Mistrial for Clancy jury? + Flock camera controversy

0:00We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, Preborn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time, she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro-life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28. And to donate, dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby, or visit preborn.com-flash-afr. Jonah Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio. I love talking about the things of God because of truth and the biblical worldview. The US Constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jonah Ellis in the morning.

1:01Good morning. It is Thursday, September 3rd. And the Lindsey Clancy jury may be deadlocked and the judge may be on the brink of declaring a mistrial after the judge gives the deadlocked jury a last resort charge after they can't reach a verdict. And so this coming from the New York Post, the high profile Lindsey Clancy murder trials one step closer to potential mistrial after the judge issued a last resort order when jurors announced for a second time. Late yesterday they were deadlocked. The jurors are nine women and three men. That's all that we know about them. So jury selection of Wadir was not, of course, televised for their protection. They haven't been sequestered, which is interesting to note. But they sent the judge a note yesterday that they were still at an impasse about weather to convict Lindsey Clancy a first degree murder

2:01for strangling her three young children or a guilty on one of those lesser included charges or find her not criminally responsible or at worst, in my opinion, completely not guilty. So let's welcome in Ron Coleman, who is an attorney and host of the culmination for more on this. And Ron, how close do you think that the judge actually is from declaring a mistrial? Because it's only been a week yet the jurors come back twice saying we just can't resolve this. I think it's today or bust. All right, well, that's about as specific as you can get. I think so too. I mean, this is, this, this advisement is basically the judge going back to the jury and saying, you know, don't, don't resolve this trial by losing your convictions or just trying to compromise,

3:04but at the same time, you can talk to each other, deliberation is what the jury is supposed to to do. And so, you know, listen to each other and, you know, you're here in order to reach a verdict. So basically, please, please, please try. So what, you know, you've been in a number of situations in front of juries, I have on, you know, the prosecution and the defense side. And it's always, there's always the worst point for the lawyers in the trial to just sit around and wait for the jury. If this is a mistrial, do you think that it is better for the defense or for the prosecution going into a second trial? I think it's, it just might be, I'm just looking at this from all the way in Northern New Jersey, but it looks to me as if, short of a, short of a guilty verdict, this is the best outcome

4:06for the prosecution because they get to, they get to do it right this time. I mean, the problem is the jury pool. I don't believe there was any serious lack of preparation, but whatever didn't go right the first time, they've got another shot at it, and there aren't gonna be any surprises left in terms of approaches, strategies, tactics that could be used by the defense. I do think this judge has let the defense lawyer get away with some really outrageous stuff in terms of comments that he's laid referring to the prosecution in front of the jury. I imagine the judge is gonna be this. Well, actually, you know, now that I think about it, I was about to say the judge is the judge,

5:08you can't really, you can't really redo that, but the fact is, I just had a judge yesterday learn a little bit, I don't want to go through the detail, but he tried, he tried to get tough with a certain lawyer who's been practicing long enough to not let it happen. I do think the judge might say, is I'm gonna run a little bit tighter ship this time because I don't mean another mistrial, it gotta be done right. Yeah, and that, you know, I mean, there weren't really legal issues or, you know, things that arose that for a mistrial. I mean, it's just the obvious guess, and of course we haven't talked to the jury. We don't know their thinking, but if there are anything like the Court of Public opinion, it's that there are just so extreme differences on how the public is perceiving this case.

6:12I mean, on one hand, you have people like me who say, even if the defense story and the psychosis and all of that is 100% accurate and you can prove all of that, it doesn't matter. She should be criminally responsible because of the preparation that was shown, because of methodically strangling her kids over the course of 18 minutes. She should have criminal responsibility. And then on the other side of that, are the people who are sympathetic towards her and saying, well, she reached out for help and they believe that the psychosis should excuse her. And I think they're under a little bit of misperception thinking that, you know, she's gonna stay super long term in some kind of mental health facility if she ends up being found not criminally responsible. But postpartum psychosis, neither side is alleging that that's still continuing. So, but my point is both sides of the court of public opinion are very staunchly embedded in their sides.

7:13And if that's what this jury is and you have even, you know, one person on one polar opposite side who refuses to give up any ground, then that leads to a deadlock and so regardless of how streamlined or, you know, or better perhaps the prosecution is in laying out their facts, I think they didn't predict that the public would be so sympathetic toward Lindsey Clancy. And so if they kind of step up their game a little bit, I'm not really sure that that would make a difference in the second trial. Oh, guys, you can't be. Right, I think we all agree with some. There's no way to be sure. But I do think that if I were the judge, what I would be thinking is clearly there are some jurors who have led their emotions sway them, their sympathy. And I think we can both agree that, you know, you as a Christian are very focused on mercy

8:18and loving your fellow man. There has been a, an epidemic of empathy that has prevented our society from recognizing right and wrong. And we're seeing it as, you know, we're seeing violent criminals across the system being repeatedly given another chance of being having empathy and sympathy and pity experimented to them and take advantage of that. I'm not worried that she's going to kill more children, although that's happened in some other situations. But whether or not she is going to be appropriately punished for this outbreak, I mean, this should not be a five hour deliberation, much less than five day deliberation.

9:19This is utterly insane. So the only thing I would think the judge could do differently, believe it or not, I started out responding to your comment. The only thing I can see differently is trying to keep the emotional stuff, the hard-tugging stuff more on leash. And the, you know, the demonization of the prosecution here, but it is, it's got to be a factor that the judge has to think has had some impact on this deliberation. But do you think that that ship has sailed in the sense that this has become such a nationwide public trial that, you know, the next jury certainly would have seen public coverage. And I mean, I don't know anyone who doesn't have a very strong opinion on this. So how could we even get to another impartial jury that could be seated in a case like this?

10:19That's a great question. I don't know, but the system demands that we try and there have been many cases where it looked impossible, but it has happened. I mean, the judge definitely has to worry that anything, any misstep by him, any attempt to cut quarters in order to prevent another delogatory will result in a, an error that will result in reversal. Because we know there's going to be an appeal there. But this is why he gets the medium size box. Yeah, yeah. And I mean, the system does demand it, but whether or not that's that's really practically possible. I mean, if I lived in that jurisdiction and was called as, as a juror, I would, I would have to honestly say there, I can't be impartial because what I've seen and the trial being fully televised. I mean, it's, it's a lot of people are following this.

11:21I mean, I know several friends of mine personally who've literally watched every moment of the trial on, you know, court TV and all of that to say, you know, I know about this, this case, and I already have an opinion. And that's not going to, to be changed, regardless of what, what a second trial brings out, because, you know, yes, well, Christians are, are called to, to love each other, you know, all of the one and others in scripture and mercy is part of the attributes of God. So is justice. And, and the, and Romans 13 talks about the government carrying the sword or, or that metaphor for justice and for swift punishment for evil doers and to promote good in society and restrain evil. And this woman's actions were clearly evil. And I don't buy any of these excuses. And I've said a run, Coleman, my special guest this morning, I've said throughout this process that I don't actually think that

12:21the insanity defense should be able to be used as broadly as it now, you know, currently has been in the United States. I think that all of this should only be relevant at as mitigation at sentencing or potentially as part of a plea agreement. Do we as a society have an obligation, you know, regardless of the outcome of this particular trial, it's raised the question in society about the insanity defense. Do we have an obligation to revisit that and to perhaps legislate accordingly? You're making a fantastic point. We have clinical eyes, all of behavior in our society. No one is to blame for anything for his failures, for his condition, for his drug addiction, for his obesity. Everything is a matter of brain chemicals or I'm depraved because I was deprived. And this is the logical and by the way, world events, our ability

13:25to, you know, I'm not justifying, I'm just explaining when you explain there is always a shadow of justification. And we see that outrageous immoral acts have become justified by our culture. And now here we are. It is absolutely heartbreaking. And, you know, there is simply literally no greater earthly love than a mother for her children. And a woman who will go this far and do what she did, regardless of what her brain chemicals or the voices in her head are telling her to do, simply does not belong in our society anymore. Very. Oh, 100% 100% and so if you're the prosecution right now and seeing the levels of sympathy and, you know, a lot of these

14:26people that are for not guilty or not criminally responsible, would you rather have a hung jury and a second bite at the apple, which might actually be a better bite if the prosecution figures out, you know, what went what they could do better, not necessarily wrong, but then also, and then also if you are anticipating the judge, potentially streamlining things more, would you rather have the hung jury or a compromise verdict on a lesser offense? I think it's on the prosa fusion if I could get a compromise verdict. I'll say that's probably take it. I think you got to take it and, you know, that's the difference between this world and the next world. Yeah, earthly justice versus what we can achieve at this world. Yeah. Yeah. And so do you think then that it's possible that instead of, you know, because I think the media and a moral just speculating on what the jury

15:26is potentially thinking again, because no one has interviewed them. And I hope if there is a mistrial that the judge does pull the jurors so that we get an understanding of where this jury was at. There's been speculation, of course, that it's, you know, all three of the men that are for the first degree murder and it's the women categorically that are for Lindsey Clancy. That may be the case, but, but we don't know about these particular in panel jurors. It could be the exact opposite or it could be a split. We have no idea, but is it possible that the jury is only deliberating on the degree of guilt? I personally think that's a little less likely just because they could probably, if everybody's saying, yes, she's guilty of something, that are she's guilty here. We're just figuring out if it's first degree versus manslaughter. That probably wouldn't lead them to such an impasse.

16:27That's just my perception. What do you think? I think that's a good perception as any. I mean, as you pointed out, we don't really know what's going on as part of the jury room. People have read the tea leaves and come to certain conclusions. There seems to be a sort of consensus that there are two female jurors who are the whole house. The ones wearing paint. Who really knows? Juries are black boxes. They're frightening. Yes, yes. And, you know, and that just underscores, I think, the point that because of how unprincipled society has become in a lot of ways, we have always said that the conservatives and attorneys in general have always said, you know, this is not an imperfect system, but it's the best worldwide. And the constitutionally protected right to a jury of your peers is part of the

17:29homework of due process. When we have situations like this and we're seeing, I mean, all of these people outside the courtroom, these crazy women who are who are suggesting all sorts of, you know, potential harm to their own kids and the TikTok women, you know, all of these things, they could have been the ones on the jury, potential or a future jury. And that's very frightening. So do we contemplate as a society as well revisiting the standards for juries? I mean, I don't think we're going to overhaul the system entirely, you know, anything like a professional jury, which I've advocated for. That was actually my, my 30 year law school capstone paper, but ironically enough. And, but do we, do we revisit perhaps some qualifications for jures? I mean, you know, it's, it's a very bare minimum of what can actually, the type of person that can actually be seated on a jury.

18:31Well, the biggest problem is that the best qualified jurors are the ones who don't end up on juries. They don't report. They get excused because of unavoidable. And it's, I've seen judges, excuse people, you know, during board deer for the most unbelievable things. And I also think judges ruin multi billion dollar merger in the acquisitions because that someone said that they were working on. They have to be alone to next week. And they said, no, you're going on the jury. And then I got the case dismissed after the plaintiff's club, after the plaintiff's case was closed. Oh, wow. You didn't even get to get to the jury. Deliberate. Yeah. Yeah. And the system is really imperfect, but it's constitutional. Right. And I think that's the point here with everybody who is frustrated looking at this and saying, as I have, you know, that, and as you have Ron Coleman, that

19:36this really shouldn't be a deliberation that lasted even, you know, five minutes in, in my opinion. But this is the system as imperfect as it is. And so I do anticipate as well that a mistrile is coming either today or tomorrow. If the jury can't return a verdict, it'll be interesting to see if they end up being able to come together. It has to be unanimous. But the question of, you know, where do we go from here as a society is a big one. And it's been sparked by this, this trial, I think, in ways that we need to wrestle with as a society. So really appreciate the legal insight. We're going to be talking about this more, but we will be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis and the more. Hi, I'm Jenna Ellis. Did you know that this content is listener supported without people like you, this podcast would not exist. And that's why we need you.

20:37A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American family radio and specifically this podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting a fr.net forward slash give that's a fr.net slash give. Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the morning on American family radio. Welcome back. And as we're continuing to talk about the Lindsey Clancy case, which Al of America is talking about, regardless of what this jury ultimately decides or whether it is a mistrial that is declared and the process starts all over again. And there is potentially a resolution or second trial. The bigger conversation is what we need to continue to discuss because underneath all of the testimony and the competing experts and the legal standards and all of this is the fundamental question what makes a human being morally responsible for what he or she does.

21:38And that can be answered of course in light of scripture that we have agency. We make choices. We can understand right from wrong. And because we are moral actor society can and should justly hold us accountable when we deliberately harm another human being or even act in recklessness, you know, which the standard of course is that your actions could reasonably foresee that harm would occur to another person, even if you didn't intend it. And the excuses and justifications, of course, for what would otherwise be criminal acts have been solid in the criminal justice system for even before the founding of America. I mean, these are things that go all the way back through civil society through the ages that, you know, of course, self-defense. Of course, if you are saving another, you know, there are multiple ways that that you are not necessarily responsible for what would otherwise be a criminal act.

22:42Or if for example, this is not what is being alleged here at all, but let's say that that Lindsay Clancy was being given these, these drugs by her medical provider without her knowledge somehow, right? And that directly and specifically caused these acts. Well, we would contemplate that a little bit differently, but she knew, she knew the possibility and was, was herself willing to take these drugs even regardless of the consequences and regardless of the labels that say, you know, these are potential side effects and all of those things. So we're not in that category, but the, but the bottom line of what makes a person morally responsible for what he or she does, I think we are blurring the line as a society in a way that is incredibly damaging. And so let's welcome in, Orrin McIntyre, who's a host at the Blaze Frequent guest here and always appreciate philosophizing with him.

23:43So, Orrin, it's been very disturbing to say the least, to see some of the response to the Clancy trial that, well, on one hand, some, I can understand, even though I don't, I don't share it, I can understand the sympathy for Lindsay Clancy, but at the same time to think that it is, it is a justification or an excuse in society. This cannot occur and we still have an well-ordered or moral and upright society if this is where we're headed. Yeah, you know, obviously it's not a one to one, but really this reminds me a lot of the reaction after Charlie Kirk died. In the sense that everyone is looking around and they can't believe that this is something their neighbor would say, that this is something that they would, you

24:44know, admit out loud that they have these sympathies, sympathies are these feelings. You know, Lindsay Clancy is a cold-blooded murderer. She absolutely slaughtered her three children, one by one, slowly and methodically with predetermined, you know, she had a plan sitting her husband across town the whole nine yards. Nothing about this was accidental or impulsive. It wasn't some takeover of immediate emotions. It's not like she turned around and stabbed the kids with an eye while she was cooking or something because she was so overwhelmed. She methodically planned this from the beginning. And yet we see a large number of women, not all women in the same way that not all Democrats were celebrating, you know, Charlie Kirk's death, but a disturbing percentage of women seem willing to go online and say, yes, I support this woman. I feel for this woman, she's justified in some way or actually her husband did it in some kind of Candace Owens conspiracy style way where actually he was,

25:46you know, instructing her somehow to do it the whole time or he did it himself. I mean, the theories are absolutely wild. And so it creates this very surreal moment where people wonder, you know, is this really the opinion that some women have about, you know, what's going on that another woman could just somehow have a justification to murder her own children or she somehow not culpable or actually her husband did it even though her own attorney is admitting that she did it in the trial. It's not even up for debate. And so I think this is just a stunning moment for a lot of people. It's very clear that some percentage of women on TikTok and Instagram are kind of trapped in some social media loop where they can convince themselves with absolutely outrageous things. And it's, I think it's disturbing to everybody who's watching it even many, many women just stunned about what's going on here. Yeah, and you make such a good point that, you know, this isn't a close call,

26:46this isn't a case that we're having this conversation because there are factors that, you know, go in one direction or the other. And so we're having to see, you know, where the line is and draw the line very carefully because this case is right on the edge. I mean, this is something that is just so clear with the facts and the, and the standards that should be in the law here that I think so many of us who are seeing this biblically and rationally are saying, you know, this shouldn't be a close call. But where do we go as a society when we're continuing to see more and more extreme instances of people who want to justify really heinous evil acts for a variety of reasons, whether that's, you know, the defense in the Charlie Kirk case, you know, talking in open court about how, you know,

27:46Charlie had hateful speech, which of course is not true. That's the perception, but was essentially asserting that as fact and somehow trying to mitigate Tyler Robinson's actions by suggesting that, you know, if you don't like what another person says, you can perpetuate a crime on them. I mean, this is just something, these are, these are things that have been so rigid in as principles in Western civilization for, you know, eons that we were starting to see that foundation crumble. And it's really alarming. Well, the obvious through line here is that there are certain groups that are considered victimized in our society. And there seems to be a belief among a disturbingly large percentage of our population that if anything happens to those groups, those preferred groups, they're always victims. They're never the perpetrator. Obviously we've seen this with black Americans, whether you look at the, you

28:50know, OJ Simpson case where a jury kind of clearly let a guilty man go just because he was black and they were worried about what that might do to their city. The responses that might happen if he was found guilty or what they, how they might be targeted if he was found guilty. We've seen this response for people like Carmelo Anthony, who was allowed to raise like a million dollars for killing Austin Metcalf with many people just find what he did saying, well, once a white man says the inward, which we have no evidence that Austin Metcalf did at all. That's just assertion because they know it's a get of GL free card. But the assertion was enough for people to say, oh, well, because someone said he might have said a word. I mean, this black kid can't be held responsible for what he does. And it seems the same as now being extended to a woman. Well, if a woman did something and she claims to be a victim, then she's a victim and that's all there is to it. The man must have made her do it or the man must have done it. There was some reason that she was compelled that was out of her control.

29:52It seems almost like there's an assertion, a strange, you know, kind of Schrodinger's agency that exists where these subgroups of, you know, women or black men were told that they have agency were told that they are strong and independent. But then if they actually do something, well, it turns out actually everyone else is to blame. And maybe it turns out that everyone else failed them. The system failed them. That's what we've heard so much with Lindsey Clancy. And so we have to start making a decision. Either these groups are ultimately individuals who can be held accountable because they have agency or they aren't. And then we need to think about the way that we arrange our society. But what we can't do is be in the situation where we pretend these people have agency. And then the minute they do something, actually, it's all a man's fault or it's white people's fault or something like that. Either women have the ability to make decisions and be held accountable for them or they don't. And it's very strange that we have this moment where a large number of women are saying, well, she just can't be held accountable for

30:53the things she does. Yeah. And those are two absolutely incompatible world views to have moral agency and then have a, the response that all a lot of these women are having to Lindsey Clancy that she doesn't have moral agency because of extinuating factors. And those are the two competing world views. But also, as you mentioned, and I've talked about extensively on this show as well with the cultural Marxism that comes into play. If you view women as always the oppressed, then no matter what they do, it's always morally justified according to that world view, which we know, of course, is is not compatible with true justice. And one other argument that I've seen from those who are frustrated with all of the women that are trying to excuse Lindsey Clancy is that the 19th amendment should be repealed, which of course, is the amendment that allowed

31:54women the right to vote and access that franchise. And I don't think that the 19th amendment is the problem here when we're talking about feminism and some of these incompatible world views, cultural Marxism and you're talking about the lack of moral agency or holding people responsible. A religious pluralism, I think, is more to blame here than the 19th amendment. I'm not claiming that religious pluralism automatically produces feminism, but that secular feminism becomes culturally necessary once a society rejects a shared religious account and a biblical or divine order of sex, marriage, family and human purpose. And so secular feminism didn't emerge simply because society began valuing women or, you know, quote unquote, equality or even this kind of Marxist trend.

32:56Christianity already taught and still teaches that women's equal dignity is, it comes from God and feminism emerged because religious pluralism displaced the biblical framework that gave sexual difference meaning. And so once society could no longer say what men and women are designed for the difference between men and women, feminism reduced equality to sameness, freedom to autonomy and the female body to a problem that the law, I think, and technology has to overcome because now we're seeing, you know, this kind of cultural Marxism that's embedded, including the necessity and right in their view, of course, for abortion and for the lack of responsibility in a lot of these cases that deal with feminist issues. Yeah, I mean, this was obviously a complicated topic, but I mean, you know, the 19th amendment itself is at some level boring out of a feminist movement. There were many anti-sepharigettes, many women who opposed the 19th

34:00amendment, who specifically said they didn't like it because they were afraid that it would tear apart families, that the idea that families would vote differently, that spouses would vote differently, might cause serious ruptures and marriages and ultimately lead to a serious gender divide. I mean, there's a difficult, again, question over whether or not we think that ultimately, you know, this political rift is one that will keep the two genders apart, but when we look at our politics, it's increasingly clear that the genders are being treated as different voting blocks. And this is very dangerous if you look at the voting in South Korea. You have basically a male party and a female party. And right now the fertility rate in South Korea is something like 0.7%. South Korea might not make it as long as North Korea at this point, which has a birth rate double that of South Korea. So there are real questions about what this does to a society. Well, beyond whether women individually are capable of voting, that's not the

35:03question. It's is this ultimately good for society? Does it create this rift? So did feminism cause this situation or did the proto-feminism of separating men and women as voting blocks begin this journey? That's a chicken. The question that again is hard to ultimately answer women are obviously by themselves capable of voting. But does this agitate society in a way that exacerbates a gender war? I think that's a question worth asking that said, obviously, you know, women voting has nothing to do with how they feel about the Lindsey Clancy trial. More importantly, however, it does have something to do with jury. Many people are speculating, and I think in some cases it's been confirmed that it's women who have hung the jury, that it's ultimately women who won't find Lindsey Clancy guilty, who are holding up to trial. And if that's the case, then we have a very serious issue in our hands because, you know, we've seen the same thing when again, when it comes to African Americans who are far more likely to say, I will not convict another African

36:05American under any circumstances, whether I think the evidence is there or not. If women are seeing themselves as a similar identity group that needs to band together and stand for each other in all times and all places, instead of objectively looking at a case and being able to render a verdict, well, then we do have a real problem. Like then our theoretical question of chicken and egg becomes something really tangible because if we can't get fair trials in the United States because women will always stand up for women and black people will always stand up for black people, then we don't have trials. We have tribalism and our system is not built to be able to handle this. We built a jury system on the idea that people would be able to evaluate this question. And if women as a block are working with each other to make sure that no woman is convicted, well, you know, then we're obviously in a place where all of this has gone off the rails, like fundamental parts of our system break down. Yeah. And it's so much more to be said on this. We've got to take a break here, but, you know, you raised some really serious

37:06points that the presumption, the underlying presumption of our jury system is that people will be more faithful adherents to the principles of justice than they will to tribalism. And this is where cultural Marxism has an effect and it has consequences in society. And it's not just for women, you know, for African Americans, it's not for, you know, just those categories. It's if you have, you know, any sort of tribalist mentality, you know, for publicans are only always defending Republicans. All of these things, whatever your tribalistic adherence is, if you have that over principle in any context, but especially a criminal justice system, then it no longer becomes a just or a moral and upright society. And these are things we're going to have to continue to deal with. But or in Macintyre, thanks so much. You're sticking with me through the break. We will be right back with more. We're living in a defining moment in history.

38:08Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online. Often before anyone has had the chance to tell her, she is loved that she's not alone or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At preborn network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound at a preborn network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand for those who cannot speak for themselves. Just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby or give securely at preborn.com forward slash a fr.

39:14That's preborn.com slash a fr together. We can save lives one heartbeat at a time. Welcome back to Jenna Alice in the morning on American Family Radio. Welcome back. Well, as we continue into this brave new world on in a lot of different philosophical questions, moral questions, we are also talking about privacy versus catching criminals. Obviously, we know that the state and legitimate law enforcement is necessary for the public safety and for the advancement, of course, of promoting good restraining evil. But the question that is being raised by flock cameras can't be ignored because this is triggering nationwide backlash over privacy concerns and police abuse. So we're in Mac and Tire from the blaze is still with me on the program to talk

40:16about this. And these are essentially surveillance, a huge surveillance infrastructure. And we've already seen instances where these have been abused by law enforcement for to follow or to to look at people in like one instance was a police officer who used some of these searches to try to find an ex girlfriend and trace their license plate, you know, something over a hundred times. I mean, so there's instances like that. But then there have also been instances of these flock cameras misidentifying license plates. And you know, there was a story that a man was pulled over and had to show the cops and justify that this wasn't a stolen vehicle. So, you know, in a wide variety of ways, flock cameras are being discouraged by some who, and I think by mainly the conservative movement because of privacy issues, but companies are still pushing for it.

41:16So where do you see the the line of controversy here and what's going on with the flock cameras? Well, obviously we just have a governor to Santa say that we're no longer be using them on state highways and interstate, that kind of thing. And I think he's reading the room and recognizing that there's a lot of concern about what's going on here. Obviously, license plate reading cameras have been around for a long time. That's not something new. With the flock cameras do introduce the AI component. It runs all of these pictures through a database and basically allows them to be searched in real time. If you have an extensive enough network of these cameras, you basically have a real time map of every car that is on the road in your city and your municipality. Now the Supreme Court has said that for the police to track a vehicle with something like GPS, you need a warrant. You have a fourth amendment right and you know, they have to go to the court in order

42:18to get that. They have to prove that you're worth tracking in this manner. There's no such restriction for flock cameras, even though they're functionally doing the same thing. They're providing a live GPS style update where every car is on the road, even though no one has been issued a warrant to do this. Basically, they're cheating through the fact that these technologies too new to have any judge rulings on it. And law enforcement is rolling this out all over the country. I know in some places, in fact, I spoke to one county commissioner here recently at an avid that I was speaking at. And his county commission banned flock cameras. They would not buy them. So the sheriff actually used his prison commissary funds, the money they made off of selling cigarettes and things to prisoners to ultimately pay for those cameras. And so the law enforcement seems to be like, rapidly trying to get these things in place before courts can kind of come down on them. I think there's very real security concerns here. Ultimately, I'm very pro law and order.

43:21I was a crime reporter for years. I interviewed the families of dead officers who were killed because they were obeying some ridiculous protocol that ended up costing them their life. So I am extremely sensitive to the idea that police officers need every tool and every available way to protect themselves and bring criminals to justice. But we do have to draw high in somewhere and constant surveillance that is clearly going to be unconstitutional at some point being rolled out aggressively right now is a very dangerous thing. I think people are right to be very skeptical of what's going on here. Yeah. And calling this essentially a warrantless drag net, I mean, makes sense because if I'm driving on a public road, I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy or that no one or that an officer wouldn't see my license plate, you know, as I'm driving down the road. But what changes constitutionally from what you're saying is that when the government

44:21can record all of my movements, automatically aggregate them and then search them later, then at some point just mere observation in public becomes surveillance. And that's what we're talking about here. Yeah. And of course, a lot of people say, well, this is going to stop crime. This is going to stop crime. And my big issue with that assertion is that we already know who does crime and where the crime happens. Again, I've been in a reporter in the criminal justice system. I'm aware. I've talked to dozens and dozens of officers and prosecutors and these kind of things. And it's not a question of, can we find criminals? Do we have the evidence? So that's majority of time. The question is, are we actually willing to do anything with it? We have plenty of evidence, for instance, of these team takeovers that are happening all over the country, but especially in Florida. And in many cases, the teams actually tape themselves.

45:22We don't need a flock camera. They literally have their phones out and are posting what they're doing on social media. They're running around. They're doing vandalism. They're breaking laws on the street. They're doing all kinds of things, harassing people, stealing. And we rarely see large follow-up arrests. Hundreds and hundreds of black teams will show up to one of these events. They'll film themselves doing the crime. And then no one or very few people get arrested. It's not a question of surveillance. We know who's doing the crime. They're tapeting themselves doing the crime. The problem is, we're too scared to do the follow-up throw. We're too scared of actually putting people through the criminal justice system, especially if they fall under certain categories that are politically offensive. And so to keep our stats down, our crime stats down, we don't arrest people. We don't actually bring real charges. We argue them down. And even if they are convicted, we ultimately don't keep them in prison because that will look bad if we have the wrong people in prison for too long. So the problem is not one of technology.

46:23The problem is one of will. We simply don't have the political will to enforce the law. And until we solve that problem, I'm not ready to hand the state some kind of omnipresent understanding where every law abiding car is on the road. How about you arrest the criminals you know are doing crime first before we start just tagging random innocent people? Yeah. And that's part of the A.A. movement here, that if algorithms are identifying vehicles or potentially, you know, characterizing movement patterns and things is suspicious. I mean, this is kind of getting into the same territory, you know, as some of these constitutionally impermissible stops just based on, you know, based on category. And so, you know, how do you keep the algorithm from just targeting, you know, some of what they perceive and you can't go back and say, okay, did you have a reasonable belief? You can't really ask the algorithm why it identified certain individuals or movements

47:26as suspicious. And so, are we getting into a situation where we're basically allowing, you know, some of these categorical stops by default. Oh, yeah, absolutely. And that's, you know, the terrifying thing is you're taking any human agency out of the decision and then who do you hold accountable? You know, if you have police officer falsely pulled someone over, yeah, you might have to do with that in the moment. At least there's some kind of recourse. You can take that person to court. You know, you can bring a lawsuit and there are options for you to actually target the person who's responsible for the unjust act. When it's the algorithm, I mean, we've already seen how this happens all the time. Social media companies will ban people. They'll, you know, suspend people. They'll limit their reach and then later on when it's revealed. They'll say, oh, well, you know, we didn't know the algorithm did it. You know, we didn't realize there's some bug. That's what actually happened. You know, we can't be held responsible. We'll fix it, but you know, there's no one to blame. It's just a glitch in the system. Well, we're talking about, you know, court cases.

48:27We're talking about police officers. There's no longer just a, oh, you couldn't post on Facebook, even though that's bad enough. Now it's a you were pulled over. Maybe you went to jail. Maybe, you know, maybe there was an adverse, you know, interaction and something terrible happened that never would have arisen if it hadn't been for this algorithm targeting you. We have a whole host of liability issues here that are completely unaddressed and this is one of the things again that I'm just most concerned about. We have a technology here that people have simply not thought through the ramifications of and we're spending hundreds of millions. It's not billions of dollars nationwide to roll out a system and put it in place before any of these questions have been answered by the courts. We're clearly just outracing the legal framework for this and I think it's going to be a disaster. I mean, one of the scenarios we could get here is ultimately all these municipalities spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in stone these cameras and then every one of them has to rip it out or leave them completely, you know, non-functioning because the courts say these are entirely unconstitutional and all of that time and money is entirely wasted.

49:29Yeah, and hopefully they say they're unconstitutional and profiling was the word I couldn't quite think of earlier and this we don't know if AI is going to start profiling in an unconstitutional manner. And you know, for most of American history, practical limitations on government surveillance provided, you know, a kind of privacy even when the Constitution didn't explicitly require it and privacy shouldn't just evolve where we don't have any just because of technology or, you know, this kind of big brother social media view. But it's a question we're going to have to continue to ask Anna Orrin McIntyre really appreciate it. Follow him on x. You can always reach me and my team, Jenna at afr.net. Preborn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion and every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join preborn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis?

50:30Save a life today. Go to preborn.com-flash-afr.