Part 8 - Amber Guyger Testimony - Court Room Survival Training

Share
HTML-code

Comments • 84

  • LoneDragon
    LoneDragon  1 weeks back

    I guess if you mumble the word "figure", it can sound like the N word.

    • Yvan V
      Yvan V  4 weeks back

      LMFAO, she's in prison. She's a murderer. People can cry about it all they want, you can't go in other peoples apartment and feel threatened then shoot someone in his own fucking place that you illegally entered. Have fun in prison. hahahaha

      • Astrid Gruber
        Astrid Gruber  1 months back

        Why muder and not manshlouther?? She did not plan it, it was an accident,.. I don't understand this. And to you people who think justice is important in the courts, forget it. It's about winning. They don't give a sh.. about people. They ruin lives of indecent people. How many humans are in jail for things they did not do. This happens in Austria, too. And it only comes out when people have money. I don't want to know how much are really in jail for nothing. The cops don't care and in court it's really only about their carrier and who winns. A friend of mine knew 10 days before he saw the judge how long he will get. How is that possible?? They all know each other, if you pay a good lawyer they want 70 % normal and the rest of the money in cash and "black". It's a show. What's going on here is obvious not right. Maybe someone has contacts and wanted to riun her life. Nothing else makes sense.

        • BlueBlazesWildcat
          BlueBlazesWildcat  1 months back

          This is complete B.S. Guyger was set up to fail the minute she took the stand.

          • Rick fm
            Rick fm  1 months back

            Simply a horrible accident. She should serve 0 time.

            • Brian Galindojr
              Brian Galindojr  1 months back

              Why didn't she call 911 like a normal person if she came home to a door open .oh shes a cop would a cop go into a unknown situation by themselves. No they wouldn't...so she was in the mindset of a opportunity to kill a threat and b the hero ..so I declare the verdict fair in my mind ..and to add it's always about how you play the game in court never ever about right and wrong ... so deescalate is what an officer is suppose to do until they start doing that I say fuck the blue !

              • wldtrky38
                wldtrky38  1 months back

                100% agree on the fight or flight explanation Rick. Would have been the perfect time to fill the jury in for the 2nd time, as they were opening the door reenactment... Man you make a ton of valid points. Same with her saying 2 seconds... It was IMMEDIATE. 2 seconds can be a lifetime.

                • Michael Blevins
                  Michael Blevins  2 months back

                  Rick is a true American! The truth hurts sometimes 🇺🇲. I tell my daughters to grow some balls sometimes, they know what I mean!

                  • VTwin4Christ
                    VTwin4Christ  2 months back

                    1:58 - so... She carried all that equipment and body armor from her car in her weak hand?? With her level of upper body strength?

                    • JRG 11
                      JRG 11  2 months back

                      Why is that so hard to believe...? I'm Left Handed, and if I'm carrying a bag, etc from my car. I hang it over my Right hand/arm (which would be considered my weak side) So I can use my dominant side to unlock and open door.

                    • Jake Logan
                      Jake Logan  2 months back

                      A good cop always carries things in their weak hand, to keep their gun hand free. Just ask Rick.

                  • james fox
                    james fox  2 months back

                    Kangaroo court is right, Rick. You should offer your services as an advisor for her appeal.

                    • Doesn't Matter
                      Doesn't Matter  2 months back

                      Does anyone know, if you’re a witness can you place objections?

                      • Marc Grundfest
                        Marc Grundfest  2 months back

                        @measl

                        No I am not saying only video.. transcript is needed to support high speed review and search.. while text to speech can help..it cant be relayed upon..

                        Lots of traffic courts are audio only and then charge for transcription if you try to appeal... well guess what I bet a lot of it in inaudible...and you cant go.back ..of course traffic court is just a revenue center so it does not matter much..

                      • measl
                        measl  2 months back

                        @Marc Grundfest *I agree with all of that. Unfortunately, the real world intrudes upon the world we would prefer. Pity, considering that it would not only make the process more reliable, but vastly cheaper as well. But, we must protect the Court Reporters (and their computerized "transcriptions"!)*

                      • Marc Grundfest
                        Marc Grundfest  2 months back

                        @measl
                        I am not an atty. So no..and I understand it's very hard.. as the client you need to discuss and document your concerns...

                        They must be part of the trial record and the must be specific..

                        " I am not happy" will not do it. " I lost " will not do it.

                        If you have the funds hire a second atty to advise you about the first..just like when you use more than one doctor..

                        The real issue is reversible error. Judges have confirmation bias as well. Plus courts are busy and they do not want to retry.

                        But when a judge denies you the right to consult in open court ,while the da is asking rhetorical questions and using you as a prop for launching a run for higher office..it gets easier.

                        One issue is that we are still in the dark ages..using only transcripts.. all trials should be on video and archived ..body lang is that important.

                      • measl
                        measl  2 months back

                        @Doesn't Matter *TBH, **_most_** Judges have a sense of fair-play, and I believe they would respond favorably to a procedural objection made by the witness when their lawyer is asleep at the wheel. Now, if you start objecting to **_crap_** - that's another story. I'm not certain how most Judges would react to BS objections that would routinely be made by counsel, but are made knowing they will be overridden (just to break up a good run for example). I'd have to think about this for a little while, and check the current Rules to fully answer your question - but you've got my off the cuff answer if it helps. For $235/hr, I can look it up and write you a very pretty report on it, specific to your jurisdiction and venue, if you like! ;-)*

                      • measl
                        measl  2 months back

                        @Marc Grundfest *I've never seen an appeal granted on ineffective counsel, have you? The one time I seriously looked into it I found SCOTUS cases that made my blood run cold: Public Defender in capital murder case slept through most of trial - **_Not ineffective._** Huh? I found all kinds of Big-M malpractice that should have been shoe-ins for ineffective counsel, but not one of them was found valid by SCOTUS. For all intents and purposes, they have have effectively removed Ineffective Counsel claims.*

                    • Matt's Horsemanship
                      Matt's Horsemanship  2 months back

                      Lawyers are so dam crooked. I once got a bill that wasn't mine and the bank took me to court, the bill was supposedly 8 years old and I represented myself. I claimed that the "statue of limitations was reached for that case" and I won the case. The lawyer was soooo pissed off that he slammed his suit case on the table when the judge ruled in favor of me lol. I had to object to that lawyer like 15 times because all he did was try to badger and make fun of me for not hiring a lawyer and representing myself. I did a dam good job. It was actually kinda fun going after that crooked lawyer because I was right and had all the evidence. That lawyer tried to trick me before the court date & sent me a letter saying "we have settled the case and will not be going after you, this case has been settled" BUT I still showed up to court just in case AND to my shock, the case wasn't dropped, I showed the judge that letter including showing their lawyer and the judge was pissed. That lawyer THOUGHT I wouldn't show up after getting that letter thinking the case was over. It was a DIRTY trick.

                      • ŹÈÚŠ
                        ŹÈÚŠ  1 months back

                        Taking a ticket to court? plead guilty and the cop will go home, then change to not guilty lolz.

                      • Marc Grundfest
                        Marc Grundfest  2 months back

                        Well yes misrepsention is an issue ..but if they threaten an action and you pay up ...they win. Then there is the issue of when the clock starts..the default sol vs special cases vs if the clock resets if the debt is sold ..depends on the jurisdiction.

                        But I am glad some of these guys are getting sanctioned..

                        Good job..

                      • measl
                        measl  2 months back

                        @Marc Grundfest *Actually, this is not OK if they file a memorandum documenting "the agreement" with the Court. That's how I was able to sue him.*


                        *The Bar Associations do the routine handling of the complaints here (if they want to sanction, it goes to the Supreme Court for a hearing). It is a clear violation of Rule 4 (of the uniform rules of civil procedure [Ethics]), and it is a sanctionable act. Lying to a court by an officer of the court is **_supposedly_** a very big deal - and they treat it as a very big deal in every other circumstance. It seems that this practice is responsible for so much revenue that everyone is willing to overlook it, even with a filed memorandum.*


                        *Since they won't sanction the license to practice for this, you can impose sanctions through the Court itself, by either counterclaiming or filing a separate suit - however - in many jurisdictions an Attorney owes no Duty of Care to a third party, and this will quash your claim. In Missouri there were several conflicting decisions on this, so I went for it and got lucky: the most authoritative of these divergent decisions had been argued about 20 years earlier by one of our local medium-sized firms, Brown James and Rabbit. And guess who opposing counsel was? :-) Yep, BJ&R! It was enough of a "hook" to interest the circuit Judge (who is now a federal circuit Judge: great Judge and a great guy! He was elevated by Shrub, early in his 1st term), who rejected the obligatory motions to dismiss, and the game was on!*


                        *The whole process took about two years under our "Rapid Trials Policy", and when it was done I kind of held my breath: I really though they would both appeal it and win, but they chose not to throw good after bad, so the decision became controlling (at least it was as of 1991).*


                        *Honestly, i learned SO MUCH from working on this suit that I would have won even iof I had lost. It ended up dependent on minutiae of the RCP, and a whole crapload of old common law - I would have been willing to **_pay_** for the education it provided! So, I count it as a triple win: I won, I helped restore 3rd party duty, and I got a first class education on the topic and it's related foundations. Hell, I worked this tiny dollar case for over 90 hours - something I know BJ&R were never going to do, as they were being paid by an insurance company, so I kind of had an unfair advantage. :-))*


                        *The scumbag who tried the "settlement memo" trick wasn't sanctioned by the bar, but because he had an insurance payout under his malpractice coverage, he was booted from his high dollar firm and ended up working out of a doublewide with some other scumbag for around five years (I guess it took 5 years for the hit on his policy to go away?): **_that_** is a "sanction" in my book: extra bonus! That escapade remains my biggest bragging story: I'll always be proud of teaching that crook a lesson, and of setting a new 3rd party standard. Better than sex! (yeah, I've been married for 25 years, what can I say?)*

                      • Marc Grundfest
                        Marc Grundfest  2 months back

                        Most folks dont know what the sol is.. but in the laywer game its malpractice not to try that bs.. if the courts ever decide tget don't want such nonsense..they can sanction lawyers and it will end very quickly..=)

                      • measl
                        measl  2 months back

                        *That is a common dirty trick and everyone knows about it. I even had a lawyer try that on me once in 1988 (like you I wasn't having it and had it dismissed): I sued him for it and got a $5k judgment, plus costs (which were more than three times the judgment!). Unfortunately, there isn't a Bar Association in the country that will discipline a lawyer for this (I've tried several times, with the sleaziest known reptiles in the Saint Louis Bar: nothing happened, and my one try at the New York Bar was also dismissed with a snide letter. I HATE the Bar Associations!).*

                    • carpetcowboy58
                      carpetcowboy58  2 months back

                      This is were I believe she made the fatal mistake that night. Door just pushes open. BIG RED FLAG. As a civilian we've been told to get to a corner of the house where we can observe 2 sides and call 911 to let them clear the house. As a cop the voices in her head should have been screaming FATAL FUNNEL. She should have retreated, covered the door and called for backup. Either her FTOs or her hot shot team failed to educate her or she's too dumb to be a cop.

                      • measl
                        measl  2 months back

                        *This was covered: the entire building had defective door frames, so almost all the doors would open just by being pushed. Having this happen was so routine that everyone in the building is used to it. When his family sues, this is going to take a HUGE chunk of cash out of the building's owner or his/her/its insurance carrier.*

                      • Doesn't Matter
                        Doesn't Matter  2 months back

                        carpetcowboy58 as a civilian I agree.. but she was a law enforcement officer. And as they stated she’s always a police officer. A police officer would investigate and go in. Hell I would go in with my gun out too, if I thought someone was in my house!

                    • Art T
                      Art T  2 months back

                      I'm with you on her attorney's performance here! I went and looked him up. His website bio says he's one of the best criminal defense attorneys in TX. Supposed to be really good on cross exam and known for through prep.

                      Sorry, I don't see it!

                      He sounds like a one-stop shop for anything criminal and that's just simply NOT the type of attorney you want in a use of deadly force case, not to mention an officer involved shooting case. If you're in a shooting you want somebody who has handled LOTS of shootings not the guy who handles everything from DUI to Capital Murder and Corporate crime.

                      That may be grounds for appeal due to ineffective council BUT as long as the attorney does a "competent" job then the appeal fails because you had the choice to hire Jerry Spence but you choose to hire this dufus instead. Court consider whether your attorney checked all the right boxes on the way to your conviction NOT how vigorous or effective their presentation was.

                      • measl
                        measl  2 months back

                        *Is he a member of any Trial Lawyer guilds?*

                        *For life and death trials, don't use anyone who is not an actual Trial Lawyer in the area you need help in. For me, that's the bare minimum qualification.*

                    • Bob Laublaw
                      Bob Laublaw  2 months back

                      Thank you!

                      • o bummer 14-4
                        o bummer 14-4  2 months back

                        Walking towards her saying hey, hey, hey... sounds like he was trying to deescalate not fight.

                        • Marc Grundfest
                          Marc Grundfest  2 months back

                          @measl

                          I wish I had the time... I usually ignore most of the show and just listen for keywords so I know when to pay attention... =)

                        • measl
                          measl  2 months back

                          @Marc Grundfest *I actually found those shows while looking at an aviation incident for my boss: they're pretty terrible shows! Cookie cutter actually, the only thing that changes is the scene where the "disaster" happens, and the faces of the actors playing Captain and F/O. Just awful! Fun to watch though - can't figure that out. Terrible show, fun to watch!*

                          *In all seriousness, if you've never read through an aviation report, go pull some (they're all on line for free)! They are **_amazing_** examples of How Investigation Should Be Done! They don't miss **_anything._** The kinds of crazy minutiae they get into, **_routinely,_** is just mind bending!*

                        • Marc Grundfest
                          Marc Grundfest  2 months back

                          @measl

                          I love the show air disasters. I just wish they spent more time on the investigation..watching the incident is a waste of time..

                        • measl
                          measl  2 months back

                          @Marc Grundfest *Good observation! In aviation, that concept is enshrined into the process for the investigation of accidents. It turns out that it's never just one thing that brings down an aircraft - it's a whole series of things, culminating in an unknown or unfamiliar set of circumstances (in law that would be called a "fact pattern"), that results in a crash or near miss, etc. Reading the reports from aviation incidents are always a study in good investigation!*

                        • o bummer 14-4
                          o bummer 14-4  2 months back

                          Generally attackers will run and say things like f.. you get out bla bla bla... not hey , hey ,hey

                      • Marc Grundfest
                        Marc Grundfest  2 months back

                        Did she ever Id herself as police? Did she have reason to believe he could see she was in uniform?

                        • Marc Grundfest
                          Marc Grundfest  2 months back

                          @measl

                          Interesting.. I did not think of that. And neither did council.. given her sentence and the possibility of parole even a successful appeal is a gamble .. but the qualified immunity angle..that's all reward and no risk.

                          Is that a written policy. I think many jurisdictions now call it subject to recall to duty 24x7.. but they also sometimes require police to intervene even if off duty for serious crimes..

                          I hope someone can make that case... I am so pissed off with heads I win,tails you lose court system...

                        • measl
                          measl  2 months back

                          @Marc Grundfest *Yeah, I noticed the lack of a #2 (and maybe a #3) as well. Rick would have to chime in for me to be sure, but my belief is she was provided legal assistance as part of her "benefits package" through the local police union. If so, I would argue they breached that agreement. Also, the surprise by the ADA that all of their officers are "on duty 24 hours a day" (a policy the NYPD did away with in the 1970's for this very reason), may be her best chance at a successful appeal: if she was on duty, she's covered by Sovereign Immunity, and the entire trial was a farce.*

                        • Marc Grundfest
                          Marc Grundfest  2 months back

                          @measl

                          The other explanations.

                          1. No money for experts. And .i saw no second chair no staff for witness prep.

                          2. Conflicts of interest prevented many good attys and experts from getting involved. And or they wanted to get work again from highly politicised interest groups who dont actually believe in due process ..... Including the police department.

                        • measl
                          measl  2 months back

                          @Marc Grundfest *As I posted elsewhere on this playlist, I'm curious if this guy belongs to any of the "Trial Lawyer" guilds. "Trial Lawyers" do, well, **_trials!_** Most lawyers go to a jury on a very rare basis, if ever. Trial Lawyers on the other hand almost **_always_** go to trial (at Bar or by Jury): I would consider the very **_minimum_** qualification for a serious Criminal Defense to be an actual Trial Lawyer, unless I **_plan_** on pleading down. This guy clearly dropped the ball at every important step: He didn't prep his client for examination (the most important this you can do if they are going to testify, as was obviously necessary here). He didn't seem to plan his strategy, if he actually **_had one._** Where was the parade of Usual Experts? Why didn't he lay his foundation the way everyone else does? After thinking about it, I can only come up with a single reason for what he did here: he was so certain that every person who saw her would read innocence that she was the only witness he would need. He'd question her, and then move for a directed verdict? If that was his plan, he really **_should_** be disbarred for incompetence!*


                          *Ultimately, the question of innocence vs guilt is completely irrelevant at a trial: this guy simply wasn't up to this task.*

                        • Marc Grundfest
                          Marc Grundfest  2 months back

                          @measl

                          It was a cluster.. you know most defense atty never defend a truly innocent person..but with so many high publicity trials ( Zimmerman anyone) of this type you would think even a layer ( =) ) could learn the basics..

                      • Joe Central-O
                        Joe Central-O  2 months back

                        7:12 you're justifying fear unjustly...
                        It's not normal to have your door open, not normal to hear noises. At the VERY least she should have looked around and made sure her surroundings were safe. She would have noticed it wasn't her apartment.
                        She doesn't do very good police work, she doesn't pay attention well. Oh because you're tired one day, someone dies? Don't gimme that.

                        • Joe Central-O
                          Joe Central-O  2 months back

                          4:30 My apartment... No, not your apartment....

                          • Joe Central-O
                            Joe Central-O  2 months back

                            3:17 Hmm... Wouldn't that cause a normal person to pause and go, wait, did I leave my door open this morning? Look around, oh shit, not my apartment.
                            🙈

                            • Joe Central-O
                              Joe Central-O  2 months back

                              @niveusnimbus with zero evidence of a break in? I mean, some burglars are good, but geez THAT good?
                              Plus, she is know. For the community police thing, who would break into HER apartment? Seems dumb

                            • niveusnimbus
                              niveusnimbus  2 months back

                              No. With what she told us about her rough neighbourhood, you'd think shit, somebody broke into my apartment. Maybe they are still there.

                          • Robert Kay
                            Robert Kay  2 months back

                            At 10:32 the defense attorney got pissed.. I loved it.. He should have called for a sidebar..

                            • Thomas Torquati
                              Thomas Torquati  2 months back

                              Guygers lawyer seemed like he was against her.

                              • FF Film Crew
                                FF Film Crew  2 months back

                                I guarantee they have an audio visual guy in that building that could have provided some audio solution and the defense attorney should have objected and asked for a recess until that solution was provided for. Dead men tale no tales. This is an understood dynamic amongst this new wave of killer cops. It's like knowing instinctively what is in frame and out of frame when the mystery of deploying handcuffs takes five to 10 minutes. It's while yelling stop resisting as the cops take cheap shots and gang bang the subject knowing that the abuse is outside the frame to become evidence of unlawful tactics or inappropriate behavior on the police part. Knowing this she could have sat down with her boy friend and made the whole story up. The story is just that. The truth is only know by her. Everyone else is operating off of beliefs and faith in those beliefs. Maybe her story doesnt flow and she needs coaching even though she has mentally known for a year that this incredible moment would arrive. Where she would have to account for her story. I detect bullshit. I think the abstract castle doctrine strategy is to cover that bullshit. If she is telling the truth then she got screwed by the ineffectual counsel that was provided. But that happens every single day of the week with public pretenders. When everyone in the court gets a paycheck from the same employer and the only independent individual is the private attorney true justice is unavailable. When someone s freedom depends on the jurors who are the farthest thing from ones peers or upon the witnesses one can afford then we have a problem. Our constitution is what created the environment an environment where corporations can prosper as well as the individual. Today the corporations are the invisible kings that we are swinging in the dark against. We need a government agency who has the same opportunities and power and compensation/ retirement packages but this agency has but one job. That agency is to be just as zealous as any law enforcement entity ever has been. There sole objective is to put government workers in jail. To try some government workers for treason and have them put to death. To run stings all the way from the lowest beat cop all the way up to guys like Comey and McCabe and Loretta Lynch. I am no fool this is about the biggest far fetched fantasy I could ever propose but the amount of wealth that would be created in a truly just nation that made any attempt at revenue through law enforcement is unimaginable.

                                • FF Film Crew
                                  FF Film Crew  2 months back

                                  She wouldn't feel immediately scared at te top range. She would start out alarmed and escalate quickly. If she is immediately at the top end of the fear scale and is still outside the apartment it makes no sense to vcd enter the unknown. Doesnt make sense to be scared until inside. Here is where I detect bs in her testimony

                                  • Laevatein
                                    Laevatein  2 months back

                                    It was against policy and training to enter. When she did that without confirming her location she was headed straight for a manslaughter charge based on criminal negligence. The murder charge only got made by her "I intended to kill him" testimony. This case was 100% made by assuming what she said was true, making a deliberate fabrication extremely unlikely.

                                • Driver 1967
                                  Driver 1967  2 months back

                                  What does it mean when they say a”hostile witness”?

                                  • measl
                                    measl  2 months back

                                    @Think Like A Cop *Add argumentative, sleazy, deliberately "misunderstanding" questions...*

                                  • Think Like A Cop
                                    Think Like A Cop   2 months back

                                    arguing, not cooperating, refusing to answer....

                                • Adonaiyah Teemann
                                  Adonaiyah Teemann  2 months back

                                  I think i just found a great deal on a 2 into 1 patriot exhaust for my dyna, full on neighbor hater...

                                  • Think Like A Cop
                                    Think Like A Cop   2 months back

                                    It looks like they are shadow banning 15, it has no views?
                                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGJ82q5rBJg

                                • Brian R
                                  Brian R  2 months back

                                  She would have been much better off with you Rick although you have the ability to watch this unfold instead of being on the spot.

                                  • B real
                                    B real  2 months back

                                    I saw they found her guilty and gave her 10 yrs. I honestly believe if you had been her attorney Rick, she would be at her apartment eating icecream tonight.

                                    • measl
                                      measl  2 months back

                                      @Think Like A Cop I agree with that assessment. We should stop and realize that Rick probably has a lot more time in court, and at trial, than most lawyers. People don't understand that a truly great lawyer will only rarely go to trial: trials are dangerous, and by ending up there, you _always_ are at risk for a shitshow that runs completely out of control. Anything can go wrong, even if you do your job flawlessly: an unexpected line of questioning, a juror who decides they hate you for no apparent reason, a Judge having a bad day and taking it out on your client - there's so many variables that a good lawyer avoids Court like most men avoid Divorce!*

                                    • Think Like A Cop
                                      Think Like A Cop   2 months back

                                      lol

                                  • measl
                                    measl  2 months back

                                    *Just a quickie comment: as someone who's been in court a lot, like you, it's MUCH easier doing this analysis in video-time, as opposed to real-time. I lost THE most important case I ever argued for things I would normally not worry about. Just "One of those days" kind of thing (I've only lost 2 cases at bar, the first one I **_should_** have lost - I fought it just cause I hated opposing counsel, and the second one was essentially a no-lose case that I utterly dropped on the floor and then stomped on it for good measure... I **_hate_** those kinds of days...*

                                    *Still, your commentary is both great in terms of factuality (is that a word?), and entertainment: you are crazy entertaining!*

                                    • measl
                                      measl  2 months back

                                      @Doesn't Matter *See the reply I just made below for that update. :-/*

                                    • measl
                                      measl  2 months back

                                      @Doesn't Matter *I'm not a lawyer, I'm am, or **_was,_** a paralegal. The case I lost so bad was my own. You know the saying, right? "A man who defends himself has a fool for a client!" I had a fool for a client, and it cost me a small fortune, and I lost on appeal because I didn't preserve the record properly. I had it coming.*

                                      *The price of hubris...*

                                    • Doesn't Matter
                                      Doesn't Matter  2 months back

                                      Driver 1967. Yes Murder requires intent! How they proved intent in this case is beyond everyone with any common sense!

                                    • Doesn't Matter
                                      Doesn't Matter  2 months back

                                      If you’re really a lawyer, I hope who’s ever case you blew, sees this comment and gets a retrial for you not doing your job!

                                    • Driver 1967
                                      Driver 1967  2 months back

                                      measl I was wondering the same thing. I’m no lawyer, I’ve never even played one on tv, and I know it’s different in most every state, but I always thought you needed intent for it to be considered murder. If I was on that jury it would be a hung jury because there’s no way I’d go for murder, especially after seeing her break down right there. You can tell it’s not fake.

                                  • Carlos Madera Jr
                                    Carlos Madera Jr  2 months back

                                    For some reason, I didn't find part 7

                                    • Doesn't Matter
                                      Doesn't Matter  2 months back

                                      You can thank YouTubes liberal algorithms 👍

                                    • Driver 1967
                                      Driver 1967  2 months back

                                      Carlos Madera Jr part 7 is up around 13 or 14 somewhere.

                                    • Think Like A Cop
                                      Think Like A Cop   2 months back

                                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APiSBiYZ8y8

                                  • Hike America
                                    Hike America  2 months back

                                    Great courtroom video Rick. I'm going to watch the whole series. Thanks.