Ep. 1578 - Leftists Demanded Police Body Cams. Now They Regret It.
57:44 Share

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, one of the central demands of the BLM movement was that all police officers should have body cameras. Well, ironically, as a recent incident again demonstrates, body cameras are what ultimately killed the BLM movement. Also, a landmark decision from the UK Supreme Court, which has found that men are not women. And a sports reporter has provoked outrage and attracted national headlines for committing the crime of being a very normal heterosexual man. We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.

Let me tell you about something that doesn't get enough attention, your liver. This powerhouse organ is crushing it 24/7, handling over 500 different functions in your body. It's a hard job and sometimes your liver just needs a little support. That's where Dose for Your Liver comes in. It's not some weak supplement. This is hard-hitting, science-backed support for your body's most crucial filter. The results speak for themselves. Clinical trials showed over 86% of people got major improvements in their liver enzyme levels.

Want to know what makes this different? One shot of Dose packs the same punch as 17 shots of turmeric juice. It's designed for peak performance, supporting energy levels, digestion, and overall liver function. No BS ingredients either. It's clean, sugar-free, and engineered to deliver results. Start giving your liver the support it deserves.

Save 30% on your first month of subscription by going to dosedaily.co slash Walsh or entering Walsh to checkout. That's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y dot C-O slash Walsh for 30% off your first month subscription.

Two years ago, a man named Deshaun Leith was named a community engagement officer at the Sheriff's Office in Washtenaw County, Michigan. And this is a position that, according to the Sheriff's Office, is something of a big deal. Quote, "'Community engagement is a foundational element of our ability to realize our organizational mission. Community engagement isn't just a program. It is how we communicate, build trust, identify needs, and collaboratively work side-by-side with our partners to create interventions and provide solutions.'"

In other words, community engagement officers are representatives for the police force. Their job is to visit schools and prisons, other institutions, and try to find ways to make the community safer. And for 30-year-old DeShawn Leith, the title of community engagement officer was just one line on a lengthy resume that...

If you leave off his eight felony convictions for home invasion and two convictions for larceny, really reflected his passion for serving the people of Michigan. When he wasn't going on crime sprees, he was a true model citizen. In his spare time, for example, Leith was the executive director of an organization called Underdog Nation, which states that its mission is to help at-risk kids who lack resources and help prevent teen violence and disengagement from school.

And to that end, the underdog nation hosted video game tournaments in its local schools and encouraged students to pursue BLM activism. Because as we all know, video games and activism are how you really make sure kids are keeping their grades up. Underdog Nation also claims to be a public interest nonprofit, even though local journalists can't find any record that they're actually registered as a nonprofit. But that's not the point. The point is that Deshaun Leith, whether he started a legal nonprofit or not, is a beacon of light in Washtenaw County, Michigan.

Or at least Deshaun Leith was a beacon of light in Washington County, Michigan, right up until his light was extinguished on April 4th. And that's the day when, while he was totally unarmed, Leith was gunned down by several neo-Nazi police officers. What was Leith's crime, you ask? Well, there wasn't one. Of course, he got into a car accident and then he calmly approached a state trooper for help. And then as he approached the officer, he was brutally murdered in a flagrant act of white supremacy.

Yes, police executed a committed black community servant simply because of his race. And then the police stuffed his body in a squad car and pretended he stole it. Can you imagine? I mean, it's just too terrifying to think about. So don't think about it. Just start rioting. Now, everything I've just said up until this point is totally nonsense. But it is the narrative that you would have heard in the press 24 hours a day if it weren't for police body cameras.

There is no doubt whatsoever that in the absence of video evidence of the crimes that he was committing before his death, Deshaun Leith would have been BLM's next Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin. They would have flooded every website with relentless propaganda about what a great person Deshaun Leith was and how horrible it is that police killed him. In fact, they were already doing that before the body camera footage was released. The sheriff of Washington County, a woman named Alicia Dyer,

Posted this message on Facebook, for example, quote, like so many in the community, we are left in shock with unanswered questions and profound sorrow. His loss will be deeply felt by the young people across our county whose lives he touched. No matter who you were or what you'd been through, Deshaun showed unwavering compassion and care to everyone he worked with, close quote.

Another public official, District Commissioner Annie Somerville, posted a similar message, quote, we lost a great one. May the memory of Deshaun Leith keep us grounded on supporting young people in our community. That's what he would want, close quote. Now, in part because of comments like this, a GoFundMe for Deshaun Leith has already raised around $15,000. So yes, he was a great one. He kept us grounded. He showed compassion and care to literally everyone.

His loss is deeply felt. This is the propaganda that spread within days of Leith's death. And it's the kind of propaganda that we would have been subjected to on endless repeat for months on end if we didn't have the footage that I'm about to show you. So here is the body camera footage from the Ohio State Police showing a state trooper's first encounter with the great compassionate public servant, Deshaun Leith, near the border with Pennsylvania. Watch. I think it's a black male with a pink shirt.

You're a devil. In the name of Jesus, watch out. In the name of Jesus, watch out. Watch out, man. You're going to get hurt. In the name of Jesus, stop. Hey, you're going to get hurt. Turn around. Put your hands behind your back. Turn around. Put your hands behind your back.

Get down on the ground.

Okay, so we'll play the rest of the footage in a second, but...

There are two points that need to be made right off the bat. First of all, every single government official who put out a statement mourning this psychotic criminal needs to be removed from office as quickly as possible. There is no conceivable narrative of police misconduct here. There is also no narrative in which Deshaun Leith is a well-adjusted person and an asset to the community.

He was dangerous and violent right up until the end. He died doing what he loved, which was stealing other people's property and terrorizing the local community. Keep in mind, this was not an otherwise law-abiding citizen who just snapped one day and lost his mind. He had a long history of criminal activity. From the moment he entered adulthood at 18 until that moment, this guy was a criminal. And he'd already spent time in prison for home invasion, for example. Now, the other takeaway from the footage is that

The officer would have been justified in shooting Deshaun Leith about a dozen times during this encounter. This would have been a good moment, for example. Take a look at this still frame, which is making the rounds. Now, anyone looking at this image can tell immediately that the officer should not be holding a taser at this point. He should be holding a gun and he should be using it. But instead of using his gun, he discards the taser and engages in a fistfight.

He puts his fists up to fight with this guy, and it's a fight that he, of course, loses. And because the officer loses this fight, Letha is able to drive away in the officer's squad car, which he then used to lead police on a 10-minute-long chase at high speeds. In other words, the officer's decision not to use lethal force ultimately endangered his own life, as well as the lives of everybody on the highway that day. This is the footage from the police cruiser's dash cam footage.

after Leith stole it. Watch. So,

He's making song requests to the radio. I don't know. I don't think it exactly works that way. But, you know, we all know why the officer allowed this chase to happen. Instead of neutralizing Leith immediately, he didn't want to end up like Derek Chauvin. He didn't want his life to be destroyed in the service of a fraudulent BLM narrative. So instead, the officer allowed this psychotic criminal to beat him up on the side of the road and take his squad car.

Instead of just shooting him, which again, he could have done and should have done many, many times during that whole interaction. These are the incentives that BLM has created, and they've made policing far more dangerous in every respect. The irony is that in their rush to vilify police officers, BLM also helped provide police officers with a tool that is now vindicating them with great frequency.

It was BLM, as you might remember, that led the charge for mandatory body cams just a few years ago. So here are just a few examples from Jacksonville, Kansas City, and New York of BLM calling for body cams. Listen.

The second demand, body cameras for all KCPD officers. That's already underway after $2.5 million in donations from the DeBruce Foundation and local businesses. I can't appreciate this community more. I mean, there is people in this community have stepped up and tried to do so many things. Body cameras have become a gold standard for many departments across the country and have captured everything from heroic rescues Don't let go! to official misconduct that's led to terminations and charges. Stop fighting! Stop fighting!

I personally feel if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. This is a beginning of a movement. Justice Horn, an activist who led many protests and helped author the list of demands signed by the mayor, says getting body cameras is the first step. Tiffany Porter is the founder of Being Black in the Burbs. She says they just want Webster to move towards being systemically anti-racist through recreational programs and training, but says it goes deeper than that.

"Anti-racist living is a lifestyle. It's not just a training and you're done or reading a couple books. It's a way of life." Porter says the group's other goals include a firm timeline on a police body camera system, anti-racist training for officers, and dropping protester charges from a recent event.

In a statement, Webster police say they have body cameras being tested in the field now. He does say that he is in favor of getting body cameras for his officers, but it could be a long and difficult and expensive process. Still, a lot of people in the community say they're a necessity.

No racist. Police. No justice. No peace. Local protesters are making their voices heard, loud and clear. Peace. No justice. No peace. Several groups demonstrating are asking for Jacksonville Sheriff's officers to be held accountable after three high-profile cases. An officer beating Myra Martinez at the jail. This fight at a Northwest Jack's convenience store where video shows an officer punching a man several times.

And now a police-involved shooting in Springfield, where an officer shot and killed this man, even though witnesses say he was running away. No justice, no peace, no racist police. Many are demanding police wear body cameras. So far, the department doesn't use them. Well, so anyway, that didn't work out as intended. In fact, it's not unreasonable to say that ultimately...

body cameras killed BLM or at least put the final nail in BLM's coffin. If not for body cameras, there would have been 10 more George Floyds after George Floyd. If you're wondering why there haven't been more of these events in the last five years, there are a lot of theories for that. This is probably the number one reason is that all the cops have body cameras now.

Late last year, to give just another example, a black Georgetown University graduate was shot to death by police in her apartment complex. And very quickly, Georgetown put out this tweet, which is still up. It says, quote, Georgetown women's basketball mourns the tragic loss of Sidney Wilson. Forever ahoy. In other words, Sidney Wilson was the victim. They're implying that she's another casualty of police violence. And a lot of people on Facebook agreed.

There was some traction building on social media around this event. For example, somebody wrote, Sidney Wilson should have been tased instead, but of course, she was black, so they took her out.

Well, then the body camera footage was released and everyone saw the truth, which is that Sidney Wilson very nearly murdered a police officer while charging at him like a demon from hell. And once again, this officer allowed the situation to spiral out of control, probably because he understood that his life would be destroyed if he defended himself. Watch.

Jim, we must warn you, it's a stunning and disturbing encounter. Officer Peter Liu was responding to the home of 33-year-old Sydney Wilson last month. Her doctors had expressed concerns about her mental health, and then this happened. The woman initially opening the door...

but then she slammed it in the officer's face. You can even see a slight smile there. This happened at her apartment on Sunrise Valley Drive. Then 10 minutes later, Wilson came out swinging, armed with a knife. The video shows Officer Liu retreating, backing down the hallway when Wilson moves toward him. She swiped at the officer again with that knife before he fired three shots at her.

He did the things that we train him and expect him to do. If you're threatened like that, if you can tactically reposition yourself, do it. If you can use distance, use it. Now, that woman with the butcher knife would have her own murals by now if it were not for body cameras. The story would have gone something like this.

An officer showed up to help a distressed woman in the middle of a mental health crisis. The racist officer then executed the woman in cold blood outside of her own apartment, despite the fact that she was unarmed. The fact that she had a knife would not be mentioned until the riots were well underway. That's the way that these things would normally go. But because of body cams, this is the image that everybody remembers from this encounter.

And it's enough to make you wonder how much damage to this country could have been avoided if Darren Wilson had a body cam in Ferguson. It probably would have shown an image a lot like that one. And we may have been spared a lot of chaos and death and property damage as a result. Activists were able to lie blatantly, hands up, don't shoot,

Because there were no cameras. And then the truth came out that Brown charged Wilson and tried to kill him. And when that happened, activists scoffed at it and claimed that, well, nobody would go charge and get a cop like that.

Well, we now know from body cams that in fact, yeah, that happens all the time. The image of a crazed, bloodthirsty Michael Brown bum rushing an armed cop is not at all farfetched based on what we've now seen in these interactions. Nor is it farfetched based on the investigation from Obama's Justice Department, which corroborated everything Darren Wilson said, along with forensic evidence and everything else. But we know that that apparently is not unusual.

Now, at this point, we know where this will lead. The same movement that demanded body cams and then was destroyed when their demands were met will now decide that actually body cams aren't so great after all. They'll say that body cams are a tool of white supremacy. In fact, if you think I'm exaggerating, well, that's already happening. It's already starting to happen. We're seeing this shift in real time.

Last summer, for example, the Yale Journal of Law and Liberation published an article that discusses all the problems that are supposedly caused by police body cams. And here's how an outlet called Prism wrote about Yale's findings, quote,

The promises made by proponents of body cameras don't always align closely with the data on their efficacy or the degree to which they actually increase public transparency. In the U.S., the number of civilians whom police have killed annually has only increased each year since the widespread adoption of body camera equipment.

So let's sort through this. Their first contention is that police body cams are not working because they haven't decreased the number of police shootings, but that's not the point of police body cams. The point of the cameras, for the most part, is to determine whether police officers are justified in using force when they choose to do so. Body cams can't mind control the population and force them to stop attacking police officers. What's happening here is that at Yale long ago,

they came to the conclusion that the police must be shooting black people for no reason. And therefore, they determined that the number of police shootings would inevitably decline once police officers were recorded while they were on the job. And now that the number of police shootings has not declined, they're not revisiting their flawed premise. They're not going back and checking whether the police were ever actually shooting black people for no reason. They're also not even claiming that police officers are indeed shooting people for no reason because they know the body cams would disprove that claim.

So instead, they're attacking body cams, which until very recently, they not only supported but demanded. So let's read on from this Prism article because it gets worse as it goes. Quote, with body cameras, law enforcement agencies could expand their surveillance capacity, mitigate police brutality lawsuits, create highly controllable evidence against the largely poor, largely black citizens of whom police often seek to capture footage.

and quell social unrest by creating comprehensive digital archives of attendees at protests for social change. A 2016 George Mason University study of prosecutors' offices across the U.S. in jurisdictions with body cameras found that just 8.3% had used the footage to prosecute a police officer, while 92.6% had used it to prosecute private individuals, close quote.

Again, there's nothing unusual about this statistic. Of course, body cams are gonna be used in the vast majority of cases to prosecute people who are not police officers. That's completely consistent with the outcome you would expect. I mean, what did they think would happen? That 50% of body camera footage would be used to prosecute police? How deluded do you have to be to think that half the police force is committing crimes with their body cams on? And by the way, notice what they're not saying with this paragraph.

They're not claiming that these prosecutions of largely poor, largely black citizens are unjust or unlawful. They're not claiming that the police are making up charges or anything like that. They can't make that claim because it's all on camera. We can see it. Instead, they're simply concerned with the outcomes. They don't want black people to go to prison, even when they commit crimes. And so now, rather than address the obvious and persistent problems in black neighborhoods and black families, they wanna get rid of the cameras.

I mean, it's the same reason you'll find a bunch of hot takes about why ring doorbell cameras are dystopian. Because people who wanna commit crimes don't like it when they're on camera doing it. But at this point, it's too late. BLM's body cam gamble has clearly failed and everybody understands why. It turns out that like every other radical left wing protest movement in history, BLM was a little too quick and careless with their demands. They were reckless.

And in the end, all they accomplished was proving beyond any doubt what reasonable people already knew, which is that the police are not the problem. In reality, violent thugs like the Sean Leith are the problem. And thanks in part to BLM's tireless advocacy for body cameras, the rest of society no longer has to suffer months worth of rioting and civil unrest because of their crimes. Now let's go to our five headlines.

Maha, or Maha, however you pronounce it, is making health and fitness a priority again across America. That's why I've teamed up with Don and the crew over at Jacked Up Fitness. These guys are legitimately American-made, and they're getting some serious attention. They even dropped off their Power Rack Pro at the HHS building for RFK Jr. and his team in light of Maha's movement. They're going to be doing a lot of work on their team.

I'm actually getting my own Power Rack Pro delivered soon, and I'm pretty excited about it. This thing is basically an entire gym that fits into your house. The cable crossover system, integrated 200-pound weight stacks, Smith machine. You can do hundreds of exercises without fighting for space or machines at your local overpriced gym.

And if you're clueless about strength training, don't worry. They've got this Get Jacked Up program with full body video workouts led by actual celebrity trainers, Kim Lyons from The Biggest Loser and Clark Bartram. All you have to do is hit play and follow along. It's that simple. Almost anybody should be capable of handling those instructions to get started. Head to GetJackedUp.com to access the program for free. And when you're ready to pull the trigger and order your own

Power Rack Pro. You can use code Walsh to save 10%. No more excuses. Get jacked up.com. Your future self will thank you or curse you. Either way, you'll be fitter.

Well, big news yesterday, the Daily Wire reports the United Kingdom's highest court ruled Wednesday that the legal definition of woman is based on biology and does not include trans-identifying men who say they're women. In the landmark judgment, the British Supreme Court ruled that the meaning of woman in equality legislation is a biological woman and biological sex, and the concept of sex is binary

A person is either a woman or a man. This ruling is a watershed moment in Britain's shift on gender ideology, which has faced a referendum in Europe in recent years, especially as the harms of transgender drugs and procedures on children have come to light and sparked legal challenges. So that's the ruling. Here is, who is this? Lord Hodge of the UK Supreme Court talking about this ruling. The central question on this appeal is the meaning of the terms woman and

and sex in the Equality Act 2010. Do those terms refer to biological women or biological sex? Or is a woman to be interpreted as extending to a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate? By that I mean a person born male who now possesses a gender recognition certificate amending her gender to female.

and sex to be interpreted as including what I will refer to as 'certificated sex'. The unanimous decision of this Court is that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another.

It is not. As I shall explain later in this hand-down speech, the Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.

This is the application of the principle of discrimination by association. Those statutory protections are available to transgender people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate. Okay, so there it is, landmark decision, a landmark decision which finds that men are not women, a historic legal victory, finally settling the question of whether men can have babies or not. Turns out they can't.

It's, of course, very sad that it's come to this. It's sad that the Supreme Court had to rule on this subject, but they did have to rule on it, and they came to the right conclusion, thank God. And although we can laugh at the inherent absurdity of all of this, it is still true that this was genuinely a landmark decision with historic significance.

And I very much expect that we're gonna have our own trans-related landmark ruling from the Supreme Court in this country in a month or two. Our Supreme Court will rule on the Tennessee's law banning child castration. And I'm quite confident that it will rule in our favor. And for all the justified criticism of Amy Coney Barrett, I'm

I would still be totally shocked if she came down on the side of a child castration on this. And so after that happens in particular, the two things together will signal if it was not signaled already the death knell of the trans movement.

Where does the trans movement go from here? I mean, they're losing in the courts at the highest level. They're losing in the state legislatures. They're losing at the federal level. They're losing in this country. They're losing in Europe. Most importantly, they're losing in the culture, in the court of public opinion. So they're losing everywhere, in every forum, on every battlefield. It's one loss after another, after another. And that's not going to change. There's nothing, there's, it's, there's no conceivable way that that tide will change because, you know,

The thing about mass hysteria, the thing about this kind of mass psychosis that we went through for years in this country is that when it breaks, it breaks. And you can't really gin it up again. The trans activists will not be able to capture that magic again, that dark magic of getting everyone to at least pretend like they don't understand the difference between men and women. When it breaks, it breaks, and it's broken. The fever has broken. So

It really becomes a question of what next? Where do we go from here? We're gonna have to keep fighting back against the trans agenda. It's losing, it's not gone though. And so it will still be there as something that we have to contend with. As long as there's even one child being indoctrinated into this madness or abused or physically harmed or mentally harmed by this indoctrination, as long as that's the case,

then the fight will continue. But from a larger sort of strategic perspective, when you look at the kind of the culture war generally, what comes next? And I think the fight moves on. It's interesting because the fight moves now, in my opinion, to take on feminism once and for all. And that's the next great battle. It's a battle that's, of course, been waging for many years, for decades. But

It takes center stage because gender ideology is a product of feminism after all, it's an outgrowth of it. The feminists were the first to deny the fundamental differences between the sexes, that was them. They were the first to say that gender is a social construct, that was them.

Feminism has always been the underlying sickness with this stuff. And it is still the most destructive ideology in human history. 60 million children dead, millions of destroyed marriages, millions of broken homes, utter devastation wrought by feminism. So that's where we must turn our attention. And this is also why there's this debate going on online right now that I'm a part of about where there are some even on the right saying that

Well, you know, the feminists, they say what you want about them, but they really get the credit for them. They were leading the charge here against the trans ideology. And the first thing about that is that in the UK, that is true, mainly because social conservatives don't exist in the UK. They're not there. They don't exist. They've been driven out of society long ago in the UK. So sure, in the UK, I think there's no doubt that the feminists led the charge. In this country, no.

In this country, absolutely not. That is not the case. The vast majority of the pushback against gender ideology, and especially the most effective pushback against gender ideology in this country, without a doubt, has been social conservatives. But more importantly, the reason why, and you know, because I get flack for this.

They say, why don't you give more credit to the feminists, even in the UK? Well, I give credit to anyone who spoke up and did the right thing. The reason why I can't give you a ton of credit is that you're part of the movement that created this problem. This is your mess. This is the monster you made. So when you're part of the movement that creates a mess, the fact that a few of you stepped up to help clean it up,

I don't give you a ton of credit. You knock over the milk and spill it on the ground. You want me to thank you for cleaning it? That's your obligation. Okay, social conservatives, we did not create transgenderism at all. We had nothing. There is no philosophical through line that you can find that connects social conservatism to gender ideology. We've been opposed to it at a fundamental level since forever.

Okay, so when we get involved to clean it up, this is not our mess. We did not do this. Feminism did this. This is rooted in feminism. As I said, who were the ones who stepped up decades ago to say that, you know, the difference between men and women, there really isn't not much of a difference. Who are the ones who decided that, you know, male brain and female brain, that doesn't really exist. Who are the ones who said, well, women can do all the things that men can do. There's really no difference between the sexes. Who said that?

For decades and decades, have you heard someone talking about gender as a social construct? Who was it that was saying it? So it is kind of funny because in the fight against gender ideology, it required us to join forces with left wing feminists, some of them. A small minority still, that's the other thing. The vast majority of feminists, the vast majority, 95% of them were pushing this stuff explicitly the whole time.

But it's a bit like everyone likes World War II analogies these days. So maybe it's a bit like the U.S. being allies with the Soviets in World War II, strategic alliance. But as soon as that was over, well, now you got to deal with the Soviet Union. And that became the great international conflict for the next 40 or 50 years. And I think that there's a kind of a similar situation here.

And this is not some random thing. I'm not saying that now we've defeated the trans agenda. So we have to kind of randomly look for some other group to fight with to spend our time

We have to occupy ourselves by finding some other group to fight with. I'm saying that the fight against the trans agenda naturally leads us to this, because what is the ultimate goal? What is our ultimate goal as conservatives anyway? Our ultimate goal is not just to establish that women don't have penises, okay? That's an important thing that we have to establish. It's unfortunate we did, but that we had to ever establish it, but we did have to, and we have. That's not the ultimate goal, though.

It's not just to establish that a man in a dress isn't a woman. No, the ultimate goal is to defend civilization. It's to defend, and that means defending the family, defending marriage. And feminism is the greatest enemy that the family and marriage have ever faced in history. And so that is why the fight moves there. And by the way, a lot of the left-wing feminists, the TERFs, so-called, have known this, have noticed this a long time ago.

Which is why, when I say that

We had to kind of align ourselves with some of these feminists. It was really only one-sided. I mean, the left-wing feminists, the TERFs, from the very beginning, wanted nothing to do with me, excommunicated me. You know, J.K. Rowling, infamously, a couple of years ago, after mentioning that she liked my film, she felt the need to come out and disavow me and say, never mind, he's a horrible guy. So, because they've always known. In a way, it's like, I can't, I don't really blame you.

Because we are not ideological friends, actually. We agree that men can't have babies. We do agree on that. But that's it. We don't agree on anything else. And so this is where the battle turns. All right. Let's see here. So here's time to return to a topic that always makes people mad. And I don't really care.

In fact, there's a few topics that when I bring them up, I'm pretty much guaranteed to lose subscribers. It's a total subscriber loss. It's a net loss. But I'm going to talk about it anyway because I really don't care. In fact, every time I talk about this, there's always people that I'm unsubscribing. I've had enough of this. Well, go ahead and unsubscribe, honestly. Like, go ahead. Fine. I'm okay with that.

Because I am so tired of these stories that we're about to talk about. I am so sick of it. And I at this point have so much anger for the people who refuse to face the reality on this issue that we're going to discuss. That anyone in that category says, I'm not gonna listen anymore. I'm unsubscribing. Okay, good. Go ahead. I don't care. So that brings us to the latest pit bull victim.

Let's watch the news report. He could have killed me if no one was out there. Nine-year-old Daniela Schla has hundreds of stitches and staples in her head and nearly lost an eye and ear. It pulled me down to the ground and it wouldn't let go. It was actually shaking my head right here. Then he let go for a second and started doing it on my head up here. Locked onto her and wouldn't let go. And my husband jumped on top of the dog. I jumped on his back and I just held his neck down. And my other daughter...

pulled his legs up. Its owner eventually pulled the dog away, telling the family the pit bull got out a back door. There is no backyard fence. The dog was been known to easily just open the latch in the back door and then escape, which he has done numerous times before. Daniela suffered a concussion, head, foot and hand wounds. Part of her ear had to be reattached.

She's recovering but traumatized. The family believes the dog is still next door. The owner was issued a summons for an unlicensed dog, must get a dog license and quarantine the dog for 10 days to determine its rabies status. It feels like the dog who attacked my sister has more rights than she does right now. The dog owner could not be reached for comment. The Schlau family has filed a dangerous dog application.

claiming it recently chased a child and has viciously approached their front door. I want the dog to be removed from the home because we're afraid to go outside of our house because the dog is still unrestrained and it can escape and attack someone else. He's in the house that he escaped from.

And this whole neighborhood is filled with kids. Dangerous dog applications are heard by a judge within five days of filing. A judge can order a dog restrained, removed, or even humanely euthanized. This story just gets more infuriating as it goes on. It's baffling. It is baffling. This dog mauls a child, almost kills her, and then is allowed to return to the home next door.

And now the family has to file a dangerous dog application and present it to a judge. The dog mauled the child's face. Isn't that enough of an application? I gotta fill out an application. Look at my daughter, we had to reattach her ear. Okay, what do you mean? What am I applying for? Why is it up to this family that just suffered this trauma to go through and jump through these hoops to get that damn stupid dog out of the house?

Can you imagine? Can you imagine this? Your daughter is almost killed by a dog. And that night, that dog is back home next door. How do you leave your house? The freaking stupid dog can escape at any time and kill someone. I mean, this is not, it's not like you're exaggerating. For the family to say they're afraid to leave the home, that is not panicked. That is not hysterical. That's not an exaggeration. It's not hyperbole.

They, yes, I would feel exactly the same way. That dog is capable of killing, especially a child, but even a full grown man, and it can escape anytime and do exactly that. So yes, I would also feel just that way. That dog should have been pulled off the girl, taken into the backyard and shot on the spot. If I was the father in this scenario, I don't, I don't, I don't,

I'm not advocating violence or anything illegal. I'm just saying that I don't think I would be able to wait for the courts to figure out whether this dog is allowed to continue to live. I think I would be tempted to go over there and just take care of the problem myself. So we need to be done with this whole pit bull thing. The idea that like an entire neighborhood

can be held hostage because some dumbass wants to have a pit bull is just crazy. It is crazy, okay? Your desire to have a pit bull does not supersede the right of everyone in your neighborhood to not have their children mauled to death, okay? My interest as a parent and an American citizen, my interest in keeping my children safe from being mauled to death is more important and supersedes your interest

in having a dog that you think is cute. Okay, I'm so sick of these absolutely brain dead arguments you hear from pit bull apologists. I'm so sick of it. They say, but poodles bite more people than pit bulls do. That's not the point, you morons. The point is that pit bulls are uniquely equipped to cause maximum damage in a way that poodles are not.

Which is why they're responsible for the vast majority of fatal dog attacks. The point is that these dogs are aggressive by nature and built to inflict maximum carnage by nature. That's the point. The chance that a poodle mauls a child to death is basically zero. The chance that your pit bull mauls your neighbor's child to death is a lot more than zero, okay? And then they say,

Oh, it's not the breed, it's the owner. It's not the breed, it's the owner. It's the same two arguments over and over again from these people. Poodles bite more, that's the first one. It's not the breed, it's the owner. It's the owner, it's the owner. No, it's both, okay? It's actually both. The breed is naturally aggressive. That is a fact. It's uniquely dangerous. That is a fact. Both those things are facts. You can yell at the fact all you want. You can get mad at me, but both of those things are just simply facts. And also-

Also, on top of that, the owners are often reckless, stupid, low class cretins. And and and that is not a mark in favor of pit bulls. OK, because there is no way to prevent reckless, stupid, low class cretins from from getting these dogs. So so when you say it's the owner, OK, well, that doesn't solve the problem now, does it?

There is no way to prevent, even if you require licenses or whatever, reckless, stupid people can still get them. You can be reckless and stupid and go through whatever hoop you gotta go through to get a license to buy a dog. The whole problem is that mature, intelligent adults who place an appropriate amount of value on the safety of their families and the families of their neighbors would never own a pit bull in the first place. So exactly the kinds of people who you'd want, who would be like,

The safest own a pit bull are the kinds of people who would never own one in the first place. And so that's the only people who would ever own a pit bull are the kinds of people who are willing to take that kind of risk with their own children and the children of their community. And so by definition, these people are not going to be good owners. So even if you do blame the owner, the conclusion is the same. If a pit bull moves in next door,

The fate of my children should not hinge on whether that pit bull owner is an extremely skilled pit bull owner or not. The fate of my children should not hinge on like the skill and talent of this pit bull owner and on the mood of the pit bull.

If somebody moves in next door with a golden retriever, I don't need to worry that much about how good or bad the owner is. I mean, it could be the worst golden retriever owner on the planet. And even then, the chances that this golden retriever will present any kind of real serious lethal threat to my family is very, very, very, very small. But with pit bulls, it's not like that.

If the dog requires this kind of high level, incredibly careful and attentive ownership as if you own a lion or a bear or something, then that's all the more reason why they shouldn't be allowed in neighborhoods. So I shouldn't have to rely on the fact that the guy next door who owns the pit bull is like Steve Irwin in his skill and expertise in dealing with dangerous animals. I shouldn't have to rely on that. And

So this whole conversation should be unnecessary. The pit bull defenders have no argument. I'm sorry, you have no argument. You people have no argument. I mean, the argument on the other side, the argument on the other side is that these dogs are mauling children in hugely disproportionate numbers.

And that they are uniquely biologically inclined to behave that way and specially equipped to inflict maximum damage when they do behave that way. That's our argument, okay? It's like a pretty strong argument. It's pretty strong. And we've got a lot of evidence. We have a lot of evidence that we can bring to bear about the danger that these animals present to communities. The argument on the other side is really just

That they think pitbulls are cute and they want to be able to own them. That's really all it comes down to. And nobody's ever come up with any reason why they need to own a pitbull. Why do you need to own one? I get that you want one. Like I can explain to you why I need pitbulls.

To be sure that there are no animals in my community that could maul my children to death. There are no supposedly domesticated animals being intentionally brought into my neighborhood that could maul my children to death. I can explain to you why I need that. That's a need that I have as a parent, right? You cannot explain why you need to own a pit bull in the first place. Of all the dog breeds, why that one? Why can't you just own any other dog breed?

Why can't we rule out that one and a couple other breeds that again are uniquely dangerous and that still leaves you dozens and dozens of breeds in endless supply of other dogs that you can own and nobody will object. And yet,

This is the hill. I was going to say this is the hill that pit bull owners want to die on. The problem is that they're not the ones dying on it, really. Sometimes they are. But no, this is the hill that they want our kids to die on, potentially. That's the hill that you want that little girl to die on, potentially, so that you can own a pit bull. I just find it, oh man, it is just infuriating. So bring on the hate comments. Bring them on. Bring them on with your dumb, stupid arguments.

I welcome them. I really do. Preborn's network of clinics are on the front lines nationwide, on standby for women deciding between the life of their babies. Preborn seeks these women out to help them choose life, not just for their babies, but for themselves. By introducing mothers to the life growing inside of them through ultrasound, her baby's chance at life doubles.

$28 a month could just be the difference between life and death of so many lives. To donate securely, go to preborn.com slash dailywire. That's preborn.com slash dailywire. A single heartbeat can echo across generations.

- Some companies can't define what a man is and we're letting them design the products that we use in our bodies. Well, Jeremy's isn't confused. The Tea Tree Peppermint Shampoo and Conditioner cleans your scalp without the chemical gunk. The Charcoal Body Wash scrubs off the day without stripping your skin or your dignity. And the Aluminum Free Deodorant, no toxins, just a fresh masculine scent that won't make you smell like a candle aisle. Plus, they're American made, no sulfates, no parabens, and yes, it's risk-free 30 days

Try it all. Don't like it? Return it. No shame. No questions. Go to jeremysraisers.com slash Walsh and use code Walsh at checkout for 20% off your first order. That's jeremysraisers.com slash Walsh and code Walsh at checkout.

Our daily cancellation today begins with a sports reporter by the name of Wiley Ballard. Wiley Ballard covers the Atlanta Braves. He also has a great name for a reporter or a private detective with a name like that, but that's neither here nor there. Ballard provoked outrage and drew backlash, as Yahoo Sports describes it, because of his behavior during a Braves broadcast this past Monday. NBC News, one of the dozens of other outlets to report on this national scandal, reported

described this incident involving Ballard as gross and unprofessional. And so you might start to imagine what kinds of things a sideline reporter might do during a baseball game that would upset people this much. Did he show up drunk? Did he use profanity on air? Did he assault someone? Whatever he did, at least he apparently managed to make a baseball broadcast slightly interesting, which is almost impossible to do. So we know we have to give him some credit for that. But what sort of outrageous behavior did he exhibit exactly?

Female sports reporter Kate Feldman describes the incident as one of the most insanely inappropriate things she's ever witnessed in her life. And many women on social media have agreed. So what was it exactly? Well, with all that buildup, get ready to be shocked and appalled. Who do we got here? What's your name? My name is Lauren. Lauren's, all right. And I'm Kayla. Kayla, and you guys hang out at the rooftop lounge often?

Once a year I come out to visit. Okay, well we timed it pretty well. All right, good. How are you guys feeling about rooting for the Braves today? Oof, I don't know. I'm hoping for the best. What about you? Are you a Braves fan now? Not quite. Not quite. All right, I'm going to go to work up here, guys. Good luck the rest of the way. Okay, Wiley.

You got five innings, four innings to get the numbers. I'm on it. I'm on it. Get us some more Braves fans. All right, so they want me to get your number. They want you to get my number. I'm dead serious. They're saying I'm on here right now. She doesn't believe me because she thinks you guys are making this up. Even if you guys weren't, I might use that in the future. That's actually a pretty good move. This is unbelievable. It's so generous.

So the best part of this right now is that Wiley could totally be faking it. This might be the new move. Just walk around with a FanDuel microphone and an earpiece in and convince fans that they're actually on TV. I should have thought of this years ago. I am speechless. I got the number. We're good.

Okay, so that was it. Now, I know you were waiting for the part where he does the insanely inappropriate thing that was promised, but it never happens. That was the whole video. That was the incident that attracted national media coverage and hundreds of outraged comments. He asked for a woman's phone number. And that was, just to be totally clear, an adult man asking for an adult woman's phone number. As far as we know, both are single, neither are married.

which makes this perhaps the least scandalous thing that has ever been aired on television. In fact, in a saner time, we would all agree that not only was this totally inoffensive and benign, this was a charming moment between two people. And in fact, if they start dating and eventually get married, they'll have one of the great how we met moments of all time. So it's great.

But we don't live in sane time, so instead this moment has become a point of controversy. Here's Yahoo Sports trying desperately to find some reason to be disturbed by this normal heterosexual behavior. Quote,

There are some uncomfortable power dynamics at play throughout the entire segment. Ballard, whether intentionally or not, used his platform for personal reasons while the broadcast booth of Godden and CJ Nitkowski encouraged him. The fact that cameras were involved and that Lauren could hear only one part of the conversation added to those issues. At the very least, it was unprofessional on the part of all three men on the broadcast. There are far more unsavory reads on the interaction, which could be viewed as creepy, gross, and inappropriate.

I feel I need to remind you again that the thing this article describes as creepy, gross and inappropriate is a man asking for a woman's phone number. And of course, this delusional interpretation of the event is couched in concerns about power dynamics. This is one of the many horrendous innovations of the Me Too movement, is that now any attempt by a man to speak to or form a connection with a woman can magically become abusive and creepy.

If you just shout the phrase power imbalance at it. Because of course, when you think of a tyrannical despot lording his power over a helpless young woman, you immediately imagine the Atlanta Brave sideline reporter. The guy that probably makes like $80,000 a year is exploiting a power imbalance somehow.

Never mind the fact that the young lady is smiling, laughing, appears to offer up her phone number with no hesitation and a great deal of enthusiasm. Still, she didn't have power. She was forced to do it.

Every day I find another reason to be grateful that I'm not single. And here's another reason. This is reason number 1,552 or wherever we are on the list. As if it isn't already difficult enough on the dating scene, this kind of bizarre, weirdly puritanical nonsense only adds to the challenge. I mean, how are men and women supposed to meet if any man who approaches a woman is automatically a creep?

And when it comes to power imbalances, isn't there always a power imbalance given that men are bigger and stronger than women? So at any time, if you're like a normal guy and you're trying to talk to a woman, there's always going to be a power imbalance. Does that make it inherently abusive for a man to ask out a woman under any circumstance?

Or should the dating scene consist only of frail, small, broke men dating large, muscular, wealthy women? Now, of course, the problem is that women, whether they're large or not, don't really want those kinds of men. The power imbalance is precisely what women are looking for. You know, a man's like bigger and stronger,

Very often, I think women don't mind if the man also has more money than them. So that so-called power imbalance is exactly what makes the man attractive to the woman in the first place. So this is what makes it totally impossible.

And because the power imbalance also makes a man automatically predatory if he attempts to date a woman. So the whole thing is incoherent and insane. And all a young man can do in the face of this is ignore the noise and just trust that most women are not the type to think that he's a creep for being heterosexual. Which is true, by the way, that most women aren't like that. So that's the saving grace here.

That was only one of the criticisms levied at this guy for asking for a woman's number. There were also a large number of female sports reporters claiming that the moment somehow represented some kind of double standard, some kind of sexist double standard. Reading just a few of these comments, quote, imagine if a female reporter did anything like that, career over, pretty brutal to see it glorified by the broadcast.

And another one says, here's the thing. I don't ever really comment on stuff like this, but glorifying this moment is not okay. If this were a female reporter, people would call it unprofessional. But it's a male reporter, which means people will find it funny and tweet about how great this is. Another one says, imagine the tone of the conversation around this had the genders been reversed. And so on and so on and so on. And there are also think pieces written in the local newspaper about this, making the same point about how it's a power imbalance situation.

Lots of female sports reporters claiming that Ballard benefits from this, rather, this double standard. And if a female reporter did the same thing, they're saying, she would be criticized. So that's the double standard. But the problem with this claim is that, first of all, a male reporter did do this, and he was criticized.

So when you say, well, imagine if a female reporter did this, she would be criticized. Well, yes, and that's exactly what's happening to this guy. You're doing it. So that is happening. There's no double standard here. He's being treated exactly as you claim a female reporter would be treated. The criticism you're imagining is actually happening. This moment was in fact treated like a scandal of national importance.

So the double standard claim falls apart before it gets off the ground. In fact, of course, we know in reality, the double standard goes exactly the other way. Because I don't know about you, but I have never in my life heard of a woman being labeled creepy, gross, and predatory for asking for a man's number. Have you ever heard of that? Have you ever heard that description used about a woman for approaching a man? I have never heard it one time.

In literally every case where there's a controversy over somebody harmlessly hitting on somebody else or asking them out, it is always the man as the focus of the outrage. I cannot think of a single exception. So these women are correct. There is a double standard, but it's a double standard that they benefit from. And that is ultimately why everybody expressing any kind of outrage at a straight man for engaging in totally normal and healthy heterosexual male behavior is today wrong.

That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.