This broadcaster has 49 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
November 5, 2021 5:00 pm
If you have a legal question of your own please contact Whitaker and Hamer Law Firm at 800-659-1186
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
This week on outlaw lawyer, Josh and Joe talk about the Rittenhouse trial world Texas heartbeat oral arguments before the Supreme Court. What's going on out modeling shooting and a DUI related listener now live on air Josh Whitaker and SchellHamer are your managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer law firm 46 combined music between these two and they have offices well all over the place. Raleigh Garner, Clayton Goldsborough Fuquay Rita and Gastonia and they are practicing attorneys here in the state of North Carolina. We talk legal topics each and every week here on the outliers real estate closings, estate planning and administration, personal injury, criminal and traffic family law. It always leads to questions with the listeners. There's an opportunity for you to get in touch and have those questions answered. Just call 800-659-1186 or you can email questions that email@example.com that's outlaw lawyer.com I Morgan Patrick consumer advocate were about to get into a guys welcome and hope you had a great week. Morgan I did it was it was a great week.
I'm a little tired this morning that this is how you know you're old, I will turn this morning as I stayed up to watch the World Series. But I did make it home games only made it through it for five innings and I'm still tired is too late now the question is, did you make it to the bedroom or did you fall asleep on the couch or in the lounge chair. What I have it that old yet. I have made it to the bed and and I'm waiting, you know that's my hope.
As I get older is when things I'm looking forward to is that ability to fall asleep sharing.
I would see mortgage make it to the whole game the whole game.
I'm I'm I'm regretting a little bit, you know, we remind everybody to wheat we record the show during the week and it airs on the weekend so this is your what were talking the day after 26 years of waiting in the Braves are finally again world champions 1995, guys. What we do.
In 1995 and Joe be careful how you answer this, I was being a nine-year-old is awesome Joe. What I don't even know Joe are you a baseball fan at all. I don't even I don't know that I taught baseball with you in a long man. Funny story, I played a lot of sports growing up and baseball was one of the sports that I played and it would've been around 1995 when I was around nine years old I was playing Little League.
It and always enjoyed baseball, got the Little League and my coach was what was wax. One of my family members. He was a cousin I think it is his intention was it was the cat toughened me up so I can practice for Little League. He would just being me like you would be me constantly when I get up the bat and so hated baseball after that and so did watch the World Series. Rarely, rarely pay much attention just because I've got horrible Little League memories, but I can feel your excitement and I'm excited vicariously through the both of you guys the Braves unit grown up watching TBS in a watch the Cubs and you watch you watch the Braves but the greatest man I and I guess your North Carolina as I will ever have.
Rose can have the Braves never lived to see another major league team anywhere in our area sky like you guys remember back in the day when the only thing on TV for the NFL was the Redskins or I'm sorry the washing football club and and people were fans of Washington. Same thing for the Braves.
They were superstation team. So really, the entire Southeast was, where there there fans generated from, but I knew some Baltimore fans, but most mostly Braves fans but yeah I was. It was a huge night last night for the franchise and a lot of free agents on that team will be gone, but they got it done and it was it was fun to see yeah that was good stuff. I really excitement baseball starts. I'm in it really hard for two months not drop out, and then I come back in and in the playoffs.
I don't have the stamina to make it through the entire baseball season is a casual plan, but the World Series that was as exciting stuff. I was glad washed with the boys. It was good stuff.
Well when I can stay up for wind and again not to go too far back because Joe Everest was nine, but when when I was in college had an opportunity to be a camp counselor and athletic camp in northern Alabama and all my weight back through. We had a family friend was traveling sector for the Braves so got to be a batboy for a game in late 1986 and they won the division that year, but they really weren't that good but they were starting to formulate what would be that run that started in the 90s that was absolutely ridiculous so got to be a batboy in the following summer went into Atlanta to intern at CNN and I did that at night but during the day to make some money I worked the ground crew for the Braves, and so I got to see all the teams coming to Fulton County and we set up locker rooms and we worked the field and so got to be around the players quite a bit and just you know I always loved baseball, but that that summer, it kinda made it happen and then obviously the run and 91, 92, went to both those World Series setups in Atlanta and just in August didn't go their way. But a lot of fun in the 95 is huge and so the long wait to you this week to win another one field I feel fantastic for the birth yeah it's it's it's good stuff that's that's it was a good story is a good season and I asked at the workings are still undefeated army at the time of this taping. I believe there is the time of this taping.
They are still on track to go 82 and no regular Morgan no use in 1986.
You got to be a batboy you know what I was doing in 1986. Were you pooping in diapers.
In 19 six in the summer of 86 I got I got to be a boy is literally an infant learn great memories of that summer swelled, killing well today, guys.
You know I want to preface the show with what we do here on out. A lawyer is as we try to pluck out these legal issues. These legal news stories, from around the country and talk about them like lawyers not like reporters not like pundits you know where we really try to be apolitical here on the show. We always like to chat about sports when we open up and what's going on but once we get into the meat of this thing we start talking about the law is really trying to talk about inside. Given that as a as a warning to talk about a couple things today like we always do.
But Rittenhouse that trial just kicked off and it Wisconsin and so were spent a lot of time talking about that trial.
The jury selection how it started, so when recording the just finished opening arguments yesterday and have any kind of verdict or resolution by the end of the week that's gonna that's on the ring talk about for a while today and nothing is one of those things will revisit as well. Josh, like you said it trial.
Just get started I think will go back provide periodic updates and I'm sure it will be.
It'll be very interesting to follow lot interesting nuances to the opening arguments in the way that you know the defense has been presented, but yes, one of those.
It's one of those very divisive topics that we try to touch here and like you said, the goal is we try to look at everything from an unbiased perspective, and it never really take either side but just look at the law and neutrally approach these things and and and try to talk about things without any kind of inherent bias which is it something you don't get. Generally these days guys when we first started the outlaw lawyers you guys had this discussion we talked about it over conference call in and what I remember you saying is the goal of the show is to help inform and to educate and and and I'll I like the direction you're going. It's not politically not falling on either side you're talking about cases and how it would impact everybody out there that's listening and these are cutting edge stories and each and every week you're going to be covering these it's gonna be a great listen, so we give you every opportunity to not only listen live. When we bring it to you on the weekends but you can also go to the website. The outlaw all your.com and the podcast version of all shows past shows all the way up to current organ to be there for you and you can click on your subject matter and listen to your hearts content. Also want to remind you to.
If you got a legal question something that's just burning at you and you need an answer for.
Maybe we don't hit that topic on the programmer.
You know, Josh and Joe are very very busy covering these topics, but it might be a topic that so near and dear to you, you can certainly send suggestions to the show.
You can call 800-659-1186.
That's 800-659-1186 or you can email questions or topics to the program. It's firstname.lastname@example.org after we wrap up talk about Rittenhouse really go back that sweet thing we talked about the past two weeks here, but the Texas heartbeat laws it as it's called Supreme Court Ct. heard oral arguments Monday and they were fascinating and subordinates are committed talk about that and then Alec Baldwin shooting out. If we touched on that yet.
Joe, but I will not spend some time on that one but yeah I don't think we've hit it. I do not think we've hit it yet but yet it's one of those that theirs there will absolutely be legal ramifications, nothings come as of the recording. There's been no criminal charges filed.
I'm sure they'll be no civil suits for sure but it but it's something that were going to jump into, outline the facts. Do some speculation and just talk about what was really just a tragic, just unfortunate event but a kind good brings back the memories of Bruce Lee's son Brandon. He was shot with a prop gun in Wilmington filming the sequel to the Crow and that story has kinda surfaced back up and I tell you it is it's incredibly painful for the families for anyone involved on satin like I can imagine you know what Alec Baldwin is going through right now.
It's gotta be incredibly tough because they were they were friends. It was just a obviously an accident, but you can't take it back to me there is, yeah, I think if you're not in a word I where I was. They were not in the film industry.
We don't know how those things work, but it seems almost implausible that it happened to Brandon leaned back and back in the day, but how does this even happen is is I know that's that's kinda what I think without will will take I will take a look at bad and in the course that were more interested in the in the law side of the criminal charges civil.
That kind of thing and then we have time we do have a listener question what to do if you're stopped under the suspicion of driving while impaired. So basically what you do your stopped for DWI DUI would want to call it that comes up a lot.
We get that question a lot sweet. We tackle that one with our listener question. All right, so the outlaw lawyers get ready for our first segue into segment one great intro guys Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer Whitaker and Hamer law firm to the managing partners there 46 combined years experience in again offices in Raleigh Garner Clayton Goldsboro Fuquay Marina and Gastonia practicing attorneys right here in the state of North Carolina.
If you got a legal question you want answered. Call 800-659-1186 leave your name and number and certainly some information and an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch. You can also email your questions to the program will use on an upcoming episode, questions and theology are.com and please go to the website and Peru's the outlaw while your.com coming up next on the outlaw we thought the Kyle Rittenhouse trial get into the arena and Gastonia practicing attorneys right here in the great state of North Carolina. If you got legal questions during the come up during the show if it's pertaining to you. Obviously call this number and get answers 800-659-1186.
That's 800-659-1186. You can also email your questions to the program email@example.com and will use a bit and upcoming episode but again it's all legalese. We talk legal topics each and every week guys I know you're gonna get into Rittenhouse. I'm looking for this. Yes, this is the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse and everything every move so fast. Now it seems like the underpinnings of these charges. It seems like a happen years and years ago, but where were one year removed from the the riots up in Wisconsin at this, surrounded what happened, but the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse has started.
This is up in Wisconsin always had in me and Joe were licensed to practice in North Carolina only. So we look at these trials we really are just looking at them as attorneys but not attorneys that are licensed to practice in that state.
So I'm not intimately familiar with the criminal code up and up in Wisconsin but Mr. Rittenhouse is is 18 ring happen when he was 17.
These 18 now and he's charged with bearings a couple of homicide so we have two people who have died as a result of the shooting. There was a severe injury, and he's got jotting or some other charges maybe just arms it wasn't is gone that, thing yeah you know a few different things. Of course the majorly relevant and interesting charges that are to have the biggest implications are the charges related to to the murders of a lot of interesting things about this. Josh, you know, I think starting with the jury selection a lot of times when you get these highly polarizing type of events you can see really long protracted jury selection processes and and the fact that this was a jury selection that took place in one day. It is kind of surprising to me. Yeah I like how this judge discharges made some controversy all I will talk about a kind decision some kind of pretrial decisions, but I don't know much about the judgment like the waves were in his courtroom and are getting stuff done, but if they are having a read the impaneled 20 jurors that includes backups, but they impaneled like 20 or 21 people in one day, which seems amazing to me. Yeah, it ended in the fact that this is such a polarizing event is is very surprising. The speed with which this took place. And from what I read, it sounds like about a dozen of the prospective jurors would were dismissed because they basically had strong opinions about the case and expressed doubt that they could be fair, but very interesting that they were able to get it done and get it done so quickly. At the pretty efficient selection process, especially in light of the subject matter of the case. I didn't see jury selection. I just read couple summaries about it. One of things I read, yet there was like one guy who was a big Second Amendment guy. He he you couldn't be swayed one way or the other. He didn't feel like he felt like you have your right. Again, you won't self-defense is paramount and then there is a couple other folks who just the fact he had a God made them guilty in their minds they couldn't be swayed, setting that's what the judge is looking for. It's okay this is a national event that happened or you're not a perfect world juror would have any knowledge about what's going on right as I get up I get a speeding ticket. I take it to trial and the jury get set for my speeding ticket should be angry because her missing work for me to argue about my speeding ticket but they don't know what happened. They were there that day and have no preconceived notions of of of what happened when I got pulled from my speeding ticket and so that's the perfect jury. These big ticket events.
These national things are discovered by every corner of the media that you can't get away from you find that jury member. You and I can find that jury member who has no knowledge of of what happened.
So this is case everybody kinda knows what happened, or at least the basic facts as presented by the media and their it's hard to find someone who doesn't have a preconceived notion of Mr. Rittenhouse's innocence or guilt but that's that's part of the challenge. I guess yet a perfect juror that is mounted in the exist anymore just because we talk about how that proliferation of social media that 24 hour news cycle if super available anybody.
Anybody can find out you know what's going on in this was a huge current event. It took place in a time when everybody's confined to their homes and in their just digesting this this information and and taking in this new cycle. It's affecting so much of the area. They yeah I don't understand how you find folks who are truly neutral, who haven't really heard about it to me pretty much everybody's gonna get. I have an opinion about it and it's good to be very difficult to to weed out and find that truly perfect juror. That's just completely in the dark. So Mr. Rittenhouse is charged with a couple accounts of of homicide or or you know you are entirely charges generally not the specific language of the Wisconsin criminal code uses, but a couple counsel homicides in and attack the seriously wounded 1/3 person, but so is his defenses but is basically what happened to he committed a homicide or two homicides, but his defenses that it was justified by self-defense and said self-defense is kind of, you know it's it's difficult to prove, and it kinda resets everything so we got three different incidents here. Mr. Rittenhouse came came into contact with three different folks that he he harmed, at which he would claim self-defense and in each instant but you have to look at each engagement on its own, so you know we we we talked about in the intro how're apolitical. We don't really want to read a lot into this and MS with the courts can have to do that and have to. This was all part of a demonstration police abuse demonstration that was happening, across the country and in so they were there were some depending on your opinion. They were either some protesters, some limiting or some riots in whatever you want to call what was going on. It was happening and so Mr. Rittenhouse was was attracted to that. There's after I read all kinds of different things, Jeff Taft, read that he was on his own. When acquired this AR 15 style rifle and went there on his own. I've heard that he was asked to be there by someone who is trying to protect a car dealership from property damage.
I guess as the trial continues will figure out what's correct, but either way, Mr. Rittenhouse finds himself in this in this environment and the situation without with a highly powered gun yeah you know we set the scene jostling is important to to really you know, paint the picture around everything that was going on at that time, you know, Rittenhouse. He traveled to Kenosha from his home in Illinois so it's it you know he he had to travel to get there.
He sought out the situation at the time there was a lot of unrest after you know a white Kenosha police officer shot.
Jacob Blakey was a black man in the back and there been a couple nights at this point of, kind of like you said that rioting or that protest however you look at it. The thing said had really, they were extremely supercharged.
There had been a lot of instruction of property and so like you said Rittenhouse's argument is that he was basically there to protect property after the two previous nights which did include a lot of arson, some gunfire, some ransacking of businesses and that's really where the divide is drawn between the polarization of both sides of this case.
You got one side that's painting him as kind of a patriot who took a stand against baldness, lawlessness, and was just exercising his Second Amendment gun rights. And yet the other side that's that's basically painting him as a vigilante and and someone who is is taking the law into their own hands and acting recklessly yet I think is a judge and jury of your goal is to regard her the opening arguments and so that's both the prosecution and defense are seizing on is what you said Joe there and there painting this picture but I think is a judge and jury throw that out as if you're if your job is to determine if a homicide happen. You're trying to figure out who the who the aggressor was at an end and will. Who was he was actually defending themselves and so there were there were three separate incidents at the window looking at the first one and I didn't write down first names, but Mr. Rittenhouse the first person he encountered was Mr. Rosenbaum and and this is the one where I had shot a lot. We got videotapes I think of all the encounters relates like the in the moment. I don't know necessarily that we have enough video or we can piece together exactly what was happening right before is is the one I can't find much information on. I know I read Rosenbaum didn't really corset, I was unarmed sound like he was shot in maybe several times 101 or two of the times in the back made why he was retreating like maybe Rosenbaum was that even a protester was recently released from prison maybe had some mental health issues.
This one is troubling to me because it just from what I can read. I have a hard time figuring out who was the aggressor and how this signing different know I'm with you. It's it's tough and you know it. We did get a lot of video. There's a lot of video footage is because again in today's day and age people are filming everything. You get a lot of cell phone footage from amateurs so you can have to piece these things together from that video evidence and it is it's tough that it's tough to see. It's tough to tell Syria be looking at a a lot of you know eyewitness testimony people saying what they saw in that situation and then you know what what Rittenhouse himself saying that I'm with the it's a little it's always difficult when you got someone who ends up being shot back, but at the same time you know it's it's it's just such a highly charged situation you're looking at you know what he believed at that at the time. As far as his intent when when he did the shooting. When he we committed this act so I come back. We talk about all this mantle.
We talked in the spirit in a few previous episodes about going to these protester being involved in just how it's just not for me it's just not for me.
What you know, I think.
I think the whatever the jury decides on this first on this encounter with Rosenbaum is going to be what drives the rest of the then you got. Mr. Huber is the second confrontation and he was also fatally shot Mr. Huber is the one who had the skateboard and was assaulting Rittenhouse but I think if you if you believe what what you heard from the people you know Mr. Huber way.there is an active shooter rights of Mr. Huber.
It sounds like in his mind he was he was trying to disarm an active shooter. He did know Rittenhouse's intentions and Errol are what have you and from Mr. Rittenhouse's perspective, he just killed someone defending himself, and now he was being of being assaulted again so really I think what what the jury decides on the on the Rosenbaum encounters really gonna determine how they look at the Huber encounter and then echoes the third encounter at the gentleman's name I think was Christ second's name was on but he's the one you had at the handgun and in came and approached and it just is just an II can't imagine a more complicated series of facts is almost like a law school question designed to test you on the doctrine of self-defense because you got you got a lot happening a lot of facts.
I don't envy course you know it's it's I don't envy anyone involved with with the case. The jury is coming very hard, deliberates a hard case for both sides is going to be interesting to watch Vermont from from our vantage point, but just a tough, tough, tough case yet. Like you said Josh everything, builds on everything else. And once the shooting starts you, everything from that point on is escalated so so greatly and you think you can, it's that the tough situation because some of these defendants you know if you are some of these victims rather of the shooting.
If you look at from their perspective, like like Huber, for example, if he genuinely believes that Rittenhouse is an active shooter he's trying to do something heroic himself. Yeah, it's tough and you can ask him what he thought because of course he's he's deceased.
It's just tough man. Everything does kinda build on each other. So I agree with you that that first shooting is relevant it as far as how it is seen in and how it is judge and even it even if it it's looked at unfavorably everything that follows the other two cases all still hinged on the circumstances which were the more that there was a shooting that it taken place and that that that highly charged environment and and again you're looking at you know you're looking at each individual incident separately while at the same time having to look at that context that's created from that first shooting, so like you said it's remarkably complicated in China were up against the breakdown addresses. This is one where you know in a criminal case of this of this the serious charges like this you are most the time you choose not take the stand.
You can make the state prove their case and I cannot unite and add to it. Your negative, but your your guy up there your defendant up there for cross or anything like that but the word here is that that's on the table. You know, depending on how everything goes. Mr. Rittenhouse may take the stand to defend himself and to answer questions which would subject ends across which you just don't see very often.
So this will be a very interesting case will be very interested to see how it plays out.
But this is not good for anybody. I don't think this is one thing I am about walk away wondering if anybody really got justice, but it's just it's just crazy set of facts, but will see how it goes. Tough case great discussion. Again, if you've got questions, you can certainly call the program 800-659-1186 to get you in touch with the outlaws.
You can also email questions to firstname.lastname@example.org. We are going to take a short break and be back with more of the outlier right after this the legal discussion on the Texas part the law continues and for the US Supreme Court and they have offices Raleigh Garner, Clayton Goldsborough Fuquay parade and Gastonia.
We talk legalese legal topics each and every week here on the outlier I Morgan Patrick consumer advocate and again real estate closings, estate planning and administration, personal injury, criminal traffic, family law, if it's legal. They're talking about it and all the hot topics if you got your questions pertaining to maybe a situation you're involved with, and you need answers. Here's the number 800-659-1186 leave your name and contact information brief intro into what you have questions about an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch again that's 800-659-1186. You can also send questions to the program of use of an upcoming show that's email@example.com and please visit the website at any time. The outlier.com and past podcast will be there for you and you can click and listen to your hearts content.
Guys, what's next Morgan I Joan I talked about is a lot over the past couple weeks because this is such an interesting at least. This is the very interesting topic with this Texas heartbeat law and finally there's been several challenges. It's been a hot topic.
It actually got to the Supreme Court very quickly. There were two challenges to it. But before we get there. Joe just as a reminder what was is law trying to do what was so what was going on with this one. Yes, this was a weird one and and we talked about it extensively. So if you are a consistent listener you working working to rehash it a little bit. You may have heard this before but basically in a nutshell, this law it attempted to ban abortions after you know six weeks and it ended in an interesting way. He did an outright ban those but it essentially gave a cause of action to individuals to sue to prohibit these abortions after that certain period of time so it almost kind of deputized regular individuals and and gave them.
Standing to bring a case to prohibit this from taking place. So it went about it in a very interesting kind of a backdoor type away as opposed to being an outright prohibition were arguments that happen. Nothing was Monday November gathering was Monday nor arguments that took place were based on two challenges that adjusted the US Justice Department made one challenge is basing that you know this losses is been in effect is basically manned most all abortions inside a chilling effect in the whole state of Texas and was basically violating the constitutional law, the constitutional rights of anybody seeking an abortion after six weeks and there was also a challenge from Texas abortion providers. These were folks who had already been sued under the law. I say I performed an abortion under this law. If you think you can sue me and succeed do it and then they got sued by folks are looking for that to at least $10,000 in damages for being a private citizen who enforces this loss lives with the two challenges that were before the Supreme Court. They took him and had oral arguments and oral arguments are always interesting to me because you got the court room.
There, and you've got all the justices asking questions and so we think you know a lot of times we again we live in kind of a political society. And so if you know someone's Republican or you know someone's Democratic you can have these preconceived notions of what they support and what questions they would asking and with the Supreme Court it still important, but it's it's just different disease are justices.
And as these are folks are well schooled in an all things legal. How law should work how constitutional rights should be protected and so the questions are is very interesting as they that you know they're not here to necessarily show you their hand. They're not here to show you what they may be.
Think there'd their judgment will be there here to try to flesh everything out and so Justice Kagan had a lot of good questions but she recognized like you know if you if we allow this Texas heartbeat law to stand in a what's next what constitutional law can you constitutional right can you not get around yeah and that that's a good point and that's part of the reason why this is so interesting to us. And while we've we've talked about it several times now because it's it's such an interesting way to go about and kind of circumvent what you know what I think, be clearly unconstitutional based on precedent and it's just such an interesting enforcement mechanism in its created a lot of interesting nuances in the way that it's being challenged and it's quite a lot of problems. Frankly and and in these things are having to be navigated by the people who were trying to challenge this law and it just creates is created.
Kind of an interesting cluster S could be very interesting to play out. Yes, just again, rehashing is the way this law set up as is clearly the Supreme Court. We talked about it before there is a constitutional right for a woman to receive an abortion under certain circumstances and that this is the way the law is.
And so we have always challenges where estate will try to limit access. They're all different kinds of ways and those get struck down, and that's kind of the conversation were usually having the reason this is different is because this states not doing anything. The status is saying they were not going out prohibit you from getting an abortion after six weeks, but if you do, then Joe Smith here can sue you the person who drove me there that the guy that another doctor who provided the services for damages of 10,000 piece and so what they tried to do is create this wayward nonstate actor is going to prevent you from exercising a constitutional right and and again we just don't. It's kind of a novel approach and we and we haven't seen that. And so I justice Kagan was the first on the customer flushing us out in Justice Cavanaugh, this is interesting to me because if you know Cavanaugh and in Kagan there, on opposite sides of the fence. Kagan much more liberal Cavanaugh.
In theory, much more conservative. Although we don't have as much to look at from him but he cannot piggyback on what she said was like a what's next. If if you can use this method to get around the constitutional right to abortion.
What about gun rights what about religious freedoms and and and it just it just kept on going and I think that this is what we predicted Joe's no way this law should should be able to stand in one way or the other were not actually get to whether I think a lot of people initially thought we would get back to a is the constitutional right to abortion going to be overturned. In this case and that dancers there and I don't get that far. I think this one dies for a lot of other weird novel reasons and it doesn't don't even get to the abortion argument. This yeah and I tend to agree with you but nothing is to be alarming to to anybody because it's a good point. You know we got people from both sides of the kind of agreeing on an issue like this. You know it. It's something that we should all really be concerned with, because whatever your opinion on abortion is you know you probably have a strong opinion about some other constitutionally protected right. And if you're able to circumvent this abortion you know that the fact that abortion has been deemed constitutionally permitted, then the risk that this same enforcement mechanism is used to take away some right that you care about is very real, so everyone should be concerned about it because just because it may benefit your belief system now doesn't mean that that same thing can't be used to take away something that that you really value so I think we should all kind of be concerned about this approach and but but I am with you Josh, but I'm also very interested to see how exactly it is struck down in eggs. I think the courts, struggle with that to an extent like everybody agrees that this can't happen.
It can't be permitted.
You're essentially disallowing all the states to just take that the constitutional rights that they don't prefer and can't nullify them with a law that similar this and it but but again I don't how exactly they are going to go about actually striking this down and if you look at what the, the Texas solicitor Gen., whose argument on behalf of the state of Texas is they basically he's saying that the state of Texas hasn't nullified anything and that that right to have an abortion hasn't been wholly extinguished in Texas judges are still bound to follow the court's precedent regarding regarding abortions, but at the same time abortions of drop 50 or 60%, so you can see it's clearly having a massive chilling effect on you know people getting those abortions.
It will be INS the best it will be interesting. I think the Supreme Court gets to wait mean they have to have to have to figure this out but it definitely. Even if you're against any abortion and needling it should be a constitutional right. This Texas heartbeat statue is not a victory for because it will just be used as a model. Like you said Joe to take something else away that that you may think you're entitled, so we have to look at it on, you know, as president and we have to look at it in the grand scheme of the legal structure and it should be allowed, but it's definitely is to plan. Novel approaches taken it's it's it's is very it's fascinating. I guess from a legal perspective is just fascinating but we will see you abortions and we talked about a lot. There's the Mississippi case that we talked about them earlier so I think that's all for oral arguments on December 1 and that does go to strict limitations on abortion by the state. It's more a traditional argument that we would see before the court. Of course the court. We got some new justices who haven't heard a case on abortion restrictions. That'll be course interesting as well. But the al-Awlaki is Josh Whitaker and SchellHamer Whitaker and Hamer law firm managing partners there 46 combined years experience and we've already tackled topics from the World Series and the hurricanes to Rittenhouse and now the Texas heartbeat oral arguments and we got some interesting topics coming up will take a short break.
If you got a legal question of your own, you can call the firm 800-659-1186, leave a brief message and your contact information and an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch with you. You can also leave questions for the program at firstname.lastname@example.org again the website.
The al-Awlaki or.com you can find all of our previous podcasts are previous shows in podcast form right there. The outlier.com coming up next.
We talked the tragic Alec Baldwin shooting on the set of his new movie offices in Raleigh, Gardner Clayton, Goldsboro, Fuquay Marina and gas Tony I Morgan Patrick consumer advocate and we talk legal topics each and every week, and it's the Josh and Joe show so guys, what's next Morgan were to talk about a real tragedy something that's just seems to really be a completely unfortunate accident. Something that you don't see a whole lot.
And I think this is something that's occurred very sparingly throughout the history of movie production but were talking about Alec Baldwin that the accident that occurred on the filming of his new movie rust which is being shot in New Mexico, which ironically enough, his character in the movie is apparently an outlaw which is is fitting for this show. But basically what we have is we had an assistant director on this film, grabbing one of three prop guns that were being used in the film, and that the films armor had set up outside where they were shooting on a gray cart and the assistant director basically grabbed his gun hands it to to Mr. Baldwin and yells cold gone, which generally will indicate that it's a gun that has no live rounds and it's safe to be used for production purposes so that you Baldwin takes the gun and when he he's filming.
He fires it actually strikes and kills the films cinematographer and it wounds the director. I think you caught the director in the shoulder. He called cinematographer in the chest and she was transported to a local hospital where, unfortunately, she passed away but but but we got here it is, what seems to be at a truly tragic accident and I think it's safe to say we don't know exactly what the ramifications are but there's gotta be some some legal ramifications from this whether it be some kind of criminal penalty which again we don't know. It's an ongoing investigation. There's not been a lot of commentary because of the fact that it's been an ongoing investigation. But, but, at the minimum, there's gonna be some real civil fallout because even though this is an unfortunate accident there some kind of negligence involved to allow this to happen at minimum time is earlier.
Joe and and and I'm not in the film industry.
I never represented anyone and in heaven that the film industry. And I don't how these things work, but it just seems bizarre that there would even why would there even be live rounds anywhere near the facet and maybe there's a reason for that. I don't know but I sure can't figure out what it would be for and in my and my also am not a film actor I have also not appeared in in any movies so I don't have insider knowledge but in the research that I've done there shouldn't be you know from what I can tell you reading from all these these folks who have commented on this who are in the industry who have experience who are no handle props or stunts or what have you. One of the first primary tenants of filming a movie where guns like this are involved is that you don't keep any live ammunition on the said and does it mean that no one's going to get hurt.
There still some danger involved in this in usually blank survey to be used but even blanks you know can cause secondary injuries be at something firing out of the gun, be it something note sparks are produced. Fires produce. There is a reaction by these weapons to make it make that look realistic, but generally, from what I understand the most common thing that can happen in the worst things can happen. As you might have an actor that burns their hand from a flare from the gun shooting you. You should never have anything like this happen and it's happened super infrequently because of those safety protocols that are so well-established.
Yeah, we were talking earlier about you know what happened to Bruce Lee's son Brandon Lee and now he was.
He was killed in a similar accident was accurate permitting that a man ever saw it was her yeah I was dizzy. It was the sequel to the Crow and it was it was actually the original reason I know this is because again it was like right in my teenage prom heyday were I was really into it so is actually the original Crow and that the the scene is it's a scene where he kinda comes into like a room with henchmen and he's on the table and he's kinda like shooting everybody up and they're all shooting NC. He had tons of people firing Adam these blanks at the same time and what happened in that incident. Apparently there was a a live round that was lodged in the barrel so they had loaded it with blanks. But there was there was one lives in the barrel and that's actually what fired out and and killed him.
In that instance and see how the big fan of the movie the Crow and they came out with the Crow city of Angels was the sequel and and due to his death in that movie they it was Vincent Perez was the actor that they hired to replace the men. Honestly, the movie suffered greatly from from agonistic that a huge loss.
In general, because I think Brandon Lee had a lot of star potential, and there's no telling what he could've done in film had his life not been tragically cut short like that. So here from a from a legal perspective, Alec Baldwin, organist similar, something comes to light in an scene. He seems to have been friends with the system incident cinematographer who passed away, but right now we don't have any evidence Alec Baldwin or anyone else for that matter had the intent that would go with a murder charge or second. You know there's no intent here that we do and I don't know how you I don't know how you find any negligence on the behalf of a valid Baldwin either. If you think about the procedure you know and actors knocking to be expected.
I think there to be trained in gun safety protocols, but they're not going to be expected to do and really examine these firearms amino doesn't necessarily work for the flow of production you're relying on all of the other people who have these these guns in the chain of custody to do their jobs and to provide you with a safe weapon so I think it's super unfortunate that he know because he's got absolutely have some remorse and some guilt even though I don't think there is anything he could've done differently, and that's part of that the really part of the tragedy here to eat you mine.
I know this, but I was written out of what I was reading I was reading that this is something Mr. Baldwin is a guy like a producer credit or an assistant director creditor something, but they I'd read that since you he wasn't solely an actor so there may, there may be some if they want to base criminal responsibility. He has another role in the film that that might give him some yet they want to look at like a manslaughter charge or something like that. You are looking at criminal negligence. Yet, there might be something there but I did read too far into it. Yeah, I think he was some producer of some sort.
But then you you got a lot of producers to sell it. I don't know how any kind of criminal charges play out.
From this, but I can guarantee that there will be substantial civil lawsuits. As a result of this, and it it's something that someone is absolutely to be held negligent on the one of the complicating factors in that reading about this is a lot covered 19 restrictions on these movie sets so that that's kinda led to a modification of the traditional protocol and and I think they've had some difficulty kinda tracking who handled these weapons who put what where and adding that's kinda complicated how they've been obtaining evidence and trying to kinda get to the bottom of what exactly took place in this case. So it's good to be interesting to see how they reconcile and deal with all that D out Lala years tackling again the Alec Baldwin case where there was a shooting onset on one of his recent movies. It's been all over the news and and certainly is going to continue to be there as the investigation continues.
We want to remind you to that that if you have any of your own legal questions pertaining to what you're going through.
You can always call 800-659-1186 at 800-659-1186 and leave little information obvious. Your contact information your name and what you're going through and a lawyer with Whitaker and Hamer law firm will be in touch with you again. That's 800-659-1186 and also if you want to a question thrown out on one of the programs in the future. You can email it to us questions and the outlawing are not common. Please check out the website, the outlaw lawyer.com were back to wrap it up right after this next Joe and I talked about what to do if you're stopped for suspicion of driving under the law. Lawyers and I tell you, the show has one by your hosts are Josh Whitaker and Joe Haber.
You can find them managing partners at Whitaker and Hamer law firm 46 combined years experience in offices in Raleigh Garner Clayton Goldsboro Fuquay Marina and Gastonia. They are practicing attorneys here in North Carolina you got your own legal question. You need some answers.
Here's the number to call 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186.
You can also email your questions to the program. We may use them on a future program email@example.com and please check out the website D out Lala your.com all of our previous chosen podcast form. Are there for you guys, what's gonna be this wrap up II love the question and answer yes we get a lot of questions about DUIs driving under the influence. We a lot of questions about what to do you know if you're stopped and setting before we delve into this, we have to wait and preface this with Joe and I would recommend that you just don't drive under the influence at all. So this is in a primer on how to conquer a traffic stop.
This is this just does what your legal rights are. If you are stopped by an officer but are over arcing messages don't drink and drive. Agnes really don't not take a lot of we don't take a lot of firm stances here, but I think you can take eight and then we can take a firm stance. Don't drink and drive, comfortable with that if you you and so do the question that we get posted. And again I cannot condense these downs.
We a lot of specific questions that we don't get Cheryl in the air, this is kind of boiled down from a much different questions is basically nonstop because the cop is is suspecting that I'm driving under the influence whether I am or not it's being asked suspicions what can I do what can I do what should I do and something most attorneys with which you a first of all, be polite to the officer in the officers pulling you over, you can answer questions, you can show your drivers license. Things like that.
Genders is a couple things you don't have to do yeah and you know you make a good point and I think practically speaking, we said this several times but being being intentionally difficult with an officer and you know abrasive is ace is not something that's ever going to really be beneficial to you. So if you got an officer that is being.
It is super abrasive to you or is overstepping and trying to infringe upon any new justifiable rights you may have. Of course you protect yourself, you know, don't. Don't over speak, but at the same time, just just being generally pleasant is is almost certainly gonna make things better for you as opposed to worst, I would say yeah, I'm always thinking about it I don't I don't practice criminal law, they would ever at the law firm have several attorneys who practice criminal law, but you know they are always looking at it from the perspective of their in court with the judge and the charging officer in any anytime you're polite. That always goes a long way with those folks. Assuming it's a situation where like Joe said you're not being take advantage of you not have been mistreated, but there's a couple things you can refuse so you know if the if the officer has his suspicion that you might be driving under the influence whether that's drugs or alcohol. You can ask you to take what's called no portable breathalyzer.
The roadside test for alcohol and you don't have to take that yeah you don't have to and but again I think it's important that you note if you don't take that there can be consequences. You know you can refuse these certain things but you're gonna urinate potentially have consequences and and almost comes down to a strategic type of decision and how you approach. Some of these things and it's difficult because you normally are not an attorney.
In this situation, you can't really consult with an attorney on the fly so it is hard to really discuss strategically what that the nuances would be as far as when refusal might make more sense than not refuse. Yeah, I think the big thing is the note just to know your rights, you know and and we always recommend that you you know you politely decline. I think I can only say what I would do it. I would politely decline any of those at the roadside testing of the walking in a straight line, you know, things like that. That's that something that you don't you'll have to do. You never have to tell an officer where you're coming from or where you're going, even though there there asking his questions and again don't have to be rude about it is just legally don't have to answer those questions.
There's I think most attorneys would say it and to not answer those questions and's and so when this goes for any traffic stop you and we can go down a big rabbit hole on DUI stops about again. What's refuse what test you have to take what you and others. There's all kinds of planning that goes into those kind of things and is kind decisions, but you do have constitutional rights do you have rights or things you don't have to do and I guess that's the biggest thing that I would tell folks is, you know, I'm very fortunate. I've never been charged and never had to deal with the DUI personally. John think you have your every note I have not in here we were working up against the clock a little bit so there is in a week. I think we can talk about this topic a lot, but I think one thing that's important to stress and that we really Hamer home is the fact that I think is a lot of misconception about the relevance of those field sobriety test or Inuit roadside breathalyzer and officer can arrested and arrest you and charge you without that breath or blood test. What what is relevant to the officer is no evidence of your appreciable impairment so it doesn't, he's not all of those things are either they contributed that evidence, but he could have sufficient evidence without conducting a field sobriety test without giving you a breathalyzer. If you know you're just clearly stumbling drunk so the officer is not as it is not blind and and is not is not – so he can use what it what he senses you know he's Artie seen do something in theory to make employee you ever make her pull you over so he's got your driving totes a look at an or she can smell you can smell alcohol you can smell drugs he can have the officer can look at how your acting and those can all go towards his decision is our decision, but we can talk about this for days. If we had the outlaw liars Josh Whitaker and SchellHamer Whitaker and Hamer law firm there managing partners there guys. Great show as always. Looking forward to what's coming up next, and I know that we got plenty of topics to talk about. We do Morgan you know I think one thing really get back into we mentioned it last week but were absolutely we promise that we will get into our extravaganza legal movie tournament that Taz was still fleshing out and added that's coming that's coming. We will have something on that in the next episode for short fantastic will the outlaw liars we have another episode in the books. Just a reminder if you got your own legal question you can contact the firm 800-659-1186 at 800-659-1186 leave your contact information and a brief description of what you're going through an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer law firm will be in touch with you again. 800-659-1186 or you leave a question for an upcoming show will try to answer for your firstname.lastname@example.org and please visit the website.
The outlaw line your.com were back next week is attorney licensed to practice law in North Carolina just appearing on the show. Maybe license North Carolina attorneys discussion of the show is meant to be general in nature and in no way should the discussion be interpreted as legal advice, legal advice can only be rendered once an attorney licensed in the state in which you live. Have the opportunity to discuss the facts of your case with you.
The attorneys appearing on the show are speaking in generalities about the law, North Carolina, and how these laws affect aboriginal Carolinian. If you have any questions