Happy New Year! But watch out, New Year's eve is notoriously "amateur night" for driving drunk. And this time of year sees an increase in domestic abuse.

• Did you know, one in 6-7 men and one in 4 women will be a victim of domestic abuse in their lifetime? And, half of the male victims (49%) fail to tell anyone they are a victim of domestic abuse and are two and a half times less likely to tell anyone than female victims (19%).

Norm's Patriot Act prediction coming true - Norm goes into detail and references Stellarwind as an example.

Government shutdown averted - but what about the new incoming representatives now strapped with their habitual overspending?

The transgender athlete ban does not pass Ohio’s General Assembly. The Ohio House voted against passing the amended House Bill 151, which would have banned transgender girls from participating in female sports, overhaul the Department of Education, and prohibit discrimination against students who are not vaccinated for COVID-19.

Are we light on crime? Columbus man accidentally released from Franklin County jail now being held with no bond - but two more killed during his pendency for trial

Norm and Steve deep dive into defense cases and specifics into speedy trials.

Stephen Palmer is the Managing Partner for the law firm, Palmer Legal Defense. He has specialized almost exclusively in criminal defense for over 26 years. Steve is also a partner in Criminal Defense Consultants, a firm focused wholly on helping criminal defense attorneys design winning strategies for their clients.

Norm Murdock is an automobile racing driver and owner of a high-performance and restoration car parts company. He earned undergraduate degrees in literature and journalism and graduated with a Juris Doctor from the University of Cincinnati College of Law in 1985. He worked in the IT industry for two years before launching a career in government relations in Columbus, Ohio. Norm has assisted clients in the Transportation, Education, Healthcare, and Public Infrastructure sectors.

Brett Johnson is an award-winning podcast consultant and small business owner for nearly 10 years, leaving a long career in radio. He is passionate about helping small businesses tell their story through podcasts, and he believes podcasting is a great opportunity for different voices to speak and be heard.

Recorded at the 511 Studios, in the Brewery District in downtown Columbus, OH.

Copyright 2024 Common Sense Ohio

Brett: That's another Super Bowl type, uh, of day for you, isn't it? It could get kind of busy for you.

Steve: Yeah. You know the holiday tiz this season.

Norm: Maybe we should talk a little bit about that.

Steve: As a famous local DJ once said, tiz this season to, uh, get geeked up on coke, smack around your wife and, uh I forget how he put it.

Norm: Nothing like bringing in the new year the right way.

Steve: Yeah. Ah, and, uh, it does happen. I had a couple of calls. I had an assault call, uh, already. I had, uh, a couple of DUIs. And in the old days when I used to be a drinker, we would call it amateur nights. People go out during the holidays and they're not used to consuming alcohol and driving. And, uh, I had a very close friend who was recovering alcoholic. He died, unfortunately. But I used to ask him about this, how do these guys drive every single day and not get caught? And then the one dude, the weekend drinker will get caught on a Tuesday night or something. He just says, I'm a professional. His point was, I have done this for so long, I have gotten better at it. I'm not saying that you're going to be a good driver when you're drunk, but you get more comfortable being drunk and driving. Uh, so you're not as nervous or you're not as whatever. You just don't care, whatever it would be. But he somehow managed to navigate the roadways of Columbus for a lot of years without getting caught.

Norm: I just want to insert so, um, factually, actually, more wives beat their husbands than the other way around. It's just that when it occurs, obviously, men generally being stronger, do more damage.

Steve: Uh, I don't doubt that stat. I think men are likely to take the abuse, maybe is a better way to put it. Absolutely. Because I always say this if you want to increase or decrease the crime rate. It's very simple. You just either charge people more or charge people less.

Norm: Right?

Steve: So, during COVID people said, look, the instances of domestic violence has increased, uh, or decreased, or whatever. It's like no enforcement is down there's the same, probably more, but, um, there are just fewer cops out on the streets enforcing it. So when you have, um, the crime rate going up on gun crimes, for instance, this is my big pet peeve, because now you have an administration in Washington who is saying, we are going to take administrative and criminal action against firearm, uh, offenses. So now all of a sudden, ATF, alcohol, uh, tobacco and Firearms is out, uh, enforcing regulatory laws that they wouldn't have enforced during the last administration. So it looks like there's more gun crime now. Nobody knows that it's because somebody didn't register a gun properly in a book. It's not like people are out using weapons. Uh, it's a more, uh I don't want to call it soft, but call it regulatory type stuff. And it's only because enforcement is up now in domestic violence, I think guys are more likely to take the punch and not call the police.

Norm: One, uh, hundred percent.

Steve: It probably is more statistically true than even the statistics show.

Norm: Exactly. Well, I mean, think of us culturally. How many guys, how many guys are going to call in that a girl beat him up?

Steve: I mean, a woman before? I did not call the police, of course.

Norm: Not sure.

Brett: Yeah, exactly.

Steve: No, I was 17. Whatever. And I was probably committing other crimes at the time. Probably underage drinking or something at the time.

Brett: Our son's been in that kind of situation, and he never told us about it until months later.

Norm: Yeah.

Brett: And it was minor stuff, but yeah, it's a male thing.

Steve: And let's just face it, all women are crazy. Never mind. Okay, that doesn't make any common sense.

Norm: As the only bachelor at the table, uh, okay, I agree.

Steve: We don't really think that you guys.

Norm: Are in a world of shit when you get home.

Steve: We don't think that, even though it's probably true. No, but I think there's a lot of truth to that. I think people always talk about, uh, some outcome equality of men and women. And the fact is, men and women just handle situations differently, by and large, in the margins. Maybe there's differences.

Norm: Okay, I want to pound my chest and, uh, say how right I was about something.

Steve: I think you're right. It makes common sense.

Norm: Oh, hey, I'm Pivoting. Uh, so, as you guys know, and as is documented on our, uh, website with, uh, uh, mr. Johnson has beautifully stacked up all of the podcasts, uh, by date that we've done. So we have now a library of common sense Ohio, that listeners can go.

Steve: To again, let me interrupt@commonsenseohioshow.com. And people are like, why is it so long? Well, because somebody had all the good ones already used, so we had to use that. So shut up about it. You don't think we thought about that?

Steve: Yeah, for sure. So there's a couple of things that.

Norm: Go ahead, Mr. Attorney, we can unpack there.

Steve: So what you're saying is, in order to have any sort of First Amendment violation, and this is sort of like one on one stuff, but I don't mean it that everybody should know it. I don't think it's necessarily, uh, uh, clear in this day and age where everything has sort of been blurred between what's government and what's private. But the general rule is, I cannot violate Norm's First Amendment rights. I'm a private person. I can tell Norm to shut the hell up and get out of my house all I want. And it's not a violation of your First Amendment rights. It might be offensive, and it might be sort of, um, in the spirit of not letting somebody express their views. But it's not an actionable violation. As soon as the government does it, then or however, it becomes a violation of the First Amendment. So you got to have what we call in constitutional law, government action. So the question you're positing, you're asking is, ah, does it count as government action for First Amendment purposes when the government is enticing or pressuring private entities to censor speech? And I think the answer is probably. And there's a couple of examples I'll give you. So say you're staying at a hotel and um, the police think that you're a dope dealer. So what they do is, they realize that they don't have the Fourth Amendment right to enter your hotel room with a management key and search your closet or the suitcase in your closet. So what they do is, they say, all right, um, um, they get the maid staff or the support staff at the hotel, and they say, all right, we're going to ask you to go search it for us. Well, now the question is, is that government action? Did the government violate your Fourth Amendment rights? And I think everybody would say yes, that is an agency relationship. So when the government contracts with a private person to do what they couldn't otherwise do, it's the same as the government doing it. Now, it's going to be very difficult for these governmental actors trying to justify, uh, this conduct when they have like 50 years of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence or Fourth Amendment law in that context. And I'll give you another one. There's a concept out there on a bigger picture called conditional spending. Years ago, we actually read the Constitution, and the Constitution said, congress shall pass no law unless it's within their specific enumerated powers. So what did they started to do? They started to regulate things by conditional spending. We'll give you state of Ohio highway money if you raise the speed limit, or lower the speed limit, rather, and raise the drinking age. And eventually the Supreme Court says, yes, you can do that. I think South Dakota versus Dole or some case like that, said it, and that's permissible government action, and they're allowed to do it. So how is the government now going to go into it? Credibly go into the US supreme Court or any federal court and say, no, we're just suggesting it. And I'll also maybe add this example. I remember in the fraternity setting in college, we would say, well, look, we're not forcing all these pledges to walk together to every single class, we're just encouraging it. I remember telling that, taking that nonsense argument to the staff, and they just said, people have been coming in here since you were a twinkle in your mother's eye with that stupid argument, and we don't buy it then, we don't buy it now. And they were right. Right. So it's like pressure on private agencies to do the bidding of government work is the same as the government doing it.

Norm: Yeah. Wasn't it amazing, uh, what has come out in these Twitter dumps that the FBI was even worried about? Comedy. Memes. Like people telling jokes. Like, if a joke was really acerbic and really got to some particular pet project or pet subject COVID, or whatever the subject might be, and somebody really put a zinger out there online, on Twitter, or on Facebook. The FBI was worried about people's joking and their comedy bits. This is unbelievable.

Steve: I'm not just throwing stones here at the Dems. Trump did this, too. Trump and his team were doing this with COVID stuff. Uh, it's coming out that they were using or influencing all the social media platforms to try to construct a narrative that supported what the government action was. And you could say, well, COVID was such a severe thing that we should let no, you can't say that. You can't credibly say that. There is no emergency large enough, uh, to take away all our freedoms. We have given up certain protection of the government on purpose. Thank you. I don't need it. I'll take care of myself. I don't need you monitoring and limiting my freedom in the name of, uh, safety.

Norm: Yeah, 100% right. I mean, Trump really did buy into the whole Fauchy burks thing early on.

Steve: He wasn't quite understood it either.

Norm: Well, we've discussed this in the past, where Trump is known to be a germophobe. And so he's very scared of that entire thing. It was easy to manipulate, and he was manipulated. Yeah.

Brett: And put us back in that situation that every day more information came out or less information came out. We didn't know what the hell is going on. You think you have a handle on it one day, and the next day more information comes out that defeats what you just thought was real? It was a strange time for six months or so, it was strange.

Norm: We were all going to die. Exactly. And then it was basically a bad flu.

Steve: But here's what's so fascinating about it, is that and, uh, this will circle it. Get that roundtable. This will circle it right back to the show. Common sense. I looked at this stuff like I look at anything in my practice. Does it make sense? I've had scientists come into courtroom and spew nonsense all over, and everybody says, you just are you're a believer or you're this or you're that, or you're crazy, you're fringe, or whatever it is. And I'm just like, it just doesn't make sense to me. If you can't explain it to me in a way that makes sense, I don't buy it. I don't care how complex the science is. There's nothing that can't be made simple or simple or perhaps. And none of this made sense to me. It's like, I remember I talked to a buddy of mine who was, uh, a DNA expert now, but he's a former epidemiologist or whatever, m. He's a biochem guy. And I was asking him, it's like this virus, and they're talking about asymptomatic spread and all these things that can happen and lasting for days even if you touch something. I said, Is this going on? He's like, look, unless it's acting like no other virus that's ever been on the planet since mankind started looking at viruses. No, that's not going on yet. People ran with those narratives as if they were true. Like, this is like the Star Trek. No, uh, win scenario. We've got the most evil virus ever, and, uh, it's acting and behaving in ways that are completely alien to humankind.

Norm: I think in one of our podcasts, because our governor here in Ohio, DeWine, reacted. Uh, he overreacted.

Steve: And by the way, because of that, we got to shut down your business, take all your freedom, and, uh, you're not going to make any money for two years.

Brett: And he gets a daily TV show.

Norm: Well, I proposed that Ohio's legislature renamed the state to Fear because we were the state of fear. We weren't the state of Ohio anymore. I didn't even recognize my fellow citizens. Uh, they were wearing these chem suits to kroger head to toe like they worked at they worked at a body shop, right? Walking around in a white, uh, tievec suit with a big face shield, like they're going to weld something. What are you doing? What's going on? And I remember we were all spraying the handles of all the carts and running around where the avocados were. But we are we wipe down all this stuff, and then it comes out a year and a half later. Oh, you can't get COVID from, uh it doesn't spread on the surface of anything. Well, that's not how it's at least.

Steve: Not the way they say it did. And what's interesting is that people bought into this hook, line and sinker. People gave up their freedom. Liberally and I use those terms in juxtaposition like that, so they liberally gave up their freedom, which is so ironic, right? Uh, in the name of the government protecting us, people were willing to give up their freedom. And they still are. It's like, oh, yeah, it is so insane.

Norm: Well, they're talking about school mask mandates again in New York and California. Screwed up. They're teeing up the ball.

Steve: It's so insane.

Norm: But anyway, um, I just want to point out that I think we're going to have a lot to talk about next year, uh, with, uh, Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, uh, over there, uh, is going to really be handling things at the House Judiciary house, um, Judiciary, uh, hearings on, uh, this subject. Uh, and he takes no prisoners. This is not going to be a Trey Gowdy I'm investigating. You, uh, know, Libya. This is not going to be that way. Jim Jordan jim Jordan is just he's.

Steve: Not afraid of the truth.

Norm: He's not afraid of what's going to happen to him.

Steve: Right. The truth is his goal. Right.

Norm: So he is going to he's going to go for it.

Steve: I think it's so far, that's what he's shown.

Norm: Yeah. This guy needs a real deal.

Steve: And I think I am curious to see how everything unfolds in the Republican Party, too, because it seems like there's some dissension in the ranks. I mean, the Republicans passed or the Senate. How many Senate Republicans, uh, got on board with this? $1.7 trillion?

Norm: 18.

Steve: Goggle spending.

Norm: 18.

Steve: And then they get the House to go along with it.

Norm: Uh and I'll tell you, I'm a JD. Vance fan, but I've heard nothing but silence from JD. And I'm like JD. Now, I know it hasn't even been sworn in, so I'm not on him.

Steve: Politics are a place. But they were on the phone with him.

Norm: If I'm JD. Right, I would be standing with Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and those guys. Uh, Ron Johnson. He should have been at the microphone with the objectors saying, hey, wait a minute, I just got elected. I want to say so the football needs to be kicked over to January. So that me and my new colleagues coming in. Let us handle it. Not rob portman.

Steve: And look, I get you need the Mitch McConnells of the world who know how to operate and navigate. Look, we hate the swamp, but the fact is the swamp exists. So to what extent do you need somebody who knows how to navigate the swamp boats versus just completely coming in and blowing it all up? And the Republican parties are walking a fine or, uh, Republicans are walking a fine line here because they're on, I think, on the verge of this probably change, but hopefully not implosion.

Norm: Well, yeah, we are on the cusp of a third party being formed. There's no question about it. A lot of people think that if DeSantis gets a nod that Trump might actually go third party, Ross Perot style.

Steve: Um, that'll be terrible for the Republican.

Brett: Well, yes, because it won't hold.

Steve: It'll be enough. Ross Pero is the perfect example.

Brett: Well, Ross Perot not enough for a third party. All you're doing is sucking away Republican and Democratic votes.

Norm: But at some point, at some point, you can only alienate and disappoint Republican voters, especially the new ones, the late comers to the Republican Party, who only came over because of Trump's, um, rocking the boat. And if the Republicans are just like Mitch just did, mitch McConnell just did from Kentucky, just, uh, leader of the Senate, minority Leader of the Senate. If they just fold up their tent because they're so afraid of being blamed for a government shutdown that's why McConnell did this. He is aware that the mainstream media will there's no question Mitch is correct about this. There is no question that whenever there is a government shutdown, even though the Democrats control, uh, the presidency, currently the Senate, currently the House until the new House is sworn in, um, so they control all three. But still, if the Republican Senate had balked and Mitch had held firm, and they had rolled it over on a continuing resolution till next year, there's no question that the mainstream media would have blamed the Republicans for shutting down the government. And I say, so what? So what? Explain it. You're going to have to go out there and sell to the American people that it's going to take an earthquake to change the habitual spending in DC.

Steve: Well, and the pork that was attached to this bill, leave it to Rand Paul. He always comes up with his year.

Norm: End sort of, uh, yeah, like Proxmeyer did and other people before him.

Steve: It's so insane, the stuff we were funding. And I think it almost leaves enough even on Steve.

Norm: They're studying whether or not abuse, uh, of alcohol is bad for you, that there's actually millions of dollars to study that issue. Like, we don't know that.

Steve: I'll take a million dollars to conduct an investigation to see who's getting the million dollars and what their relationship is to those who are giving out the million dollars because somebody has done something on some level to get this funded.

Norm: To get a grant.

Steve: How much are they making? Uh, it's like, I always follow the money, and I don't think Mitch wants that any more than anybody else? Because common sense I think Jordan is a common sense guy. I think common sense would say, all right. Don't you think the American people would just be generally offended of all this pork that goes into these bills and, like, we're spending X amount of millions on this special interest study over nothing. Even, um, if you support it, I think most people would say, well, that's stupid. You might ask the question, wouldn't you rather have that money back in your pocket to pay your heating bill, ultimately drop into the zero?

Brett: That's what you say to that? That is, we're going to spend something on we already know what the answer is.

Norm: Right.

Brett: But people have to have while we studied it, and now we know it's the truth.

Steve: Right. So I want to know how many millions are spending on equity, diversity and inclusion and who's making the money and how much are they taking home a.

Norm: Michelle Obama hiking trail in Georgia?

Steve: Why is any dollar that I ever make and give to the government, uh, at the barrel of a gun going to fund that?

Norm: The state of Georgia wants a hiking trail. Uh, get some Boy Scouts together that need a capacity.

Brett: Put her name on it.

Norm: Yeah, seriously, go chop a trail down and just do it with volunteers. You've got to be kidding me.

Steve: Yeah, but, ah, again, I think common sense would say, if I don't like this spending bill, I would enumerate all these things. I would say, look, here's why I objected. The government shut down, folks, I get it, and that sucks, and we're very sympathetic with that. But let me tell you why I objected. Because we're giving 10 million to these people, 5 million to these people, billion over here. We're giving these overseas governments X amount.

Norm: Of dollars to guard their borders.

Steve: To guard their borders when ours are wide open. This is the administration that won't even we can talk about 42, title 42 again, because the US. Supreme Court just, I think, um, issued, uh, a good decision on that. But I don't even say it's a good decision.

Norm: It's, it's, it's a stop gap.

Steve: It's a good outcome.

Norm: Yeah.

Steve: But I don't necessarily agree with the decision. I don't know if they anyway, you sound like Gorsuch. I'm right about that. No, I'm not like Gorsuch.

Norm: Well, uh, his minority, um, opinion, uh, on that was basically he's right. Basically, the emergency of COVID has ended.

Steve: Yeah.

Norm: Okay. But I said the Obidin administration, which it really is, has an internal contradiction. They have, on one hand, said COVID, uh, emergency still exists for a bunch of domestic purposes, but on the border, they want to say it doesn't exist.

Steve: Right.

Brett: The emergency is well, the military spending it doesn't exist because they disenfranchised thousands. They left the military. Ah, but they're not now they don't have to have the shot.

Norm: Now that they've, uh, exprogated all the bad military people with an R behind their name. Now the question will be, will they bring them all back and give them their back pay? The Pentagon doesn't want to do that.

Steve: Here's what's interesting, though. There's always an unintended consequence to these things. And I don't know what it is. And I don't necessarily think it's going to be good for one side, or it's probably bad for both sides, really. But now you have all these disenfranchised or defroc soldiers will say, right. And some of them were high level, uh, very well trained special ops. Special ops type. What are they doing now? Do you think they're just going to stop doing those things? Are they going to work in the private industry? So if you've got like that's the one area where the government needs to operate in military.

Norm: Right.

Steve: We need to have a government run military. And instead what they've done is they've booted those people out to work as essentially missionaries.

Norm: Yeah. Uh, you mean mercenaries or I said missionaries.

Steve: I mean, that doesn't make any sense.

Brett: They could, though. They could, exactly.

Steve: Yeah.

Norm: Right.

Steve: So they're out preaching the Jehovah's Witness.

Brett: What's scary is that you were talking about Jim Jordan laying out, hey, why is this on? Why is this on? Why is this on? But that's how they get stuff done there, though. People need to generations it's add on, add on, add on. So he's almost going to become indoctrinated. Well, I'm sure he has that. If I want anything passed, I got to tag on some crap.

Steve: What makes sad, that's the way it gets done. That's right. I hear this argument in my line of work all the time over court. Wait a minute, why are we letting this happen? Why is this guy allowed to testify? Well, that's how we always do it. It's wrong. So I don't care how many times.

Norm: He'S done it wrong.

Brett: How do we make it stop? How does it stop? So, uh, uh, things would come to a halt if we did that.

Steve: Maybe that's what I think north Point is. Maybe that's what we need.

Brett: Exactly.

Norm: So, uh, let's talk about some poison pill legislation that recently, uh, foiled our governor. This is a beautiful move by somebody in the Ohio General Assembly. So, as we know, Governor DeWine wanted to turn the Department of Edge or wanted to turn the state Board of Education basically into a cabinet post so that he can control, um, with absolute authority, education policy. And the public would no longer have, uh, some elected representation to the state board. So in that legislation to make that change, it did pass the Ohio Senate. But the Ohio House, um, they put in the ban, uh, on male, um, athletes competing in girl sports in high school, um, in grade school. And so, uh, that was not satisfactory because that was in there. DeWine's education bill did not pass the. Ohio House. The Ohio House being way more conservative than the Ohio Senate, even though both are Republican majority, uh, Republican. So the, uh, Ohio House voted down Governor DeWine's, uh, attempt to take over the state Board of Education because somebody stuck in the poison pill of, um, the, uh, no men, no males in girl sports. Governor DeWine has come out in favor of allowing, um I want to say this right, so perhaps he hasn't outright endorsed boys playing in girl sports, but he has said that the legislature should not pass any laws with respect to that subject. So the bottom line effect is since the Ohio High School Athletic Association has come out in favor of bio boys playing as girls, the OHSA, that is their policy. They're okay with boys playing as girls.

Steve: Um, and that's an administrative branch of government under the executive no, it's an.

Norm: Association that's the regulatory oh is an organization that high schools pay dues to.

Steve: Belong as a private organization.

Norm: They put together the tournaments like the Triple A I got you football team.

Steve: How much funding do they get from, uh, the state of Ohio?

Norm: I don't know that. But the point is their policy, their rules on who can play in whatever sports swimming, track, football, basketball is bio boys can play on girl teams. That is DeWine. DeWine has said, we don't want to touch that subject, let's stay out of it. Uh, I don't want the legislature passing any laws. So the Ohio Republicans in the House gave him the finger and they put that poison bill in his little, uh, take over the state board, uh, forcing.

Steve: Him essentially to veto his own bill.

Norm: The Senate wouldn't agree to it that the conference committee failed. Yeah.

Brett: Quick Google search. Oh's budget is comprised of three main sources of revenue. Ticket sales of tournaments is the biggest 78%. 11% comes from annual officiating permit renewals and 11% comes from corporate sponsorships. They receive no tax dollars of any kind.

Steve: Oh really good.

Brett: Just to know what you need to know. Yeah, they don't, uh, no influence of.

Steve: Government there not there, but it's good somewhere. I can't figure out you I can't figure out where yet, but my finance.

Brett: Sense tells me OHSA has a voice somewhere in government.

Norm: It's like the National School Board Association, right? It's voluntary for a school board to belong to it. And then when they came out with, uh, the boys, uh, can use the girl bathrooms. And parents the FBI is investigating parents that want to go express their views about those kind of CRT and other issues at their school now being Merrick Garland's sick. The FBI on parents saying that they're potentially domestic terrorists because they go to a microphone and bitch about their, uh, local school board. The Ohio School Board Association pulled out of the National School Board Association. Let's applaud them for doing that because they're the ones that colluded with the FBI sending that letter to trigger that investigation, if you recall that letter.

Steve: Yeah. And that sort of stems which was.

Norm: Cooked up at the White House, you.

Steve: Said something earlier that made me write some notes down, and one of them in quotes, I would change the definition. And really to, uh, bring this back to a common sense perspective, it's really difficult for these people pushing these policies and agendas that just don't make any sense. Like, we were talking about Jordan looking for the truth, but when people aren't looking for when people are out there operating and they're afraid of the truth, they have to do things to get around it. One of them is just flat out lie. Another would be to change definitional structures so you can say a boy is really a girl, or girl is really a boy. And then after that, everything sort of makes sense, but it still sort of it runs afoul of our common sense understanding of what is real in the world. And then you get the folks like the Postmodernist who would say, well, nothing is real in the world. It's all just a made up construction of human endeavor. Uh, and that's when we get terms like, it's my truth. I'm going to speak my truth. Which is really to say, I'm full of shit. I know I'm full of shit. But my truth is this. This is how I really feel things should.

Brett: And I demand you respect my truth.

Steve: I demand you respect it. As the exchequer would always say, is like they never operate in the world of is. It always a should. We should have a world that works like this. I think that'd be awesome. We should have a world where I live forever.

Norm: I just want to point out that, uh, speaking of a world that makes no sense in word games, I just want to point out even the Republicans in the Ohio House who are fighting against boys competing as girls, bioboys competing as girls, even they have it wrong. And they have it wrong intentionally because the language is no male may participate on a team designated for females, but they don't have it the other way around. And it's just as legitimate the other way around. We know girls mature sooner than boys in general in their Tween years, okay? And girls, girls on wrestling teams, for example, during those bracketed years can absolutely devastate most boys of the same age.

Steve: And it probably more than just physical loss. But I just want to serve it.

Norm: I just want to point out, huh, so they're not going to ban the girl who wants to go out and play center on the junior varsity team, on the junior varsity football team. So girls can play on teams designated for boys, but just boys can't play on teams designated for girls. And what I see enormous is always looking for treating people equally in the same circumstance. And whether you're talking about the draft, whether you're talking about registering for the draft, whether you're talking about standards to become a New York firefighter or a United States Marine, and we dumb down standards so that women and girls, they can do things, and their level of, uh, competency is measured with a different ruler.

Steve: Well, here's the problem.

Norm: I have a major problem with that, because, again, we're not dealing with reality. We're dealing with people's feelings. And I'm all about reality. If a firefighter has to carry £300 up ten flights of stairs in order to become a fire department firefighter, I don't give a rat's ass if it's a man or a woman. They got to be able to do that.

Steve: So here's what I want to know, then. Does that rule make sense?

Norm: I want to say one thing. 343 firemen died on 911 in New York City. How many were women? None. Because they can't go up 110 flights of stairs with hose and a bottle on their back. They just can't do it. And so none of them were in those buildings when they collapsed. They were getting coffee or they were on the radio, or they were doing some other important job, but they sure as hell weren't doing the grunt work. And this country needs to face facts and reality. And, uh, the longer we keep playing patti cake with women and girls, finally they're coming out and saying, hey, we don't like the boys playing on our teams. Why? Because it affects them. It's a very selfish reaction. They were not worried about the boys getting screwed by Title Nine. They lost all their scholarships to Row, to run track, in some cases, to play baseball. They can give a rat's ass about the boys opportunities. Now it's all about the girls. And I want that on the record.

Steve: Well, it is right here at Common Sense, Ohio. There you go. There you go, man. So a couple of things about that boom that are worth unpacking. So the danger in some of this and some of what you said is when regulations are promulgated with the intent to exclude women or any other group, so you could easily write a regulation that would automatically eliminate women from the equation. Um, then you have to analyze whether the regulation is really a necessary and reasonable one. So you could say you have to be able to carry £300, but what if you don't? What if you only need to be able to carry £100? This is where it's not always obvious, and it's worthy of discussion at every level to look at all sides of it, to say, all right, is it reasonable that the firemen have to carry £300 in order to pass the fireman test? And if the answer is no, then you got to change that to a reasonable regulation. Or you could say, like we do in the military, look, there's certain things that men can do that. Women can't. They just can't.

Norm: I want to say before we go further, I'm not in favor of exclusionary standards. So if the standard, say the average victim, uh, in America, the average weight of a full grown adult is not 350, but we have to be ready for the few that are, well, then maybe a, uh, rescue team has at least one person that can handle that. I don't know. I don't know how you deal with that.

Steve: Well, that's how the military would deal with it. Right. They would diversify the responsibility.

Norm: Small fire department is not always going to have, uh, brutus, uh, he's not going to work that particular ship. So you're not going to have that guy. So the solution is to have them all able to do it.

Steve: Yeah.

Norm: You see the personnel problem, but you.

Steve: Can provide that infinitely.

Norm: So I am not in favor of exclusionary regulations, uh, that are written for the purpose of excluding people, uh, purely to deny them an opportunity. That's ridiculous. And anybody who's interpreting my comments to think that way, you are ridiculous because you're not taking me at full faith and credit.

Steve: But you also no, of course, right. And that's why I bring this up, is that to say, look, the regulations have to be reasonable, but there also has to be some play in the joint. So I've worked on construction crews, and there was always the guy, he'd be like the guy who walks like a cat on top of the walls. He was just good at it.

Norm: Yeah.

Steve: And he didn't look any different. Or maybe he was skinnier, or maybe I was heavier. Whatever it would be, he wasn't scared of it. And other people are you can divide it infinitely if you go down that path. I think there has to be some reasonable and maybe I should, uh, as I'm thinking this through, we tend to do that on our own, right, in this room. Uh, we know that you're good at a certain thing to get this show on the air. We know that Brett's good at a certain thing to get this show on the air. And I wouldn't expect anything different. Right. We all have done this. We've sorted ourselves on our own of what we're good at. And guess what? We get along. We don't need the government to tell us how to do that.

Norm: Well, we're being micromanaged in every facet of life by the federal government and increasingly by our state and local governments as well.

Steve: It's sort of interesting. You just give me an interesting thought. So, uh, in World War II, uh, the German army was a phenomenally equipped, phenomenally trained, phenomenal army. The Americans were a ragtag bunch of ragamuffins when we started. Anyway, there's a great book called, uh, an army at dawn or something. The guy named Atkinson wrote it. Anyway, it's a great book. It talks about sort of mobilizing the army to go over to Africa to fight. But by the time we get to DDay, we were sort of seasoned. And, uh, we were trained and we were seasoned. We were battle tested. But here's what the difference was. We were not rigidly regulated down to what we did, how we operated day in and day out. So our soldiers were allowed to do things like weld spikes on the front of the tanks so they could bust through the hedgerows where the Germans would have had to get permission for that. Um, our guys just did it. They were fresh off the farm. It was good old American ingenuity. And it wasn't over regulated. There's a diminishing rate of return on regulation. You get down to the weeds of it and you're going to just paralyze people. And I think that's what you're talking about. We're being micromanaged to the point where we're not only allowed to sort ourselves and we're afraid to do it right? And that's the consequence of it. It's like I can't say, look, you're too fat to crawl up the stairs. I'll do it. And the fat guy is going to say, yeah, you're right. In the real world, he may have his feelings hurt because he's too fat, but it's a fact. And maybe that causes him on the other side to go maybe go on a diet and exercise. I'm making this stuff up as I go because I think we are able as humans to sort this stuff out without government intervention.

Brett: But we have to be allowed to be driven to what we want to do in our lives. So there may be email firefighters who just that's their calling.

Steve: They want to do it.

Brett: They'll make it work, then they'll find a way. They'll find a way.

Norm: Or maybe they won't. Or maybe in some fashion, they'll be on the squad.

Brett: In some fashion.

Norm: Hey, Brett, I want to be a ballet dancer. Well, no, I think that ship is sail.

Steve: We should change the rules on what is so this is a perfect example.

Norm: I always wanted to dance the female role in the nutrition.

Steve: Okay?

Norm: I never was going to be allowed to do that.

Steve: Create modern art and make it so. You, who have no skill whatsoever on your toes in, uh, doing pure wetz.

Norm: Uh, I'm not a Sugar Plum fairy.

Steve: But we're never what we want to.

Norm: Be, never could do it. That's something I'm sorry to tell the 85 year old skinny girl in her black combat boots that got her fist clenched and fry them like bacon. I'm sorry to tell her that you're never going to be physically equipped to be a firefighter.

Steve: Right?

Norm: You're just not you can't lift a 300, 200, or even 150 pound dummy and run up the steps.

Steve: And I think left on our left to our own devices, it will sort itself out. I think women who understand that they're not equipped to do that job, don't.

Norm: Want to do the job, you know?

Steve: Right.

Norm: Quit the fantasy. Right. You know, let's, you know, let's quit the fantasy of, of Marine girls, you know, humping 105 millimeter, uh, artillery ammo. Humping that ammo from the ammo dump, uh, 200 yards away to where the gun is under combat conditions. They're not going to do it. They might be able to stain a fox hole and put their lipstick on, but they're sure as hell not going to be able to hump that ammo. And yes, that hurts somebody's feelings out there. I don't give a shit. It's called reality. It's objective reality. We're missing that in our culture because we have this Peter Pan mentality now that everybody can do everything. I'm sorry. Everybody can't do everything. I can't have a baby. I can't be the lead in the I can't be a Sugar Plum ferry. There's a whole bunch of shit Nor Murdoch can't do. And I've accepted that. And I'm asking my female friends, okay, and my gay friends and my burly beefy male friends, accept who you are, understand who you are, understand what your limits are, and deal with that.

Brett: Deal with that and excel with what you do have.

Steve: Well, that's right. Isn't that I mean, look good to make it about our Western Christian notion of life. Right. We have God given talents, and our job individually is to achieve what we are capable of achieving and always striving for getting better.

Brett: And it's someone disrespectful to not recognize your talents and God given talents and excel at them.

Steve: And excel at those.

Norm: Yeah.

Steve: And figure out where you need to improve and improve upon those things individually, within. And the government's never going to do that for you. It's never going to make you feel good. If it does, it just is like, you can't say, all right, uh, in order to do this job, you have to be able to fit through this small little space, and you're too fat. We're just going to make the space bigger so you can fit through it. It's not real life, and nobody feels good about it. Now it's this notion that we have to achieve within our individual self worth in order to feel good about life. Otherwise, when somebody does it for us, it doesn't feel good. It feels like, you know, you're cheating yourself.

Brett: Right, exactly.

Steve: If your parents complain and got you the starting role at first base in Little League, you know, the kid knows it's not because he earned it.

Norm: Correct. We are basically, in our culture, trying to remove the word farce from the dictionary. It is a farce. If I go and try to play Juliet in Shakespeare's play, I think he.

Steve: Might be good at it.

Norm: Yeah, that's a farce. Uh, now, back in Shakespeare's time, you.

Brett: Would have been able to they had.

Norm: Male actors doing female roles because basically it was almost considered to be prostitution. It was kind of like how NASCAR drivers used to be viewed as criminals, okay? If you were, uh, a player, an actor back in Elizabethan times, you were just about a prostitute. So women were not allowed on stage. They weren't allowed to do those roles because you were essentially you were like a circus clown. Mhm. Okay.

Steve: It was degrading as well.

Norm: It was degrading, right? So here we are all these centuries later, right. And nobody's going to cast me as Juliet, okay? And I've just got andrew Clavin isn't going to have me do a female role in one of his plays. And I have to accept that. But we're and for me to play a female role, we don't have to.

Brett: Let your hair grow.

Norm: We call that farce, for sure. Well, look, and we're removing, we're removing those judgments about what is farcical and what is ridiculous.

Steve: It's the emperor's and accepting everything that's.

Norm: Normal, closer and visible.

Steve: Like we look at modern art. Some of this stuff, it's just absurd. There's no beauty in it. But, uh, people sit around and act like they like it. And maybe they do, I guess. Who am I to say they shouldn't? But I've listened to music that's some of this, um, whatever it would be, and I'm listening to it, it's not good. I don't like it. Uh, and people are sort of these sophisticates acting like they're so, uh, educated because they understand it or they know better. And I remember in college reading these journals, like these history journals, uh, back in the 90s when some of this nonsense was first emerging. And I would read paragraphs of this stuff and be like, I don't understand a freaking word of it. It doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

Brett: But Jordan in the club and I.

Norm: Had to write the words.

Steve: I had to write a, um, critical review of somebody's journal one time. And that was my conclusion, was it doesn't make any logical sense. And I pulled apart. I said that he claims this, this and this, but those things don't add up to this. He's missing a key component of the syllogism. And, uh, they didn't like it. They didn't like it.

Norm: Let's talk a little bit about something that, uh, you're an expert in, Steve.

Steve: Nothing.

Steve: Well, this has nothing to do with that. I'm going to look at it more commonsensically. So, first of all, it's a clerical error that got him released. And you could say that he was handled with kid gloves, but it sounds like there was some reason that the courts were trying to hold this guy in jail. And somewhere the ball was dropped.

Norm: Only recently, he was under house arrest pending the killing of that 26 year.

Norm: Well, uh, yeah, see, I'm against the bond. Okay. You're being charged with killing.

Steve: I understand. So he's being charged with killing house. What happened? Because he wasn't in jail, they reevaluated.

Norm: The death of his infant son, one year old son.

Steve: They filed a superseding indictment and charged him with a bigger crime based on the same old conduct they were about.

Norm: To they had not yet filed those charges. And in the meantime, because of this, uh, clerical error, no other charges except for the killing of the 26 year old. Right. They let him out.

Steve: They let him out, and then he.

Norm: Can so he was, in theory, supposed to go back to house arrest.

Steve: Yeah. But I guess to me, this doesn't.

Norm: For shooting his mom in the 26 year old.

Steve: It's a better argument for you if he was let out on his own recognizance and then went out and committed crimes and the courts didn't exercise their responsibility to enforce, uh, a reasonable bond.

Norm: I'm saying I'm saying this in no case where you are charged with manslaughter, okay, during the pendency of that right. I don't think you should be on the street, period.

Steve: Why not?

Norm: Uh, because you've got a track record of shooting people.

Steve: Well, hold on a second. That's different than being charged with manslaughter. A track record of shooting people is different than a charge of manslaughter.

Norm: I don't know if it was just manslaughter or what, but he was under house arrest for killing a 26 year old. He's on house arrest and naming his mother. Now, maybe it was attempted murder.

Steve: He didn't commit a crime house arrest. He, uh, committed a crime after the.

Norm: Court screwed up the killing of his son.

Steve: Right, but that wasn't but that had already happened. That's what got him on house arrest. Is that what you say?

Norm: No, that happened afterwards.

Steve: Okay, so I misunderstood the facts then.

Steve: Okay? And the son dies while he's on house arrest.

Norm: Correct. Well, he's only one year old. Right?

Steve: Yeah, I got you. Okay, look, that changes everything for me. So if he commits a crime, what's.

Norm: His ass doing on the street? That's what I'm saying.

Steve: Well, uh, here's the thing. You can't legislate from the margins on stuff like this, because there's one of those. And for every one of those, there's going to be thousands of people who have recognizance bonds or they post their bond, or they're on house arrest, and there are no other problems. You can't put everybody in jail pending trial, but can't do it. We put the resources to do it.

Steve: The individuals are guaranteed a right to a speedy trial. It's theirs to waive.

Norm: Yeah, I understand that. I doubt he waived that.

Steve: I'm sure he did.

Norm: You think? Uh, yeah. Okay.

Steve: I can't get ready for a murder. So, look, I mean, this is like anything else. The courts are busy, the system is clogged, the jails are full. I have a full set of files upstairs. And somebody says, here's your client, he's charged with murder. Try the case in a week.

Norm: Okay, so here's the deal to me. I think murderers should be prioritized in the system. I think the Jeffrey Dahmers. This, uh, guy is not Jeffrey Dahmer. No, but anybody who's murdered somebody or has been charged with murder, those trials need to be prioritized. Those people should not be back in society.

Steve: What does prioritize mean? Does that mean you're not going to give him time to get his defense together?

Norm: Well, how much time does he need?

Steve: We'll say it's a year.

Steve: Well, you also had a COVID in this mess, too.

Norm: None of this would have happened.

Steve: You're working to some extent with an anomaly time period. I'm not saying it's justifiable because I don't believe in any of the COVID mess, but the courts were essentially closed. Well, we still can't get jailed.

Norm: What I do is I put my finger on my lip as the sad judge and say, well, gee, Mr. Johnson, because of COVID normally I would let you go back under house arrest. But because this is going to get dragged out and because of COVID looks.

Steve: Like you're in jail. Because we're afraid of the spread of COVID This is the nonsense that happened, right?

Norm: Well, yeah.

Steve: So let me just say this. This is a fringe case.

Norm: I'm judge Roy Bean on this. This guy is staying in prison.

Steve: I'm not condoning or even defending anything he did unless I was.

Norm: And look what's happened. He killed another person while he was going at it.

Steve: Is this. We are going to get something like Marcy's Law or Megan's Law or some other law named after a poor victim of a fringe case, and the law is going to be shitty because the.

Norm: Existing system is not being utilized. Correct.

Steve: So we already have the rules in place.

Norm: That's right. So let's use them. Why, uh, are you letting a guy charged with murder back out under house arrest?

Steve: Bad.

Norm: Um, government police get a little stupid collar on it.

Steve: My guess is he has a lot to do.

Norm: So he killed his son. Clerical error. He goes out and kills a guy to gas station. He killed two more people during the pendency of it. Sure.

Steve: Look, none of that is justifiable on any level. I don't know why he was placed on house arrest. And that's the answer to that's the question I would need to answer.

Norm: So a lot of things in our society were wrong 100 years ago. This would not have been one of them. A hundred years ago in Columbus, Ohio, they never would have sent a guy charged with murder back to his house to live with his mommy while he's waiting for his murder trial. Never would have done it. Never would have happened. This is a modern convenience that we're doing now because we have stupid little GPS, uh, ankle bracelets. We would not have done that 100 years ago, and they would have had a quicker trial.

Steve: Everybody feels like you do until it happens to you.

Norm: Your loved one, Al Capone didn't sit around for a year and a half.

Steve: What if the guy's not guilty?

Norm: Okay, so have a trial.

Steve: He's.

Norm: Not guilty.

Steve: What if the guy is not guilty? What if it's a one off steep scenario? One does individual case, but what does is to be assessed for what it.

Norm: Is, not arguing that. What does that have to do with where we house him during the pendency of his trial?

Steve: 100 reasons. Because if you're going to give a guy a fair defense, if you want him to have the best defense possible, him sitting in jail while I'm preparing his defense is not the best defense possible. Not even close.

Norm: Our Constitution does not guarantee the best defense possible.

Steve: Is that what you want, though?

Norm: No.

Steve: You're setting a breakdown AB initio dude.

Norm: You are setting a bar that we cannot pay for and will never achieve. I didn't have the best attorney possible for my recent legal deal.

Steve: I didn't say best attorney possible. The best offense let me rephrase. I'll use words that make more sense to you. The best offense reasonably possible. All right. Is that fair enough? So if I'm going to represent a guy and he's in jail, it's a pain in the ass. It's a pain in the ass on me. And it's not as good as it would be if he were not in jail. Not even close.

Norm: So there's some downsides to killing people, and one of which is right. It's a little clunky to meet with your attorney.

Steve: Let's have it your way. Let's presume that he's guilty.

Norm: Well, isn't that the presumption when you arrest somebody?

Steve: No. Whether it's reasonable there's that pesky Bill of Rights that says the opposite. Right? Presumed innocent.

Norm: We're not talking about that. But there is a presumption that he is legitimately detained.

Steve: There is a presumption that the police are right, and we have to operate intentionally to overcome that presumption.

Norm: I agree with you.

Steve: Give him a fair nobody's breaking system.

Norm: You're talking about a charge.

Steve: You're saying put him in jail because he killed somebody. But what if he didn't?

Norm: No, not saying that. I'm saying that if there's enough evidence.

Steve: Where do you draw the line? How about robbery? Do we keep all them in jail while we're pending?

Norm: No.

Steve: How about a burglary where you go into somebody's house?

Norm: No. I think when you kill somebody how.

Steve: About a felonious assault? I try to kill somebody, they don't quite die.

Norm: Yeah, that might be okay.

Steve: It depends on how egregious between now and next week. Let's write norms. Uh, hard, fast.

Norm: It's common sense. It's Judge Roy Bean. Shit. It's common sense.

Steve: It's not so easy when you get I didn't say it was easy. No prior record.

Speaker C: Didn't say it was easy.

Steve: Each, uh, individual circumstance, each individual situation has to be assessed.

Speaker C: Shot his mother determined killed a 26 year old.

Steve: That happened afterwards. So the question is why?

Speaker C: No, those were the initial charges.

Steve: Okay, so then I would need to know what the decision making process was that landed him on house arrest. I would guess I would guess the following, that the jail couldn't house people.

Speaker C: Because of COVID Okay, that's external. Go ahead.

Steve: Um, I would guess that the guy probably had I don't know if he had a record or not had a record. I would want to know if he had a record and whether the judge who issued that bond knew that or didn't know that.

Speaker C: Okay.

Steve: All right.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Steve: I would want to know what his history of showing up in court is. I would want to know that, and I would want to know, uh, what the expectations were on house arrest, what were the services that were in place. So those are all the things now you would say, blanket, if you're accused of killing somebody, you never are allowed to be released on bond pending trial.

Speaker C: That would be your rule, not killing somebody like a car wreck. No, murder. Murder charges.

Steve: Different for murder only. How about rape?

Speaker C: Yeah, possibly.

Steve: Possibly rape.

Speaker C: That, uh, would be more circumstantial because there is such thing as statutory rape where the victim agreed to the sexual activity.

Steve: How about self defense between teenagers? How about a murder where the defense is self defense? I had recently had a self defense client, and, um oh, I see what you're saying.

Speaker C: Right.

Steve: My defense was self defense. He'd never been charged with anything before.

Speaker C: Right.

Steve: How about that guy? Is he allowed to be out on bondage? He got to sit in jail for two years waiting on trial.

Speaker C: So was he charged with the same kind of charges that you would charge, uh, for the death of another? Like a planned murder?

Steve: Murder purposely caused the death of another?

Speaker C: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Then you have to treat him the same.

Steve: He has to stay in jail.

Speaker C: Yeah. But my corollary, which I think you kind of ran over, was that the trial has to happen quickly. As quickly.

Steve: Um, what does quickly mean?

Speaker C: If the guy voluntarily wants to cook in prison for longer while his defense is being prepared, I've got no problem with that. But he has to stay in jail.

Steve: So you don't see the problem with that?

Speaker C: No.

Steve: We're going to force a guy to sit in jail who's got to say he's got a legitimate defense, say it's self defense. But you don't think that that's going to incentivize less of a defense in order just to get him out of jail faster?

Speaker C: Yeah. Possibly could. So maybe for self defense cases, you have some kind of, um, more intensive, uh, review. I could see that.

Steve: So now you're going to make it incumbent upon that what the defense is. You're going to make it not incumbent, the circumstances that make it consideration. One of the considerations will be what the defense is.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Steve: All right.

Speaker C: What the facts are.

Steve: What the facts are. So that would have happened. They would have read the facts out loud in court, and the judge would have had some, uh, discretion to either keep him and hold him or release him on house arrest. And I'm not saying that this guy should be on house arrest, but I'm.

Speaker C: Just saying, clearly, shouldn't he kill two more people?

Steve: The point of this is that well, I mean, and that's the hindsight approach. The point of this is there are no hard, fast state that will work.

Speaker C: Our local government yes. No. This is a yes. No question. Our local government just tried to pass more egregious regulations on legitimate gun owners, okay? They passed the ordinances. Right. And the Ohio legislature shot that down. No pun intended. Um, so at the same time that our local law enforcement system is being told to turn up the Wick on guns and being told to turn up the Wick on violent crime, uh, and, uh, turn up the Wick on fentanyl and drugs in Columbus, Ohio, the same justice system is letting people involved with all those things. He shot his mother. Shot a 26 year old, and his one year old son dies of fentanyl.

Steve: He's accused of shooting his mother. So this guy so there's a difference.

Speaker C: I understand that, but no, you didn't.

Steve: Put the language matters here. I keep saying he shot his mother. No, he is accused of the government has accused him the same corrupt government that promulgated those ridiculous gun laws is the same corrupt government that's accusing him of these things. We have these protections, and then the.

Speaker C: Government against this government, and then the government let him go back to his.

Steve: House because maybe the something about the.

Speaker C: Case because the jail is too full or stankable or because they don't have the prosecutorial time or whatever. So you got to do one thing or the other.

Steve: You've either got to protect the rights of the accused.

Speaker C: Fine. You also have to protect society also. That's a corollary to all of this.

Steve: Uh, look, I'm not disagreeing with you.

Speaker C: Or you have people, but you have people throwing rocks at your building, which you very much didn't like.

Steve: I hated it.

Speaker C: Yeah. Okay.

Steve: Arrest them.

Speaker C: So either you have chaos in society and you go after people like this guy.

Steve: It's not a binary equation.

Speaker C: Not making it binary.

Steve: Gray area.

Speaker C: You could chew gum, um, and walk that operate indiscretion. You can prosecute. The discretion has to prosecute this guy in a timely manner, okay? Instead of him lingering at home where he commits more murders or man what.

Steve: If the government needs the time? What if the government couldn't procure the witness? That was necessary because COVID restrictions on travel couldn't get the witness.

Speaker C: The government also needs to protect society. Okay, but what if this guy's balancing act?

Steve: Uh, he has a right to a speedy trial. Let's reverse it. This guy has a right to a speedy trial. Right, but the government can't get their witness here, right. And this guy's sitting in jail, right? And the reason the government can't get the witness here is of no fault of the government because of maybe other banks ad government. So COVID won't let lots of rape.

Speaker C: Cases like the guy go lots of rape cases like the Michael Jackson case.

Steve: Would you go in that situation?

Speaker C: People won't testify.

Steve: Won't testify.

Speaker C: But they could if we can't or whatever. Of course you got to let him go.

Steve: So then he lets go and he killed somebody. Then what would you do?

Speaker C: What do you think? I'm Inspector Javert?

Steve: I don't know. You're acting like it.

Speaker C: No, I'm not. I'm in no way acting like it.

Steve: You've convicted this guy before the trial. He shot the wife.

Speaker C: Is this called the common sense Ohio show?

Steve: I'm trying to make it very common, okay?

Speaker C: I am not going to walk on eggshells or hang myself on tentered hooks here. This guy shot his mother, okay? He shot his mother. Okay? I'm allowed to have that opinion, and I do have that opinion. Based on what? Okay, based on the fact that he was sent back to house arrest and the prosecutors were ready to up the charges. I believe I'm allowed to have a belief. Maybe I believe this guy did this. And what evidence do I have? He killed two more people, okay? He's a bad dude.

Steve: I understand that. That logically doesn't follow.

Speaker C: I'm not trying to create a logic equation.

Steve: So maybe the time bond was set. I don't have evidence that you killed him. They do not have the evidence necessary.

Speaker C: I'm not a juror in this case. I haven't listened to the evidence. I'm on a bar stool talking to a couple of friends. That's the point. And you have to understand that we can have these kind of conversations.

Steve: I'm not upset.

Speaker C: I'm not upset either, but I can ask you to buy in for the sake of argument that this guy is guilty.

Steve: Yes.

Speaker C: And and I think you believe 90% he is guilty. If I, if I, if I had to pin you down and say, hey, Steve, look, I'm going to force you to tell me what your gut tells you. You're going to say, yeah, this guy did it.

Steve: That is the problem with the logic.

Speaker C: That I'm not asking you to set.

Steve: No, I agree with you.

Speaker C: His civil rights based on gut.

Steve: But if we are going to operate on our notions, on our initial thoughts.

Speaker C: Somebody is guilty, we do that all the time.

Steve: We have to intentionally not do that. We have to intentionally put safeguards in place. That's if you're running policy decisions based on those initial thoughts.

Speaker C: Correct. But we're not doing that.

Steve: We've done it in the first ten amendments to you.

Speaker C: Um, we're not doing that in this case.

Steve: You don't make exceptions in the case.

Speaker C: No, we're not doing that in this case. This guy needed to have a speedy processing of the charges. Should not have been allowed to float at home.

Steve: Why wasn't it initially charged with the murder?

Speaker C: Well, you're asking me all kinds of questions.

Steve: I can because it matters. Like, maybe they didn't have the lab results back. Maybe they couldn't prove the case. Maybe they couldn't hold him on a murder case, so they had to let him go on house arrest so the clock didn't start ticking on the murder case. Trying to build probably 100 reasons why this could be he completely come on.

Speaker C: Let'S go with the most likely, his mother won't testify against him even though.

Steve: He killed her, right?

Speaker C: No, he shot her.

Steve: Oh, she didn't die. Okay?

Speaker C: The other guy's dead. His mother got shot in the leg or whatever.

Steve: I'm not defending this guy as a character. I know you're not of, uh, model citizenship, but these are the cases if we're going to enact based on this.

Speaker C: Case, this is criminal light. If we this is exactly the problem.

Steve: If we're not acting legislation based on this set of circumstances, which is an.

Speaker C: Outlier by definition, I'm not advocating any.

Steve: Legislation or if you're going to change your policies on how you treat others, you're going to catch some people in.

Speaker C: The Dragnet Madison Society have said, dude, this is all I'm saying. The prosecutors and the judge didn't do their job well.

Steve: That could be.

Speaker C: That's all I'm saying.

Steve: It's as simple as I'm not even going that far. That very well could be. It could also be that there were other restrictions on the problem. They may not have been able to procure the evidence necessary to charge him with a murder and therefore justify a higher bond. They may not have had the lab reports back. They may not have had a witness.

Speaker C: That came later and maybe is innocent. So let's have, um, the trial.

Steve: And then if they held him in jail, then they get three for one day. So he's only got 90 days to get it in and they can't get their evidence together and the guy walks free. Then just prosecutor says, look, we got to make a hard choice here. We got to let this guy out. Otherwise he's going to go free forever. So there's reasons why that this stuff happens. Uh uh. What I'm trying to avoid is taking.

Speaker C: That would be an injustice. If the prosecutor said we're never going to have the evidence to charge us.

Steve: If they're saying, look, we don't have the evidence now, but we are developing.

Speaker C: It so in perpetuity we're going to keep an ankle bracelet on him and confine him to his house, isn't it.

Steve: Better than letting him go?

Speaker C: No, that's wrong too. I'm saying charge this MFR m right. Bring him into court. Let's have a trial. Let's get this done right. And then his little baby would still be alive and this guy wouldn't be dead at the gas station.

Steve: I get it. So you and that's what I'm saying. Minority Report and we can get the.

Speaker C: Little no, I'm saying get your shit together. I'm saying get the cops to investigate this. It's been a year and a half, right? This isn't the OJ case. He doesn't have Johnny Cochrane. Come on, man. Let's get this done. That's what I'm saying.

Steve: With that Riveting debate, uh, I've got to wrap it up. I've got to get out of here. But, uh, look, this was awesome.

Speaker C: We all do, man.

Speaker C: When they found that baby in Indie.

Brett: We got to talk about that next week, because there's crap about that, too.

Steve: We got to kick that can down the road.

Speaker C: But the Christmas present to this community was that baby was found alive, and.

Steve: There'S a happy ending.

Speaker C: And there's a happy ending for that five month old. Yes. Praise God.

Brett: Yes.

Steve: Absolutely. So, look, uh, with that, I will agree with Norm on perhaps on the other stuff. Norm, I think it's like the old.

Speaker C: Your agreement to me means a lot more to you than it does to me, believe me.

Steve: Look, there's a guy at college I used to debate all the time, and I realized early on, it's like, I'm never going to convince him he's wrong, but I'm going to convince everybody else that he's wrong, and that's going to be good enough. And that's what common sense Ohio is all about.

Speaker C: Paul Newman, judge Roy Bean. See the movie. That's me.