year.

[34:54] Speaker 1: I love it. I- I saw the- the chief, when you said that EARLYBIRD, he was writing that down too. So good deal. (laughs)

[35:01] Speaker 2: (laughs) Well, I- I, you know, I know we need to get to the story, but, uh, Force Science really changed my, uh, whole perspective on, on stuff. And- and I have to say, I went probably like a- a lot of cops, particularly before the influence of, uh, Force Science and street survival and a bunch of other these, uh, training opportunities, uh, expecting myself and- and my officers to be supermen and to, uh, outperform physical and mental limi-limitations and- and sensory limitations. And then when I had one of my officers involved in an OIS, I had to deep, dive deep into some research and Force Science, uh, saved my mind and that officer's career.

[35:42] Speaker 3: Yeah.

[35:42] Speaker 2: So thanks for everything that you do.

[35:44] Speaker 3: You know, we're over the, we're over the target. We have so many people attacking us, uh, politically attacking us with some outrageous claims that we're always having to fight. It's just a Tuesday for us. Unfortunately, people who aren't familiar with Force Science, they'll see the attack and- and they'll start to, they'll sort of believe it's somehow legitimate. We've been battling people who, uh, do not like what we do because they want to hold officers accountable. And for them, that means either through incompetence or corruption, like they, we all want to hold officers accountable, honestly, like, but the- the definition of honest accountability is you have to have clear standards that allow them to predict the lawfulness of their own conduct. That's the first part. But the second part is you can't have expectations beyond human performance considerations. That's where we come in.

[36:30] Speaker 3: When these experts try to indict these police officers and put them in prison for things that no human can do, they do not like us showing up.And we will continue to show up every time, and we'll take the attacks. But, uh, it- it is, it is not my body of research. I'm just translating it right now, and it's- it's an, it's an incredible organization to belong with, so thanks- thanks for that, Joel.

[36:55] Speaker 1: All right, guys. But look, we got just enough time to cover, uh, one more story. It's gonna be one with a video component, so let's hop over to rumble.com, our favorite law enforcement video channel called This is Butter. So this video shows a domestic violence call that ended up in a deadly Phoenix police shooting.

[37:14] Speaker 5: Stop! Stop! Where the fuck did you shoot? Fucking put the gun down. Hey. Don't do this. Please don't do this. Dude, stop! Stop! I'm gonna shoot you! I'm gonna fucking shoot you!

[37:38] Speaker 1: So we're in Phoenix, Arizona, and Phoenix Police, they released this video and it shows a domestic violence call. It ended up escalating into gunfire, and it ended with two officers shooting and killing an armed guy. So police said that this guy was armed and on the run inside of an apartment complex, and this happened on March the 17th when officers decided to shoot. So the woman calls for help, says that she's being attacked by her husband in- inside their Phoenix apartment. And here's a quote from the 911 call saying, "Hey, he tells me I'm gonna be with him or it's gonna be death." I- i- it's one of those where if I can't have you, I don't want anyone to, right? If I, if I don't be with him, I'm gonna die. And she- this is what she said on the 911 call. And she tells dispatch that she had bruises all over her body and cuts on her face and her neck. She said that her kids were with her and warned that there may be weapons inside the home.

[38:24] Speaker 1: And she also told dispatch about an order of protection that she filed against him as well, and she said, "Hey, it hasn't been served yet because they can't find him, and he's on the run." So officers arrived there within minutes and they, and they spot this guy, but he takes off running immediately. So now there's a foot chase and they're going, you know, through the apartment complex that this bad guy knows better than the cops do. Investigators say that, um, he or- he- he- he ignored repeated commands to stop, and when the secs- seconds the, uh, the officers ended up shooting him and he later died at the hospital. Now going to my show notes here, um, when he starts- when he, when he, when he spots the cops showing up and he starts running away, he's already outside the, uh, the apartment. There's a foot chase, and when you jump to the 2:14 mark, we've got our officer number one realizes that the suspect is armed.

[39:09] Speaker 1: He didn't initially know that the guy had a gun in his hand, and so the officer draws his weapon and then shots are fired just two seconds later. At 2:16, suspect actually goes down. At 2:24, um, in body cam number two, um, you see the suspect approaching another officer with a firearm in his hand, and that officer draws his- his, uh, gun. And then they- i- it's kind of cool when they do the slow motion of the incident and, uh, when the cops actually realize that the suspect has got the weapon and now they've got that reactionary gap which, you know, Vaughn knows all too much about. A- a- and, you know, i- if the bad guy has the jump on you or even if he's got the gun in his hand, you're at a huge disadvantage. And the- and the weapon itself, it looked like, uh, they said it was a rifle. Looked like a- well, probably classified as a pistol, uh, but it was just, um...

[39:58] Speaker 1: I don't know what caliber it was, but it was a- a- a pistol that looked like a rifle with a, uh, with a, you know, a- a- a long barrel on it. And the suspect ended up being transported to the hospital, and he died at the hospital. Um, so Vaughn, you want to start us off with this one? 3:06

[40:13] Speaker 3: Yeah. I'll just tell you quickly. We see these foot chase cases all the time with the guy with a gun, and some of the silly things we hear are, "Well, he never pointed the gun at the officer," or, uh, "He never fired at the officers." And when you talk about action/reaction, um, what is important is that running motion conceals, like you talked about, Joel, the pre-attack indicators. A- a running motion looks exactly like a pre-attack motion. So when they ask, "Well, how much time does the officer have to recognize the assault has begun?" Which of course they do not need to wait for the assault to begin, but how much time do they have if they wait for the assault to occur to respond with effective gunfire to stop that threat? And the answer is it could be zero. It could be zero. Because when that arm comes back in a running motion, it's already aligned towards officers who are chasing them.

[41:05] Speaker 3: And we have videos of this so we can- we show these to prosecutors, that if they're going to allege that the suspect never pointed the gun at the officer, therefore there was no opportunity to harm the officers, we're gonna show them in court that's simply not true. And we have case after case now where we're able to do that. And for your audience, what we're looking at for whether there's an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury is does the person have the intent, physical ability, means, meaning a weapon, and the opportunity to do it? The intent's usually the hardest, but in this case ability, means, and opportunity are without question. So you have the physical ability, the means is the gun, and then the opportunity is can they use that gun if they decide to before you can effectively stop them? And the answer to those are so well settled to this point. We still have to battle other experts on those issues, but we don't lose those issues. They're just well settled.

[41:55] Speaker 3: The question is did he have the intent or willingness to use the gun? And that is often inferred, unless they say, "I'm going to shoot you," it's almost always circumstantial evidence, not the least of which is you maintained possession of a gun in a manner consistent with its use in the presence of armed law enforcement while attempting to flee. Um, the question is, is it reasonable for an officer to believe you pose an apparent threat of death or serious bodily injury? And in cases like this, those are really not tough, tough, uh, questions.

[42:31] Speaker 1: Well, thank you. Chief, Chief Schultz?

[42:33] Speaker 2: Yeah. I- I think juries and some prosecutors and some cops have been, uh, completely ruined about, uh, the perception of reality, uh, about police encounters in general by television and movies. Uh, we expect shootings to be-

[42:49] Speaker 3: Mm-hmm.

[42:49] Speaker 2: ... you know, a quick draw when you face each other, uh, and best man wins, and there just is so complex. I- I think foot pursuits are about as complex as vehicle pursuits in terms of so many things going on, so much sensory input, and you just don't have a couple of tons of metal involved. But, uh, foot pursuits are- are super dangerous and- and very confusing. And then you've often got a lot of cops, uh, that you have to worry about, as well as civilians. And, you know, do you have the right under fleeing felon rule? So, um, yeah, you- you- you really have to have a- a careful objective analysis of these things.

[43:25] Speaker 1: Well, gentlemen, thank you so much for being on today's show, Vaughn Klemp from Force Science and also, uh, Dr. Joel Schultz, retired police chief, and, uh, you guys work very well together. I would say it was a great show. And I usually take this opportunity to talk about The Wounded Blue, thewoundedblue.org, Lieutenant Randy Sutton's 501 (c) (3) helping cops out that are in a world of hurt, that are suffering from things like PTSD and other issues. I support them monthly. If you guys are looking for a good organization to support that's- that's not gonna embarrass you, The Wounded Blue at thewoundedblue.org. And guys, our sponsors, please support our sponsors. They go to great lengths to bring this good, quality content to you. And so please go there, support them. You know, our title sponsor is Golus at golus.com. We also have complianttechnologies.com. They of course have the glove. We're trying to get that at agencies across the country.

[44:08] Speaker 1: Gunlearn.com, mymedicare.live, safeguardrecruiting.com. Our streaming sponsor, the 2 Belles with the online store. Thanks, guys. We'll see you guys back Monday, 12:00 noon Eastern. (rock music plays)