Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock, Host
Welcome to LEO Round Table at leoroundtable.com, the law enforcement talk show. My name is Chip DeBlock, and I’m your host. We have a group of law enforcement professionals who talk about today’s news and issues from a law enforcement perspective.

Let me introduce the crew. For those watching the video portion of our show, we have Dr. Joel Shults, retired police chief, currently residing in Colorado. We have Officer Danny King, formerly with AmericanPatrolman.com. Danny, open up that mic. What is your new passion?

Speaker 2 — Danny King
It is at ReasonableOfficer.com. I’m also working on a website for civilians to understand use of force. I think it’s UnderstandingUseOfForce.com.

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
I love it. And then we have Scott Steier, former Green Beret and Delta Force operative. Scott brings a unique perspective to the show — basically, why are we not just killing everybody? And then, if we do shoot, why are we trying to save them? Anyhow, thanks for being here, guys.

Our sponsors are PoliceOne and our title sponsor, Galls at Galls.com. We also have CompliantTechnologies.com, our satellite sponsor GunLearn.com, MyMedicare.live, SafeguardRecruiting.com, and our streaming sponsor. We’re streaming to about a million followers right now during the live show. Also, TwoBells.com built a new online store at leoroundtable.com. Go there to buy the cool gear: hats, shirts, coffee mugs, and more.

We also have partners who help us put this thing together. A shout-out to Brian Burns from the Tampa Free Press, Ray Dietrich from FormerLawman.com, and our very own Travis Yates with LawOfficer.com. Thanks to all the entities helping make the show happen.

You can find us on just about every podcast platform, especially Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Spotify also has a video component, which we take advantage of. We’re also on social media: Rumble, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Truth Social, and more. To see where we’re at, go to leoroundtable.com. In the top menu bar, you’ll find radio stations, dates, times, channel numbers, TV, radio, podcast, and social media links.

Now let’s go ahead and cover what we’ll be talking about. We were going to talk about a Secret Service issue involving some pushing and shoving in China. Apparently, they haven’t been receptive to our Secret Service in some locations, especially with agents carrying guns. But first, we’ll start with an update topic.

We have a border boss leaving. Mike Banks is quitting amid scandals while saying “mission accomplished.” Banks was the man handpicked by President Trump to lead the U.S. Border Patrol. He abruptly resigned on Thursday. He was formerly the Texas border czar and worked under Governor Greg Abbott in Texas.

Banks confirmed his decision by text message to Fox News reporter Bill Melugin, framing it as the natural conclusion to a 37-year career. However, according to the article, there are allegations from current and former Border Patrol employees claiming he took trips with colleagues to places like Colombia and Thailand for activities that he would not normally want to brag about. Some people think that may be why he is leaving.

In any case, he has done a strong job with Border Patrol, and he is passing the torch. They have not picked the new person yet. Dr. Shults?

Speaker 3 — Dr. Joel Shults
I think the moral issues involved in engaging with foreign prostitutes, even in countries where it is legal, cast a shadow over an organization that is highly involved in dealing with human trafficking and preventing those kinds of abuses.

Scott, I know you’ve been overseas and have seen colleagues travel on R&R to places and take advantage of those situations. It is very exploitative. It is not like the state of Nevada, where things are regulated and there are protections in place for workers. In many of these Asian countries and other places, these are exploited people engaged in prostitution.

I think it is despicable and puts a terrible smudge on his record. A lot of people are also confused about the difference between CBP, Border Patrol, ICE, and HSI. If you read the article, and then consider that he was doing the Texas state immigration role, it gets a little confusing about where the organizational lines are. That is interesting to track. What he has done professionally on the ground in the United States is admirable, and it is too bad he could not leave with a shining reputation. But this definitely besmirches his character.

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
It always stinks when you have to leave under a cloud, so I agree. If there’s nothing else, we’ll move on.

Scott, I want to give you an opportunity here. We pulled a couple that I thought you might want to talk about. This next one is from TampaFreePress.com. A former Army employee in North Carolina was arrested for a massive classified leak to journalists.

A North Carolina woman who once held a top-secret security clearance is facing federal charges after allegedly leaking national defense secrets to a reporter. Courtney Williams, 40 years old, was arrested by the FBI and indicted by a federal grand jury the following day. She is accused of violating the Espionage Act.

According to court records, between 2022 and 2025, she allegedly had a secret line of communication with a journalist, engaged in over ten hours of phone calls, and exchanged more than 180 text messages. The journalist reportedly told Williams they were seeking information about a special military unit, or SMU, for an upcoming book and article. The resulting publications allegedly named Williams as a source and included specific details that the government classifies as sensitive national defense information.

Investigators claim Williams also shared classified data on her personal social media accounts. From 2010 to 2016, she worked for an SMU and had daily access to highly sensitive intelligence. She had signed a nondisclosure agreement and received extensive training on the legal consequences of mishandling classified data.

Evidence in the indictment suggests she was aware of the risk she was taking. On the day the book was released, she reportedly messaged the journalist expressing concern over the amount of classified material made public. In messages to third parties, she allegedly predicted her own arrest and cited the specific statute of the Espionage Act that she now faces charges under. At one point, she reportedly told an acquaintance she was probably going to go to jail for life.

Assistant Attorney General John Eisenberg said protecting classified information is a solemn obligation vital to national security, and FBI Director Kash Patel said the disclosure put American war fighters and allies at risk. The case was investigated by the FBI’s Charlotte field office.

I would not want to be in her shoes. I wonder how often this happens. She seemed reckless and forthcoming with too much information. I wonder if it happens more often, but the reporter does not reveal it the way it was done here. Scott, your thoughts?

Speaker 4 — Scott Steier
I think there needs to be an example made. Given that she was so blatant about it, and knowing everything she knew, she was mentioning to other people that she was probably going to go to jail for this.

I think it comes from a desire connected to social media and influencer culture. People want to get online and talk about where they came from and things they did. It’s great to be proud of those things, but there is also information that is classified, especially in her situation.

To give it to a journalist writing a book that is basically smearing the unit — Delta, if that is what it is — is disgusting. I have not read the book, but I have heard about some of what was in it. I think it has something to do with the Fort Bragg Cartel or something like that, and from the excerpts I have seen, it sounds false, like trash.

The reason she may have been so flagrant is that this happens all the time, maybe not to her level, but people get online and talk about classified information. They say where they were and what they were doing at certain times. If it had been enforced all along, this probably would not have happened. But because this is becoming the norm, people act like it is no big deal. I think she needs to be made an example of.

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
What can you tell us in 15 seconds? What is SMU?

Speaker 4 — Scott Steier
I’m assuming it is Delta, because it is at Fort Bragg. That is my assumption.

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
Thank you, Scott. It’s time for our first commercial break. Guys, stick with us. We’ll be right back.

[Sponsor Break Omitted]

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
Welcome back to LEO Round Table. We just talked about a military female who got into trouble. Before we move on, Scott, how common is it for females to work in a unit like Delta? I would not expect that to be common.

Speaker 4 — Scott Steier
Not everyone is an assaulter. There are a lot of support people. It is a big organization, so there are a lot of different roles.

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
All right. The next one is from TheGatewayPundit.com. A grand jury indicted a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence analyst for willfully transmitting national defense information to China.

The Department of Justice issued a press release saying that a Texas County man was indicted on two counts of willful transmission of national defense information. His name is Seth Chambers, 35 years old. He is a former United States Marine Corps intelligence analyst who was employed as a civilian contractor stationed in Iraq during the period alleged in the indictment.

As part of his duties, he held a security clearance and was authorized to view classified material up to the top-secret level. According to court documents, on two separate occasions he allegedly transmitted national defense information.

This comes after the DOJ announced the arrest of a former U.S. Air Force pilot who allegedly provided and conspired to provide defense services to Chinese military pilots without authorization. It’s like, what in the world is going on?

Speaker 4 — Scott Steier
They need to tighten this up. It is out of control. They need to set examples in these cases. If he was handing off classified material, was he paid for it? What was his motive?

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
They never mention that.

Speaker 3 — Dr. Joel Shults
Typically, the motives are money, relationships, ego, or idealism. It is not usually that someone really wants to support the Chinese and embeds themselves in U.S. systems.

When I was thinking about the woman from the previous story, I thought about General David Petraeus. He did something similar in speaking to a biographer, and I think there was an inappropriate relationship involved.

It is often not the highest-level people who create the greatest risk. It can be the secretary, the janitor, or the clerk, because the material passes through their eyes. I do not think we fully understand the network of spy activities. Right now, we are hearing more about Chinese spying. We used to be more focused on Russian spying. But I think every halfway sophisticated country in the world has spies operating in the U.S., trying to get technology and tactics, whether it is an ally like Israel or an adversary like Iran.

Civilians with access to sensitive information may not face the same ethical or legal framework as military personnel, so there are weak points. How to respond to that, I do not know.

Speaker 4 — Scott Steier
It comes down to human nature. A foreign agent is going to meet you somehow. They could approach you through a dating site, a coffee shop, or any place in your daily life. They are going to inject themselves into your routine.

Often it is through dating. They appeal to your ego. They ask what you do, make you feel important, and get you talking about your job. They get you to talk about being in a high level of government or having information most people do not know. They play to ego and get the person talking.

Everybody in those positions should know this can happen. They get briefed on it. Maybe they need more training on recognizing when they are being made into a foreign asset or source.

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
I remember when I was active, they used to publish internal affairs summaries. They would say what the accusation was and what the conclusion was. That was beneficial.

I remember one story about an officer who was in pain. His wife gave him a pill to take, and he said he did not know it was prescription medication. He went to work the next day, took a urine test, and it came back flagged for a scheduled drug. They suspended him and went after his certification. When I read that, it left a strong impression on me.

Danny, do you think things like that are beneficial, or is this more of a training issue?

Speaker 2 — Danny King
It is always a training issue. But with espionage, these people have the best training in the world to pitch you. I could walk up to you at Costco, we start chatting, then a couple of days later I run into you somewhere else, and we hit it off. Most people do not know they are being pitched until they are being pitched.

My grandfather fought in North Africa. My mother was from Liverpool and was born during World War II. I was raised with the idea that loose lips sink ships and you do not talk about certain things. I went into the Army in the 1990s, and with our training, we were told not to discuss certain matters.

There are chapters of my life that I will never talk about. Even in my police life, there are operations we conducted that I do not talk about. You can get on YouTube now and see things ten times as fascinating, but my point is that there was a time when people did not talk about these things.

There is a former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, who talks on YouTube about how people were pitched. It is fascinating, but it is also crazy that you can now hear and see things that 10, 15, or 20 years ago were secrets. There needs to be a reset. We need to stop talking about secret things that we do.

Speaker 3 — Dr. Joel Shults
The most fascinating thing about that former CIA officer is that he is the least spy-looking person you would expect, which was probably his secret weapon.

Speaker 4 — Scott Steier
That is the point. You want the unexpected person to be good at it. They understand human nature. They know how to get information. They will already know a lot about you. They will build a profile, learn what you like, where you went to school, and what interests you. Then they use that to build a bond. You feel like the person has a lot in common with you, but really, they studied you.

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
When I was doing organized crime work, a lot of it involved strip clubs in Tampa because organized crime was heavily involved with those places. I was paranoid about people trying to get close to me, especially if a pretty girl was paying attention. I automatically wondered if something was going on. There were people trying to get close to members of my department to get information.

I had a situation involving a police athletic calendar fundraiser. Some adult establishments were being solicited for the police athletic calendar, which was already a problem. One shop called and said telephone solicitors were saying they would give them my schedule so they would know before I came to raid their shops.

I went into the shop wearing a recording device, and the solicitor came down. He did not know what I looked like. He told me he could provide information about Chip DeBlock, which was me. He explained that he would call and say something like, “Be careful driving home tonight,” meaning we were about to hit the shop and they should close. He ended up out of the solicitation business and facing multiple felonies. That is just one example of the kinds of things that happened.

Speaker 3 — Dr. Joel Shults
My field training officer early in my career said, “Watch out for the girls who flirt with you.” The key is that never happened to me in 35 years. You just have to be so unappealing that they would rather go to jail.

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
I doubt that. All right, time for another commercial break.

[Sponsor Break Omitted]

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
Welcome back to LEO Round Table. Let’s move to a story with a video component. This is from Rumble.com, our favorite law enforcement video channel. We have a deputy justified in the fatal shooting of a suspect who reaches for a gun in his waistband.

This happened in Florida, involving Miami-Dade County police on April 13, 2025. Officer Hermilo responded to a domestic violence call involving Kelly Hudson and his estranged wife at a Southwest Miami-Dade home. According to investigators, Hudson’s wife called 911 multiple times, saying her husband had followed her from Georgia to South Florida. She told dispatchers she was trying to hide at her parents’ home because he was violent, had been stalking her, hurting her, and was armed.

Body camera footage shows Hudson stepping out of a car while following the deputy’s commands. The deputy had his gun out and ordered him to get out of the car. When asked if he was armed, the deputy had to ask three times. Hudson finally said he was and lifted his shirt, revealing a gun in his waistband. The deputy immediately told him not to go for it. Hudson reached toward the gun, and the deputy fired. The suspect went down. The deputy fired again because the suspect would not let go of the gun.

The state attorney said the deputy repeatedly ordered him not to reach for the gun and fired several times when he did. The suspect later died. It went down very quickly. I always get concerned when officers are too anxious to get on the radio and tell dispatch what is going on instead of paying attention to the suspect or keeping both hands on the firearm until the threat is fully neutralized.

Chief Shults?

Speaker 3 — Dr. Joel Shults
I have tactical points, but I want to ask Danny if he can imagine a plaintiff’s attorney saying the man was just complying, answering the question about whether he had a gun, and that the deputy did not give him time to surrender.

Speaker 2 — Danny King
When it comes to litigation, most cops are not prepared for it because we live in a straightforward world where we believe truth is truth. Plaintiff’s attorneys are not bound by that in the same way. They can frame things however they want.

It has gotten to the point where, in some courts, simply being armed and having committed a crime may be treated as almost meaningless until the person actually tries to arm himself with the weapon. They may argue that this is his Second Amendment right to be armed, and that until he points the weapon at the officer, he is just exercising his rights. We know that is not the reality of the situation, but that argument sometimes works in court.

When someone has a gun or a knife, and you shoot him, and then he starts to get back up, he is not just getting up to figure out what happened and dust himself off. If he came at you with a knife the first time, he is probably going to come after you with the knife again. Most officers will not wait for that, and rightfully so. But once the incident is put on paper in a courtroom, people lose touch with reality.

Speaker 3 — Dr. Joel Shults
In a civil case, the evidence may be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Speaker 2 — Danny King
Right. If you are talking about qualified immunity and trying to get a case dismissed, courts may look at the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. There are also jury questions. If the court says a jury has to decide something, the case can go forward.

For example, if an officer does not give a warning like, “If you do not put your hands up, I am going to shoot you,” a judge might say the person might have complied if given that warning. That can send a case to trial, even if the person had already committed multiple crimes, fled, crashed, and refused commands. It sounds crazy, but that is how it can work.

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
Scott, do you want to cover the second video?

Speaker 4 — Scott Steier
Yes, let’s go to the second one.

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
This next one is also from Rumble.com. It involves a police department in Virginia that posted bodycam footage of a viral arrest.

The officer responds to a report of trespassing. When he arrives, he finds a man later identified as 34-year-old Ronnie Lee Reed getting out of a large U-Haul. According to the department, the officer began speaking with Reed and determined he had active warrants.

The officer tries to take him into custody by grabbing his wrist and telling him he has warrants. Reed swings his fist at the officer. Both fall to the ground, and the officer ends up on top of him. Reed has a knife in his right hand, and they fight over the knife. Reed threatens to kill himself and also threatens to stab the officer.

The officer tells Reed multiple times to drop the knife and delivers closed-fist strikes to Reed’s face, which is something we do not see enough of in these situations. Once Reed drops the knife, the officer takes him into custody. According to the department, Reed was arrested on outstanding warrants and charged with assault and battery on a law enforcement officer, among other charges. He was treated for non-life-threatening injuries before going to jail.

Scott?

Speaker 4 — Scott Steier
This is a great example of where having the Glove from Compliant Technologies would help. Kudos to the officer. Without seeing everything, I pictured this officer as someone who is in shape and switched on. I thought he did an amazing job.

Most of the time today, when you see officers dealing with someone who is violent or resisting arrest, it seems like they do not get enough hands-on training. Some are naturally athletic and know how to go hands-on, but many are not.

The Glove would be useful because when he grabbed the guy’s wrist, the guy started resisting and turtling in. If you grab someone’s wrist with that glove, they are going down. That might have prevented the prolonged fight, the knife issue, and the danger. Kudos to the officer, but it could have gone better with the right tool.

Speaker 2 — Danny King
When it comes to knives, sometimes you do not know whether people are armed. Sometimes you see the knife and sometimes you do not. A knife can be very easily deployed against you. When you are struggling with someone who has a knife, or even someone who is simply not complying, the longer the struggle goes on, the more likely someone is to get hurt.

When you are wrestling with someone and reach a stalemate, that is the kind of person you overwhelm. I do not mean that in an excessive way. I mean you eliminate his capacity to resist as quickly as possible, because otherwise you do not know what is going to happen.

Speaker 1 — Chip DeBlock
Great show, guys. Thank you so much for being here: Dr. Joel Shults, Officer Danny King, and Scott Steier. Scott, we had time to cover your video too, and you made a great point about it being an opportunity for the Glove.

I also want to mention The Wounded Blue, TheWoundedBlue.org, Lieutenant Randy Sutton’s 501(c)(3), helping cops who are suffering from PTSD and other issues. I think Randy is at Police Week right now. Today they are doing the ceremony, and I believe the president is addressing the families, if he is back from China already. This should be the last day of Police Week.

Thanks to our sponsors, who help us bring this quality content to you: Galls.com, CompliantTechnologies.com, GunLearn.com, MyMedicare.live, SafeguardRecruiting.com, and TwoBells.com. We will see you back on Monday at 12 noon Eastern for the live show.