Hi, this is Collin McCallin. Thank you for listening. Please do us a favor and leave us a five star review wherever you get your podcasts and subscribe so that you don't miss any future episodes. Thank you.
[inaudible] hello? Hello. Hello. Welcome everyone.
Another episode of is this legal. My name is Russell Hebets. I'm here with my partner, Colin McCallin, coming to you from sunny, Denver, Colorado. And today we have a very full episode for you. We are going to be unpacking the Derek Chauvin trial, which just recently wrapped up and we have a new segment where we have a guest on and play. Is this legal, so make sure you tune in buckle your seatbelt. It's going to be a fun ride. So we are back on episode 32, we covered the George Floyd tragedy. So if anyone hasn't listened to that, you should go back and listen to that. That kind of goes through all the ins and outs of the tragic death of George Floyd at the hands of police officer Derek Chauvin. Well, today was the return of the verdict on that trial. Derek Chauvin pled not guilty. He was facing three counts and those are the counts. We went over back in episode 32 and the jury just came back and they just came back guilty on all three.
That's correct. This was about a month long trial and, um, testimony wrapped up last week, closing arguments for a couple of days ago, uh, actually what they did yesterday. And so the jury was about for less than 24 hours
For a case this long. That is a very fast journey.
Yeah, I would. That, that's a very fast verdict. I, what, you know, you can, you can only infer so much not being in the actual room, but I would venture to say most of the jurors were in agreement from the beginning that deliberation started just because normally if, if there was more of a deadlock issue or, uh, uh, if people were hung up on the charges, that's where you typically see days long verdicts. This was definitely not that
Right. And you know, Colin and I were talking about this before the verdict came back and, you know, we were, we were mostly in agreement with how they were going to come back. Um, I thought, absolutely, they were going to come back on the two lesser charges, the second degree manslaughter and the third degree murder. And I thought that that was almost a hundred percent, the second degree murder, I thought maybe a little tougher. Um, but I still thought that they would come back guilty and you know, it's probably a good thing for social peace and order in Minnesota.
Right. That's true. Let's really quickly break down. The chart is again, we did this in episode 32 just after, uh, uh, Derek Chauvin was charged, but now that he's actually been convicted, let's just do a kind of a quick recap, second degree murder. Uh, it's called second degree, unintentional murder. Um, we have heard, we see that called felony murder and other States, but essentially what this is, is this is where you have the unintended killing of any person during the commission of a felony. So basically if Derek Chauvin is committing a felony and someone dies in the commission of that felony, he's guilty and has been found guilty of second degree murder,
And that's irrespective of intent. So th this we're not talking about an intentional.
Yeah. So what, what he did intend to do though, was assault George Floyd. And the minute he assaulted George Floyd with intent and Jor, Floyd died, doesn't matter if he needed to, if he intended to kill him. So that's what the verdict, that's what the verdict means. He is guilty of second degree murder, then Russ there was, uh,
Murder. Yeah. So third degree murder is the basically again, unintentional killing. So unintentionally causing death while committing an eminently dangerous act with reckless disregard for human life. That's right. That is the definition of third degree murder. So that is a slightly lower if you've, if you're a listener from past podcasts, you know, the lower, the number for crimes, the worse it is. So we're up to three instead of two, but that is still, that's still murder. That's still a felony murder conviction. And then there's one more charge out there, right?
Yeah. Second degree manslaughter, which was the, uh, it's, it's a felony, but it was certainly compared to the others, uh, uh, one, uh, one of the more relative minor charges, but this is essentially a charge that says, uh, through, uh, th the, uh, Derek Chauvin through criminal negligence caused George Floyd's death. Um, and it's kind of a negligent standard, basically, they're saying that he didn't act did not act with due care.
Correct. He took it on reasonable risk. Exactly is what they're saying. And so all three of those are now returned and they are guilty. So let's, let's go through Colin, how the prosecution approached this case, how the defense approach this case,
Right. Um, well, three words for the prosecution, I think w would summarize their case video, video video. Um, I, you know, I haven't seen the videos since, uh, the video, you know, first became public back almost a year ago, but I can tell you, and of course, if any of you have seen the video, you know, how, how awful and horrible it is, gut wrenching and, you know, um, it, it's one of those things that shows exactly what happened. Right. Really in all. I mean, we, we actually, it's crazy because we, we actually might've commented about this during the last podcast we did on this case, but we're living in a world where murders can be documented and this, this, this murder, which we can now call it, that officially was documented by multiple cameras, multiple angles angles. I mean, there, there was really no dispute in terms of what happened. I think that the, the debate in the case was where was the intent on the part of Mr. Chauvin? What was he doing? Was he restraining someone, or was this a murder,
Right? Was it justified or not essentially? And, you know, the prosecution did exactly what they needed to do. Okay. They needed to just hammer that video. And they spent a whole lot of time, the whole first third of their trial. And that, that third took more than a third timeline, just going through witness after witness, who saw it and who videoed it and how they reacted to it.
That's right. Russ. And, you know, the video in this case was, was, was just devastating to the defense. It really was. Um, another thing that I think was devastating to the defense was the medical experts for the States, uh, were, were pretty uniform in confirming causation, specifically saying that George Floyd died as a result of actions of the police officers. Um, you know what, we'll talk about the defense later, but that was something that they really, really shored up there. Like, look, but for Derek, Chauvin putting his knee on George Floyd's death for nine minutes on his neck for nine minutes, his death,
Right. And that's one of two things the prosecution prosecution absolutely had to do. They had to nail down causation, which you just referenced. And then they had to nail down that the force that Chauvin used was not appropriate, legitimate, appropriate was not sanctioned. That's not how police officers are supposed to use force. And they did that. They put on supervisors with the department, they put on use of force experts. And so the prosecution, their job was simple. They didn't muddy the water. They didn't wander too far field. They hammered home causation. They hammered home. His actions were not appropriate. And then they said, here's the video? Let's, let's listen to this poor man saying I can't breathe. 27 times.
We lawyers, we try, uh, lawyers. We, we always try and see if we can use a clever catchphrase that goes back to the jury room that kind of encapsulates your case. And the prosecution did that in this case, they kept saying, believe your eyes, believe your eyes. You're, you know, you're watching the video. You don't be distracted. Anything else? Just watch the video, look at the video. And I think that's, you know, where the prosecution was successful. Now let's shift gears a little bit. Let's talk about defense strategy here. Um, Russ, um, you know, use of force, obviously we're talking about a police officer here, uh, that was something that they made a really big deal about in defending Derek Chauvin right.
They, they did. And that was, that was smart of them to do that. You know, they have to, they have to find some way to justify his actions, right. And if the use of force that he used was reasonable, then we ha we, we, we don't have a murder anymore. Now we have an appropriate use of force. So what they did is they basically said, Hey, jury, you watch this nine plus minute video all these times, but what you didn't see is the almost 17 minutes, right before that led up to why officer Chauvin did what he did.
That's correct. You know, they, what they decided to do was turn it around a little bit and, and ask the jury to look at George Floyd and look at George Floyd's lifestyle. You know, they're, they, they made reference to the fact that he had, uh, some medications in his system that may have contributed to his death. They, that, that he had a blood, uh, was it high blood pressure was a heart condition. There was some sort of heart condition that he had, uh, that also could have contributed to his death. And basically they're saying, you know, in, in conjunction with, with, with those other factors, we've got Derek Chauvin, who is in the moment, he's in the middle of a hostile crowd. People are deriving him. They, you know, th this, this situation could explode at any minute. He was basically doing what he thought was right to restrain this man under the conditions. That was essentially what the defense was trying.
Yeah. And they basically did two things there. They, they said his use of force, given all those circumstances was reasonable. And, um, George Floyd, you can't prove causation because he had a fentanyl in his system. He had methamphetamines in his system. He had a heart condition. I mean, they basically said all of these things factored into his death. It wasn't the neon, the throat, you know, and, and really looking at it. I mean, you have to attack it somehow, but those are just tough cells. It's tough cells. The first point you made, like this is in the action of the moment. It was, you know, you didn't see the 16 and a half minutes before. I can see that if it took 30 seconds for him to die. Right. Not if it took nine minutes, nine minutes.
No, I, I, I, I agree. I was wondering, just kind of watching this thing unfold before the jury announced their verdict. I was wondering how much, I guess, uh, credit would be given officer Chauvin given the fact that he's a police, like, does, does that factor in here, does the fact that he was, uh, trying to arguably trying to control what he deemed to be an unruly subject?
I mean, I'll tell you historically it does matter. Right? Right. I mean, we've talked about this. Yeah.
Historically it does matter. We we've seen, um, murder, verdicts fail against police officers who kill others in the line
Of duty and fail at an extraordinarily high rate. Officers have gotten acquitted for so much, so much more likely for an officer to get acquitted of a violent offense than your average Joe, off the street. It's the stats are staggering. So, so let's, let's talk a little bit about why Derek Chauvin didn't testify, but, but before we do this, let's take a quick break and head to our brand new interview segment, where our guest tells nothing, but the truth and they get to play is this legal, our guest this week is national renowned, nationally renowned chef and restaurant tour. Tom Coohill chef Tom's latest endeavor is Coohills restaurant on cherry Creek in downtown Denver, across from the Pepsi centers. So it is the perfect place to pop in before or after a game or concert and try his world famous crab cakes, chef Coohill. Welcome to the podcast.
Thanks for having me on
Welcome chef. How are you? This is Collin McCallin and, uh, um, kind of just to dive right into it, man. We would, uh, love to have you, uh, talk to our listeners, uh, in our nothing but the truth section where we invite you to tell us a little bit about a, a legal situation or story that you were involved in, where things got legal for you. So, Tom, what do you got for us today?
Well, you know, owning a restaurant, there's always opportunities for legal, uh, issues. So, uh, we had one, probably the most interesting one that we had was in 1996, we had a restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia called [inaudible]. There was a little French restaurant, 85 seat, kind of really cool, fine dining restaurant. And we had a, uh, a table of four come in, uh, two doctors and their wives and they ordered, and the, one of the doctors ordered the bull you bass, which is a fish stew basically. And from the South of France. So it's got muscles in the shell and clams and oysters and shrimp and lobster and fish. And then it's a broth made with fish. I mean my mouth swatter and already. Yeah. So it's like a, it's like a, it's a, it's a, um, it's kind of like a, Chapino like an elaborate version of a subpoena, which has a lot of shellfish and things in it.
So he ordered this and a full dining room Saturday night. Everything's going great. He stands up after he eats the one guy that ordered the DBAs stands up, passes out, starts having a seizure on the floor. Oh my gosh. Scan. And the, and the, and so the whole table stands up the weight, it runs over and the wife's, you know, leaning over him saying, I told you not to eat shellfish. You know, you're not supposed to eat shellfish. So anyway, the ambulance comes, he leaves, uh, and this is a doc remind you. And a week later we get the lawsuit. You know, the lawsuit was that he ordered the vegetable plate and he got this dish, which was bouillabaisse that he thought was a vegetable plate and he ate it. So he ate the lobster out of the shell, the mussels out of the shell and all the ate the whole thing.
And we were negligent because we sent him something and he was allergic to when he ordered the vegetable plate. Wow. Um, it, it went to, uh, you know, the insurance company took over and, uh, went through a little bit of this and that. And then I think the judge didn't even at summary judgment said, this is not legitimate because two reasons, one is you're wide. There's a witness, a couple of witnesses to your wife saying, you shouldn't be in shellfish. And it's not reasonable to say that you got served shellfish and you, and you're allergic to shellfish and you ate them out of the shell.
So Tom, you're not normally serving your broccoli and Brussels sprouts stuffed inside lobster tails and clams. Is that what I'm hearing?
I mean, that would be an interesting concept. Vegetarian would be too friendly to that kind of a presentation, but it was, it was, uh, it was, it was, it was just silly. It was almost like, yeah, really. You still had to deal with that though. You probably still had to use them to take a good look at it. I mean, that's, I'm glad justice prevailed.
It ended the right way. All right, Tom. Now is the time for our segment. Is this [inaudible] you are our next contestant chef, Tom Coohill. And what's how it works. Tom is we're going to give you a legal scenario. You are going to tell us whether or not what transpired in that scenario is legal. Are you ready? All right. So a husband and wife are arguing. It is a heated argument and the husband is getting more and more frustrated. Finally, he picks up, picks up a plate that they got for a wedding gift and says, you make me so mad. And he just throws the plate straight down on the ground, shattering the plate. Now, Tom, I want to be clear. He didn't throw it at his wife. He threw it straight down and it broken, shattered all over. Is he legal in doing that?
Legal and what, what, what, what's the charge? What's the what's that,
That is, that is, that is what the question is to you, Tom, is there a charge? And if Brett, did he break the law?
Did he break the law by, by saying you make me so mad and threw the plate on the ground? Not at her. Yes. I would say probably, but I wouldn't agree with it. The only reason I would say it would be, cause she felt threatened, but I don't think that would be accurate. I, I, I can't imagine that he would win, but she would win that case. But I would think that she would say she felt threatened by that by threatening or would be illegal.
All right. All right. So that actually would be domestic violence. Um, certainly in Colorado, probably most places because it would be destruction of property. So it wouldn't be the threat because he said, you make me so mad. That's not a threat to her. He didn't throw the plate at her, but he broke something. He broke something that was marital property. And that is destruction of property or criminal mischief. And that, because it involved, it happened when there was a domestic dispute that would be domestic violence. Um, so that is not legal.
So I was right. You were correct. My question is if, if, if what, what would be the, um, what would they be charging him with? Domestic violence
Would be a criminal mischief would be the charge, which is what we call destruction of property. That's the underlying charge. And because the case involved your domestic spouse or someone that you're in a relationship with that, that's what makes it domestic violence. Then Tom, I agree with you. Um, I think it is a pretty silly case. I've seen versions of that case before in the criminal justice system and often they get dismissed, but it still could land you in a jail cell and get you charged. So, yeah.
Yeah. But, and to your point, Tom, like saying that, you know, he didn't threaten her that's relevant, you know, cause he wouldn't be charged with assault or attempted assault to your point. You were correct on that, but because he broke something, it'd be that destruction of property. Well, Tom, before we let you go, we wanted to give you the opportunity to plug anything that you want to plug. Is there anything you want to tell our listeners that they should be doing and can't miss out on?
Yeah, we, we just, um, we, with a lot of other restaurants have just reopened a few months ago, uh, in, in dealing, dealing with the COVID distancing and spacing, everything which has been going pretty well. Um, and now the playoffs are coming up and unfortunately the nuggets, uh, lost her mom, Marie, but the avalanche are gonna probably go pretty deep. And we're right across the street from the Petra center. We've got a lot of business before these games. So be doing a lot of pre concert when, when they allow concerts at the Pepsi center and pre play off game business. So if you're going to come for that, you might want to make a reservation. We had a lot of people walking in on the last game last night, avalanche game and they couldn't get in because they're not making reservations. Wow. You're in, COVID when you have, even though we're a hundred percent occupancy, it's a hundred percent at six foot table distancing, which is really like 50%. You can't make tables in. So make a reservation is my, my recommendation, wherever you're gonna go, because you see these people walking up, thinking that come right in there, we're we're full, you know? Right.
So you, you heard it everyone out there visit Coohills and early and have a cocktail cause they're awesome. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Well, Hey Tom, thank you so much for coming on. We wish you the best.
No worries. Talk to you guys later. Thank you. Bye bye. Bye.
All right. Welcome back everyone. So let's talk about why the defense did not put officer Derek Chauvin on the stand Collin. If I'm the defense attorney, I am thinking, I mean, my only shot is to somehow try to have this guy explain what was going on in his mind as he knelt on George Floyd's neck for nine plus minutes. So
Where we get into the specific cause of this case, this is something that Russ and I talk about constantly, uh, with any trial that we have pending, we are constantly evaluating. Do we put the client on the stand or not? And I can always tell you, this is a very difficult decision. It's a very calculated decision. And, and honestly, every case is different. Um, you know, Russ and I really have had many cases where we have put defendants on we've left clients off the stand. And honestly, I don't know if we've really identified a rhyme or reason to whether or not one approach has more success than another approach. It really depends on the case, but I think, uh, coming back down to this case, Russ and I are in square agreement that the defense missed an opportunity by not calling Derek Chauvin to the stand,
Right? So some obvious reasons to not call someone to the stand. The biggest obvious reason is if they have a felony conviction, right? Okay. If you have a, a client with a felony conviction that comes in yeah. That comes in, you get to, everyone gets to talk about it because it goes to the credibility of the witness. Any witness, not just the defendant, any witness out there, if they have a felony, everyone gets to talk about it. So he's a, he's a cop. He clearly does not have a felony conviction, right? So like the easy out is not that out for them. So, you know, from, from my perspective, there's very little reason to have him invoke his fifth, right? To not testify in a case of this magnitude. Now he'll be, he'll be exposed to pretty significant cross-examination. Right. Right. And,
But, and, and, but, but that doesn't matter. I mean, here's, here's what I'm looking at here. I mean, this guy has been public enemy, number one in the country for about a year. I mean, you look at all of the protests that happened last year and everything that's been going on in the last year, it started with this man. Right. You know, everybody, see, everybody has seen his mugshot. Everybody's been paying attention to this trial. This was an opportunity for the defense to call Derek Chauvin where he could have explained his intent that day, where he could have actually said this was the worst day of my life. I was trying to restrain a, a person that I believed was on drugs and was being combative with me. I did not intend for him to die. This. My life has been a tragedy ever since. It's really a way where he could have made a direct appeal to the jury to say, look, I may not be perfect. I may, I may have killed this man. And I regret every minute of it, but I did not. I'm not a murder.
Right. And, and that's something that, you know, he will get a chance to say things like that at the sentencing argument. And that's what we're going to jump to next. Um, he's going to get a chance to explain to the judge what was going on and why based on how he perceived things, he should be treated with leniency. That's, that's the pitch he's going to make. But the benefit of having him do that in the trial is you have a shot of effecting the verdict.
Yeah. I mean, no one even knows what this guy sounds like when he talks, like he's just a face in a courtroom without the ability to testify. You said he's, he's
Public enemy. Number one. I mean, his, his own wife left him like a week after this happened. So I mean, he is, he is generally hated by just everyone out there and, and he, to your point, he has not had a chance to put himself out there and show people a humanized sign of him, right. Side of him,
Excuse me. Um, you know, so we don't, we're totally speculating on this. I mean, one thing to know about, um, a defendant's right to testify or not at trial, it actually is their decision. It's the defendant's right. He, his attorney's may have been begging him to testify and maybe he said, no, I'm not getting up there. I'm not doing it. And he knows.
Right. And another thing, there's a possibility. There's a possibility that what he told his lawyers off the record was so damning that the lawyer said we can't put you on. Right. Because if, if for example, he said, yup, I knelt on his neck. And I knew I was killing him. I wanted him to die. If he said that you're his lawyer, can't put him on the stand and have him testify differently than that. That would be subordinate.
Right. It's unethical for attorney. You can't, he can't, he can't say, Hey, Derek, just pretend like you never said that. And go up, go up and take the stand and say that you didn't intend for him to die.
Here's a script of what I want you to say. You can't, you can't do that. So that's a possibility, you know, maybe how he would have testified would have just been damning to him in the case,
Who knows, but we know what happened without him testifying, that didn't work out so well for him to do
That. Yeah. I mean, that, that was my that's. My bottom line is you really have so little to do.
Yeah. I, I thought, I mean, I didn't watch the whole trial, but, um, I thought that th th the defense did a capable job, except for that one area. I, I am, I am unconvinced that that was the right move.
The, the defense, this was a tall order for the defense. This was a difficult, difficult. When you have a nine and a half almost minute video of the murder happening. It's tough to defend with that. Especially when all three of these charges, none of them required an intentional act. None of them required him intending to kill George Floyd. So now here we are Colin. We are now eight weeks out from sentencing.
So the judge has ordered something called a, for those of you watching the live stream of the verdict, the judge ordered something called a PSI, which is short for pre-sentence investigation report. That's going to be a report that's generated, uh, so that the judge has additional background information on Derek. Chauvin his upbringing, his education, um, his social interactions, stuff like that, criminal history, if there is any exactly. And, uh, sentencing is going to be, uh, eight weeks from now, as Russ said, and here's here are the numbers, second degree, a felony murder that he was convicted of that caps out at 40 years. So he faces a possibility of 40 years for that one count. Um, second degree, uh, pardon me, third degree murder, uh, caps out at 25 years. So he faces a possibility of a 25 years and second degree manslaughter, uh, carries with the possibility of a 10 year sentence. We are believing that, uh, these sentences can be run to consecutively. And what that means is the judge can stack. The judge can give 40 years for the first count, 30, 25 years for the second count and 10 years for the third, if he wanted to,
I want it to, and it's, it's important to note like those are the caps on all of them, but the sentencing guidelines have, um, guidelines for first offense with no prior criminal history. And those numbers are significantly lower. So you have, for the second degree murder, 40 years is the max. The presumptive under the sentencing guidelines is 12 and a half years for the third degree murder up to 25 presumptive again, 12 and a half. And then for second degree manslaughter up to 10 presumptive as four. So these numbers are a fraction of what the maximums are and your typical first offender with no criminal history whatsoever would get those, those guideline sentences. The da, in this case, I guarantee it is going to be asking for more because this is aggravated
Well, yeah, not only that, but here's just an interesting aside. Um, normally, uh, a criminal defendant facing a trial has a right to have the jury decide whether or not there exists any aggravating or mitigating circumstances that could weigh in, in, in their sentencing. Chauvin waved that he waived the jury, making those findings, uh, which means that a judge is going to have to decide if those factors exist. This guy is a fate is in the hands of this judge. And if a judge finds that there's aggravated behavior that require him to, uh, I guess, sentence more than this, then the guy harshly, then, then he can do that.
And, and here's what the da is going to say. He's going to say, judge, this was particularly aggravated because Floyd was particularly vulnerable, right? He was handcuffed. He was honest face. That is an aggravator judge. This is aggravated because there were children present officer Chauvin killed a man in front of kids. Right. That is what they're going to say. And this judge is going to agree. So we'll, we'll see how it goes in eight weeks. Um,
You know, it's a, this is just a terrible case. Um, you know, but our hope is that the verdict is going to bring some peace to the community of Minneapolis peace to the family of George Floyd. Um, it's just one of those things where there was never really going to be any happy ending to this case. Right. Uh, we can only hope that justice was done. So we'll see. Uh, we'll probably just do a quick update later once we, uh, get the sentencing info in eight weeks. But, um, in the meantime, yep. That's a, that's a recap of Derek Chauvin and, uh, I guess convicted murderer, Derek Chauvin now,
And now it's onto lighter.
I think maybe it's time to move away from all of this humdrum and, uh, solemn
Adult dramas and the homes
Get some D C O T w. Please. I ask Ann, I deliver asking you Sheldon that's right. Enough of this legal mumbo jumbo. Uh, let's get, let's get down to the brass tacks of why you people are actually listening. Right? Well, we have another fresh
D C O T w for your listening pleasure for anyone out there has not listened
Before D C O T w is the dumb criminal of
Week. Uh, and boy, do we have someone stupid Russ? Um, you know, we don't, we always, this time we're going, I don't believe we have done a DCO TW from South Africa, but that's where we're going today, Russ. So here it is a suspected car thief in Pretoria, South Africa was foiled when the auto lock system of the car that he allegedly allegedly, it's not that alleged about at this point, uh, you allegedly broke into that trap and he was trapped inside according to the star newspaper, which documented the whole charade. The man was stuck. This would be thief was stuck for an hour and a half inside the car. He was attempting to steal shouting for help. And this is the best part while amuse passers-by pointed in laughter.
And that's just brutal. Not only did you just completely screw up the fact you did,
And maybe that's something he told the judge later, judge, I was really embarrassed and humiliated. I mean, people were just laughing. People were filming me my price to judge. It was humiliating. The newspaper reporting, this indicated that when the owner of the car returned, uh, she came up to the car yelled, what are you doing in my car? And then promptly unlocked the car at which, uh, there were police officers who had already assembled and promptly, took the car thief into custody. That that is also, so I get what I mean, what do we learn here, Russ, if you're going to steal a car, uh, better, make sure that maybe you leave the car door open, perhaps, uh, maybe it doesn't have auto lock. I don't steal the car in the first place. I guess let's start there
Having a plan. Once you get in to Hotwire it, like he was inside, he couldn't drive away.
What was he going to do? That's a good point. Did he have any plan beyond getting inside of this car? All right. Breaking a check, stealing a visor. Darn it. Foiled again. All right. Well, we've got to, we've got two rates are South African, uh, criminal. Wouldn't be criminal. I don't know if he even gets to be called criminal. Well, Russ, you go first scale from one to five knuckleheads. How stupid is this guy,
Man? I mean, this guy is stupid. This guy is, is stupid, stupid. I gave a full five knuckleheads last week. Um, our last podcast, um, I'm, I'm having trouble just rationalizing why this guy doesn't also deserve
The full five. And then, you know, I'm going to give them five a day, look here. And every one of them, I mean, you know, there was like you said, no planning at all, uh, that there couldn't have been, if he didn't plan, it would be the worst plan ever, but he gets in the car like to, like you said, what was his plan without key's going to be, was it you going to just, just hope that he could find keys inside the car? I really laugh that he couldn't get out. I really laugh that he, I don't know it didn't try and hide in the car from the onlookers. I would have at least tried to get under the seat. I don't know. That'd be scary as for, um, but yeah, I'm, I'm giving him the full five to this is this guy gets a full 10.
This is a full 10. This is the first time ever. I mean, I think that means he's the ticket to date anyway, the dumbest criminal of the week. So far of the, of the podcast, DCO T P so South African friend, we don't know your name. Darn it. Uh, but, uh, that's probably better for you anyway. Um, but anyway, uh, that, that's a good one. So, uh, all right, well, I guess we're gonna wrap it up. We hope that you guys have enjoyed our new is this legal segment. And we appreciate, uh, our, our guests today. And of course, all future guests who are going to participate in that. Um, but check that out. And of course, if you need to contact us, we're all over the place you can find us on Twitter at is this legal pod. You can find us at our Facebook page Hebets and McCallin. Um, you can, uh, find our website. Yeah, we have a website turns out, so check us out. And of course we'll be back soon with another fresh episode of, is this legal until then signing off bye-bye