Cop Won't Uphold The Law

Apologia Studios

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:00

Shake hands? Yeah, great. Zach, please. Zach, also. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. What's your name?

00:05

Reece. Reece, pleasure. Hey, so, just know I take an unbiased approach.

00:11

I'm here to liaison, mediate, etc. We have complaints in reference to the volume of the speech, understanding the speech is protected, the content, unless it's a fighting word or something like that, which that's not what that was.

00:27

Yeah. I was assessing it based on my own, as far as the volume and how it impacts the work environment.

00:35

I will tell you this, just based on how I assessed it, the original speaker, I think it might have been you, it really was an impact, and I'm making phone calls, having conversations in offices, the second, which was you, or maybe third, however many.

00:49

It was getting to the level where it could be articulated. We look at 13 -2904, disorderly conduct, point three, time, place, and manner of the noise, except you're looking at a medical facility and patrons coming and going and how that impacts them.

01:13

Technically, I think you could say you're getting to the level of amplification versus disturbing them. So you've got to assess that when you're promoting your speech or whatever content that you're promoting.

01:24

Yeah. Is there a decibel reader? I mean, is there a certain level that I have to reach or something to verify?

01:30

So that is one option. It also is the amount of complaints somebody gets, how many people it's impacting.

01:39

I mean, we're all human beings, so I don't think I've been in court. I've been in court. A judge can make that assessment. Obviously, the letter of the law is black and white.

01:47

There's room for interpretation. And if you're familiar with probable cause, the amount of elements to reach probable cause for an arrest under submission of a charge, and then obviously in the courtroom for a criminal charge, that civil beyond a reasonable doubt.

02:01

So these are all things that you would assess in a courtroom if it were to ever get to that point. My goal is that it gets to a courtroom.

02:07

I'm not here to stifle anybody's speech. I hope that's conveyed clearly. It's more a conversation I'm having with you, something to consider when you're promoting whatever you're promoting.

02:18

We have the Patriot Movement. We go on to these people that promote their thing. We've got loud noise complaints from them.

02:23

We have other groups that we have that use amplification. So I'm just giving you something to consider when you're promoting what you're promoting.

02:32

I don't want you to be hard -hearted in receiving this because we're having a disagreement on content. There's no disagreement on content.

02:39

I'm not for or against. There's more consideration on the amplification. We just want to be lawful. We just want to be lawful.

02:45

That's why he was asking the question, is there something objective that we're violating? Yeah. We want to obey the law.

02:50

Is there something objective that we're violating? Like I said, we need to do this.

02:57

Babies are dying in here, and so that's why we come out. What was your name again? Zach. I hope you can appreciate this.

03:03

I hope you can. Obviously, I have my personal life, and then I have a professional life. My professional life guides me based on the

03:11

Constitution, which I sort of uphold and protect, and obviously the protection of free speech, which is one of those amendments, as well as maintaining and keeping the peace and that balance.

03:21

So I have to walk that line. I don't take a biased approach. I don't listen to you over them, and I don't listen to them over you.

03:27

I hope that's conveyed very clearly. I'm listening to both parties. I'm just advising you. If your goal and intent is to mitigate any litigation in a courtroom, based on my experience and my –

03:43

I just had a conversation with a lawyer on the phone who's listening and other experienced detectives that I work with.

03:49

I think the second, and even from the original complainant, which is important too in a courtroom.

03:55

Oh, you got one today? Correct. Okay. The second bullhorn, or the second time someone was speaking, which was you, it breached that level of comfort where you can have a conversation without it really being dystopian on the interior.

04:09

And I realize you're not on the interior. That's why I'm conveying the message to you. Okay. And you seem respectful and open all through again.

04:15

And I appreciate that. Obviously, I'm not trying to take enforcement action. Our goal is truly to mitigate the problem instead of it arising to a courtroom.

04:23

We want to protect your speech. I truly do. I believe – again, I sort of uphold the

04:28

Constitution, so I wouldn't want to stifle your speech. Again, unless it was a fighting law, which it's now, it's more of the amplification.

04:35

Okay. Is that a fair enough assessment? What was the – sorry. What was the statute that you were citing?

04:43

13 -2904. I can read it for you if you'd like. Okay. Here's a revised statute.

04:51

It's the state law. It's not a city code. State law. Okay. State law. Are you familiar – I don't know, this is the first time

04:56

I'm talking with you. Sure. Are you familiar with the revised statute 13 -3603? Quote it for me, and I'll let you know if I'm – there's a lot.

05:04

So I say it like this, the IRS is bigger than the Bible. So I have a – I don't know if you've memorized the entire Bible, but I haven't memorized the entire

05:10

IRS. Unfortunately, no. Okay. Unfortunately, no. So go ahead. Well, the revised statute states that anyone who intentionally procures the miscarriage of a woman's child by chemical or surgical means is subject to prosecution.

05:24

So I don't know if you're familiar with that statute, but when I say that we're trying to be lawful out here, I genuinely mean in accordance with God's law and Arizona state law by saying what's going on there is illegal by state standards.

05:36

So that's why we come also to proclaim the fact that this is against state law and to acknowledge officers like yourself, who we very much respect, and acknowledge that your office is given to you by God, and just like you said, with a responsibility to uphold the

05:50

Constitution of our union. And so we would just exhort you, if you were unaware of that before, that is a duty that you have to enforce

06:00

Arizona state law. I'll tell you this. I'll say this. I got a business card.

06:05

You send me it. Would you feel comfortable emailing me? I would feel comfortable, yeah. Email me the statute you want me to review.

06:11

Okay. I can consider that in the context of our conversation and see if anything comes of it as far as my knowledge, experience, et cetera.

06:19

I've never been confronted with that one. Probably like I referenced with the Bible, I'm assuming you probably haven't memorized its entirety.

06:25

Sure. So I haven't memorized that. I respect that. But I'm always willing to learn. So that's maybe something that could be progressive.

06:33

I respect that. And I will email you the statute so you can take a look at it. And I appreciate that. And on that note, if you guys are going to events, so we used to formally used to be called the

06:46

Confrontation Squad. We're now the Community Response Squad. We also liaise on behalf of the chief for the advisory boards. But we do a lot of these types of things too.

06:54

If you think that it might be a benefit for us to be aware of something like this, that you're promoting your speech or whatever, and you have had confrontations in the past, obviously we want to mitigate those confrontations.

07:09

And I don't know to what scale or where you go or however. You don't have to get all of those details. But regardless, if you want to shoot me an email, my phone number is down there.

07:19

Yeah, we'll do that. It's a cell phone. You can text me, what have you. Sure. Got it all. I can't promise you

07:24

I'm going to be everywhere all the time, but we have the staffing and the ability to attend or be present in the vicinity to watch it.

07:33

Obviously, I'm in a non -uniform presence. I don't intend to hinder or intimidate anybody from promoting what they're promoting, as long as we're following that free speech and non -fighting.

07:42

We appreciate that. I'm sorry, Craig? Yeah, we appreciate that, Craig. Honestly, our hearts behind what we're doing here today is not just to reach these women with hope and help, practical things.

07:52

I'm sure you would agree with. But, I mean, also to be lawful. So when we ask questions like, is there something objectively that we're violating?

08:00

And then someone says, well, it's kind of subject to interpretive aspects. There's a lot of it.

08:05

In our minds, I mean, in terms of legal court precedents and everything that has come before us protecting free speech and amplified free speech, we would say, well, if it's open to interpretation, then a lot of these things, even a civic free speech, could be considered outrageous or offensive or disturbing the peace.

08:23

So in this case, I think that would fall into that same category. And obviously, we could have a conversation about that further.

08:30

But that would be our position. We want to obey the law. If there's a genuine law that we violated, we want to be in compliance with it.

08:38

I don't believe that we have. And so that's why we're here and we continue to do what we do. I'm going to reference a statute if you want to look this one up, too.

08:45

It's not related to this at all, but as an example of what you're saying. Because I think everybody can relate.

08:51

This is what most people know law enforcement as for speeding, right? Traffic stops or whatever. Well, only if you drive poorly.

08:57

So the statute states 28 -701A, which is the traffic code, speed greater than reasonable and prudent.

09:04

Speed greater than reasonable and prudent. There's articulable facts that come into play based on judgment, based on experience.

09:12

Sure. Based on a judge's perspective, my perspective, based on the original stop, such as the amount of traffic, the weather, rain, snow, fog, the amount of inlets of streets, construction.

09:25

These are all things that are tempered around that, that we would consider while issuing a citation.

09:31

I'm only saying that is because we do that in a lot of stuff. There is a level of articulation and we call it articulable facts to establish either reasonable suspicion, probable cause, preponderance of evidence for a civil case, or beyond a reasonable doubt.

09:49

Sure. Of course, there's things that you might say is not okay and I might say based on my training experience, or vice versa, is okay or not okay.

10:01

And obviously, that's why we have these precedents, these case laws you referenced. And then we have the courtroom to establish the legitimacy of those decision makings and all the facts that go into it.

10:12

Those are the checks and balances, if you will, in the justice system.

10:17

Whether you agree with it or not, I'm not going to tell you I agree with every law or disagree. That's not for me. I swore an upholding.

10:23

Of course. That's where I'm at. As far as the original one you referenced about, I think, something...

10:29

13 -3600. Yeah, 13 -3600. Have you filed a criminal complaint or have you asked for a detective to review anything or filed a complaint?

10:36

Because that's traditionally how it works. Maybe you could help me with that. I mean, what would be the process for that? How would we go about doing that? If you specifically saw a case of something, you thought you were a victim of a crime...

10:45

Yeah. So you were victimized and you would be the victim and you would testify in court. That would be how it would originally work.

10:51

If you're suspecting a business violating something, then obviously you would want to file a formal complaint with your local precinct or if you want to call down to the headquarters or something like this.

11:02

But as far as the statute, I have no problem reviewing it. I'm not familiar with that one. So it might be informative for me.

11:07

Well, the only question I would ask someone in your position is... We all know what goes on in there. I mean, you referred to it as a health care facility, but we know in terms of pregnancy, children, when a doctor reaches into a woman and tears that baby apart,

11:24

I mean, we know what's going on. It's an intentional causing of a miscarriage. We know that biologically, scientifically, scripturally, of course.

11:31

I know you said there's kind of a division between your personal life and professional life, but there's absolutely no disputing that that's what's going on in there.

11:38

So when we cite that revised statute, the purpose of that is to say, we know what these businesses are doing.

11:44

They're causing the intentional miscarriage of a child, of an unborn child in a woman's womb. And there is current

11:50

Arizona state law that's never been changed, that's never been rescinded, and never been done away with.

11:55

And it says that anyone who does that is subject to prosecution. I believe the statute is two to five years at least.

12:01

So I'm not a lawyer, so I don't want to litigate this right here on the side of here.

12:08

No, I understand your position. I just want to explain it. But just hear me on this. From my knowledge and experience, and I don't say it supersedes any lawyer, but you also want to take into account federal law, and how they balance each other as far as one overruling.

12:26

That's so important. It is. That is so important. This is the conversation that needs to be had, and that is, what is the relationship between state law, and what is the responsibility of a federal court?

12:40

You referenced federal court, so I'm assuming Roe v. Wade could be along the lines of what you're referring to.

12:46

And it's amazing because that constitution that you took an oath to uphold says that states,

12:52

I mean essentially they have the duty to ignore unrighteous decrees that come from the

12:57

Supreme Court that are based on faulty premises. Especially in the name of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

13:04

So I would say that's exactly where this discussion needs to be had is, what's the role of the state, like Arizona, when we have a state law on the books that's never been changed, and then we have a decree from a federal court that says women have the right to murder their children.

13:18

I'm sure you would agree with me, state law stands, and we need to ignore that. Stuff like that probably needs to be established in the federal rule.

13:28

Which aspect? When you're saying laws and precedents and rulings as far as federal rules.

13:33

The revised statute that's on the books. Yeah, so you're going to have to establish that in the courtroom.

13:41

Yeah, it's a lot of work. Yeah, I hear you. We appreciate your time and your respectfulness.

13:48

Thank you, Greg. We'll definitely be emailing you about that statute. Thanks for your time. Thank you, guys.