reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @Winslow20Don
@Winslow20Don - 🇵🇸 No Biden No Trump
PART 3 of 3...THREAD Prior to the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict, NBC in New York tells a producer to follow a jury member. The producer committed traffic violations while doing so and there may have been additional NBC personnel following other jury members. https://t.co/s24jwczodf
Video Transcript AI Summary
We urge everyone to avoid following and sharing phone numbers to prevent dangerous situations. Violating traffic laws is not acceptable. Please refrain from doing so. Thank you for understanding. The individual is not connected to this community and is from out of state. We apologize for any confusion. The person's role is a booking producer.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In in different areas. And so we we were just, like, or, like, following, phone number. He's, He's, we're gonna ask you guys to not do that. Alright? That's that's a concern here.
This is huge. We can't afford anything crazy happening, putting people in in dangerous positions. This individual violated some traffic laws here doing this. So we're gonna ask you guys to refrain from doing that. Got it.
Understood. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. We're very sorry. We're very sorry.
I'm very sorry. Go ahead. It's 494. Do you have any ties to to this community, sir? I love this community.
I've covered a lot of golf listening straight. Not the Kenosha community itself. No, sir. Negative. You do not have any ties here.
He's from out of state. Sounds good. Alright. I apologize. Kyrie, what's your what's your, position?
Booking producer. Booking producer?
reSee.it AI Summary
On Juneteenth, I highlight a concerning statement by @POTUS regarding police brutality. In another post, Joe Biden's support for the death penalty in the "Biden Crime Bill" is discussed.
@Winslow20Don - 🇵🇸 No Biden No Trump
A THREAD TO REMEMBER @POTUS ON JUNETEENTH... In the aftermath of Rodney King, Biden advocates for police beating confessions out of suspects. https://t.co/kXFoWdRjL1
Video Transcript AI Summary
Police officers need clear guidance to protect us, even if it means using force. Should confessions obtained through force be admissible in court? The speaker questions this using the Rodney King case as an example. While they acknowledge the seriousness of a murder confession obtained through force, they argue that constitutional rights should not be denied, even in such cases. The speaker expresses uncertainty about the admissibility of such confessions, but ultimately believes that they should not be allowed in court.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And expect police officers without clear guidance to do anything other than try to protect us by whatever means are necessary. I mean, I wonder what my friend from from California would said if this this beating case we saw out in, Los Angeles. If in the process of that beating, that person confessed to having murdered somebody, should it be admissible? If in the process of that beating, I asked that question to my friend. What what what was the fellow's name?
Rodney King. Rodney King. If when Rodney King was being beaten, the guy we saw in television, In the process of that beating, Rodney King confessed to a murder that he did commit. Should Rodney King be convicted under our laws? That's my question.
I don't know under those circumstances. I really don't. See, that's the problem. The fact of the matter is, the answer is probably not. Probably not.
Right. Yeah. I think I I don't know how the courts would construe that, but probably not. Well, usually the courts construe beatings, eliciting confessions as not a good thing. And the reason they do that is we have a proposition about self incrimination, in our country.
As a matter of fact, not only usually, always do they construe it that way. But my point is there would be, assuming somebody had committed a murder, if the police beat the confession out of him and he did commit the murder. He did commit the murder and confessed to it, and that's what convicted him. Now I wouldn't want that guy going free. I wouldn't want that person going free.
They did commit a heinous murder, but the only way we're able to convict him is the peep the police beat him up with a hose. Should that person be denied their constitutional rights? Well, my gut tells me no. Yes. They should be.
Hang them. They did it. But why is it that we don't allow those kinds of things to be admissible?
@Winslow20Don - 🇵🇸 No Biden No Trump
Listen to Joe Biden’s words: The “Biden Crime Bill,” which is before us, calls for the death penalty for 51 offenses. We do everything but hang people for jaywalking in this bill. https://t.co/qLttDy34Sf
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker supports the death penalty and authored a bill that included it for 4051 offenses. They believe in the death penalty and do not oppose it on moral grounds, stating that the bill does not go as far as hanging people for jaywalking.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Biden crime bill is before us, calls for the death penalty for 4051 offenses. The first death federal death penalty after declared constitution was a bill written by me. I support the death penalty. I don't oppose the death penalty on moral grounds. We We do everything but hang people for jaywalking in this bill.