Speaker 1: Be sure to catch live editions of The Ben Maller
Speaker 1: Show weekdays at two a m. Eastern eleven p m. Pacific.
Speaker 1: If you thought more hours a day, minutes a week
Speaker 1: was enough, think again. He's the last remnants of the
Speaker 1: old Republic, the sole fashion of fairness. He treats crackheads
Speaker 1: in the ghetto cutter the same as the rich pill
Speaker 1: poppers in the penthouse, to clearing house of hot takes,
Speaker 1: break free for something specialitur with Ben Maller starts right
Speaker 1: now that it does. We are in the air everywhere
Speaker 1: eight days a week because four hours are not enough.
Speaker 1: We thank you for finding the podcast. We thank you
Speaker 1: for supporting the podcast. We started this, we did it
Speaker 1: one day a week, and then the numbers were good,
Speaker 1: so we kept doing it. Now it's it's Friday, Saturday,
Speaker 1: and Sunday. This is our Friday podcast, a spinoff of
Speaker 1: the Overnight radio show. But we can go third rail
Speaker 1: on my end. We can hit the third rail on
Speaker 1: this because you know, it's just a podcast. We can
Speaker 1: talk about things that we don't normally talk about on
Speaker 1: the radio show, which is just hardcore sports, and this
Speaker 1: is a in theory a sports podcast. But we delve
Speaker 1: into some other issues in real life, and back again
Speaker 1: from west of the four oh five David gascon making
Speaker 1: his way there. He is there, I am loud and proud.
Speaker 1: Um is this is this an uncomfortable day for you?
Speaker 1: Because if you've downloaded the podcast, chances are you know
Speaker 1: who we're gonna have a conversation with a so so David.
Speaker 1: That's assuming that most of the people can read the description. Wow,
Speaker 1: I mean already. I mean we're not even a minute
Speaker 1: in the print. The prints fine. So do you often
Speaker 1: listen to or do you often read the description when
Speaker 1: you click on a podcast, because that sure it's held out.
Speaker 1: That's a good question. I well, I subscribe to some
Speaker 1: but interview podcast. Yeah, like I I listened like Joe Rogan.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I'll I don't listen to all. I actually don't
Speaker 1: listen to that often. But if I'm looking for some
Speaker 1: audio content, I want to hear an interview Ali or
Speaker 1: who's Rogan got on? And then if it's someone the
Speaker 1: description is good and it kind of gets me going,
Speaker 1: I'll listen. If it's someone I've never heard of in
Speaker 1: the description sucks, I'm not gonna listen fair enough. So,
Speaker 1: but yeah, but generally, Yeah, the podcast I subscribed to,
Speaker 1: you know, they're Automa. They're on my phone. I just
Speaker 1: listened to them and when I'm wandering around doing my
Speaker 1: sojourn around around town here. But yeah, we're gonna have today. Uh.
Speaker 1: The chief for those that don't know, Uh, David's father
Speaker 1: was a big cohuna at the l a p D
Speaker 1: and and his most famous for the the time with
Speaker 1: the O. J. Simpson case. He was the spokesperson for
Speaker 1: the l A P. He was out in front on
Speaker 1: that and he was on television globally and what he
Speaker 1: spent over thirty years right with the Los Angeles Police
Speaker 1: Department years in the department, man and and how wild
Speaker 1: is this though? He was he was known worldwide for
Speaker 1: what went down O J. And there was no social
Speaker 1: media at the time. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. I mean, do
Speaker 1: you think about what it would have been like now?
Speaker 1: And it but it was. I don't think it would
Speaker 1: be much different because you could not get bigger than
Speaker 1: the O. J. Simpson case. I mean, even with social
Speaker 1: media it made it would have made it a little different,
Speaker 1: But I don't know because and the reason why I
Speaker 1: bring that up is because of what's gone on recently
Speaker 1: with the whole election scandal, is that you have people
Speaker 1: that are making these you have these affidavits that are
Speaker 1: that are signed by these individuals and sworn testimony, and
Speaker 1: you have news agencies out there right now either one
Speaker 1: docks in these people or two resurface seeing their past
Speaker 1: life like what they've done in their teenage years and
Speaker 1: the early early twenties, and they basically try to out
Speaker 1: these people. And I think more so now than ever,
Speaker 1: is that if you had police officers that were involved
Speaker 1: in this investigation and or the d a's office, I
Speaker 1: think you'd have more agencies looking to these individuals and
Speaker 1: try to discredit them if they felt like O. J
Speaker 1: was in the right not in the wrong. So the
Speaker 1: media spin what is easier to spin stuff in the
Speaker 1: age of social media, because if you're on the right
Speaker 1: side of big tech, you don't get censored. If you're
Speaker 1: on the other side of big tech, you get censors.
Speaker 1: So it's hard to get your message out because so
Speaker 1: many people there's a whole different You're you're opening up
Speaker 1: Pandora's box because that's a whole different conversation which we've had.
Speaker 1: We've had that that people take social media way too seriously.
Speaker 1: And it's the matrix. It's it's not really on that.
Speaker 1: But we're getting sidetracked here. But the the o J.
Speaker 1: If you're a young person and you're you weren't around
Speaker 1: for o J. I was just in the early part
Speaker 1: of my career when the trial was going on. I
Speaker 1: remember I was still in college when the murder happened.
Speaker 1: And then I got out and I started working in
Speaker 1: San Diego and I was covering the Dodgers in the
Speaker 1: in l A. And I remember I was living in
Speaker 1: Orange County. I was driving into l A. And I
Speaker 1: drive in that one on one corridor through downtown and
Speaker 1: they had put up every parking lot right across next
Speaker 1: to the and I said every There was two massive
Speaker 1: parking lots right near the one on one when you
Speaker 1: make the the the interchange with the the one with
Speaker 1: the one tent like you know l A Freeways if
Speaker 1: you're not in l A. But anyway, so I'm driving
Speaker 1: there and they put up these giants, and I mean
Speaker 1: they were like three or four stories of um, what's
Speaker 1: what's the term I'm looking for? You know, those things
Speaker 1: like painters stand on they're kind of like fake fake
Speaker 1: I'm trying to I don't know what the term for
Speaker 1: that is. But they so they could have the shot
Speaker 1: of downtown behind them. Yeah you know that, yeah, so,
Speaker 1: and and they were international media. It was wild a
Speaker 1: panoramic view, right, yeah, exactly wanted the panoracs, so they
Speaker 1: put up like planks of wood and so that the
Speaker 1: reporters could stand and so behind them you saw the
Speaker 1: skyline of l A. And they were reporting on O
Speaker 1: J and UM. And I remember going to cover Dodging
Speaker 1: games and during the trial part of it, and it
Speaker 1: was people. There was a buzz in the crowd. This
Speaker 1: was in the days without social media, and there were
Speaker 1: I remember one night the Dodgers, I think they were
Speaker 1: in the playoffs, uh, either playing Atlanta or Cincinnati, and
Speaker 1: a couple of guys showed up. They were they had
Speaker 1: been on the Tonight Show. They were Judge Edo and
Speaker 1: personators and the crowd David. The crowd went wild. They
Speaker 1: everyone wanted to be and wanted to be around these
Speaker 1: two knuckleheads and were dressed like Judge Edo, and uh,
Speaker 1: it was pretty It was just it was crazy and
Speaker 1: your your dad and just a central figure in that.
Speaker 1: So I'm excited to talking. We're gonna get to that.
Speaker 1: We have to start with other stuff. They'll guess, gone, right,
Speaker 1: we have to start with all this stuff before we
Speaker 1: get to the meet with the Chief. Yes, yeah, alright,
Speaker 1: So I think it's it's it's ideal with Mr West
Speaker 1: of the four oh five all the time. Uh so,
Speaker 1: why don't we welcome in the chief here, David gascon Man,
Speaker 1: who was in the l APD for thirty two years.
Speaker 1: And I get to work with his son, your son
Speaker 1: here on a weekly basis. So when you found out
Speaker 1: your child was going to become a sportscaster, did you
Speaker 1: consider holding some kind of intervention? Uh not, in the
Speaker 1: least you did not, Now, Uh why not? Because sportscasting,
Speaker 1: if you were to rank like careers, sportscasting is kind
Speaker 1: of on the back the backside of that. Well actually no,
Speaker 1: you know, oh look, he could be a politicians would
Speaker 1: be worse, that would Yeah? And and who taught your
Speaker 1: son how to park? His mother? Have you seen some
Speaker 1: of the photo photograp chief? Have you seen? Because uh,
Speaker 1: now I have. I don't go in right now because
Speaker 1: of what's been going on this year. But when I
Speaker 1: when I go into the studio and I'd park and
Speaker 1: on nights your son was working there. Uh, he would
Speaker 1: park in every kind of direction imaginable rather than in
Speaker 1: the actual space. And I have photographic proof that this
Speaker 1: happened multiple occasions. And and I blame you. Oh no,
Speaker 1: not me, not me. I'm one of those guys that says,
Speaker 1: shalt not but they would just say, look, details, details. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm here to take the point, you know, I'm here
Speaker 1: to get involved in the important market to car Nah. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm happy to talk to you because I I support
Speaker 1: law enforced, my wife's and one operator. It's been a
Speaker 1: not a good year here chief for the you know,
Speaker 1: people taking shots at the least and all that. And
Speaker 1: I guess we get serious now, And uh, you're you
Speaker 1: haven't had a career in law enforcement. When you sit
Speaker 1: back and look at what's been going on here with
Speaker 1: the media and open season on local police departments, like
Speaker 1: what what from your perspective, Like give me your thoughts
Speaker 1: on on how this has all gone down this last
Speaker 1: year or so. Well, I think it's disgusting, somewhat predictable
Speaker 1: and been there and done that. UM life was very
Speaker 1: chaotic in the early seventies, UM due to a variety
Speaker 1: of reasons, not the least of which was the Vietnam War. UM.
Speaker 1: But we also had many many UM anti government organizations
Speaker 1: that we're at work across the nation, and so we've
Speaker 1: dealt with UM some very extreme violent organizations and uh,
Speaker 1: it was it was really ugly. So to see it
Speaker 1: come back is not a surprise. To see it so
Speaker 1: politicized is not a surprise. That's more sophisticated now, But
Speaker 1: a lot of things going on are more sophisticated, um,
Speaker 1: you know, to the extent that we're able to follow
Speaker 1: some of these things that are not suppressed or not
Speaker 1: handling the mainstream media. There's some really problematic things happening
Speaker 1: now here in the country and really going on around
Speaker 1: the world. So for for those that here defund the police,
Speaker 1: like what are what are the the actual real world
Speaker 1: ramifications of that, Like you you spent your had a
Speaker 1: great run of the l a p D. You were,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the big shots there. But what
Speaker 1: what does it actually mean Because we've actually seen in
Speaker 1: some cities, as you know, they do you have defunded
Speaker 1: the police. They have taken a good amount of money
Speaker 1: away from law enforcement. So when they do that, that
Speaker 1: in certain places, like what what happens is ares fighting crime, Well,
Speaker 1: when you have less officers out there, less visibility, then um,
Speaker 1: it is extremely counterproductive. And the result is you start
Speaker 1: stacking up dead bodies and crime goes crazy, which is
Speaker 1: what you see across the nation right now. Violence is extreme. Look,
Speaker 1: we're only as good as the willingness of the community
Speaker 1: to follow the law. And when the percentage of people
Speaker 1: who don't follow the laws increases, for whatever the cause,
Speaker 1: then they wreak havoc on the rest of the general population.
Speaker 1: So if you get a percentage that starts getting higher
Speaker 1: and higher, than you get civil and rest, and you
Speaker 1: get crime, and you get all that violence out there.
Speaker 1: And who who's going to look out for those poor people? Uh?
Speaker 1: The only people traditionally that do look out for them
Speaker 1: or your uniform police officers. And and that's the way
Speaker 1: it's been, and it's been that way for or you know,
Speaker 1: probably a hundred and fifty years here easily at least,
Speaker 1: since there's been a need for a police department. You
Speaker 1: have to go back to the basics. Why do we
Speaker 1: have a police department? Because we have a need for them,
Speaker 1: all right, So let's go back here to the summer
Speaker 1: Chief And and I have that image the video in
Speaker 1: my head still that was bouncing around social media in
Speaker 1: l A. Here somewhere in l a where the camera
Speaker 1: guy was walking down the street and there were there
Speaker 1: were burned out police cars on like both sides of it.
Speaker 1: It looked like a war zone. How it was not
Speaker 1: just Los Angeles, It's happened a lot of places. But
Speaker 1: how does that, How is that allowed to happen? How
Speaker 1: how how are are these people that are allowed to
Speaker 1: run around and burn police cars? It was just seemed
Speaker 1: insane to me. Well it is. It's actually an attack
Speaker 1: on um civilized society. So it's an attack on the taxpayers.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a I mean those things cost money, obviously,
Speaker 1: it's it's uh. It's a significant attack on a piece
Speaker 1: of the community. And of course it wasn't just the
Speaker 1: police cars. Um. There were victims that owned UM small
Speaker 1: businesses along all of those quarters that you know, their
Speaker 1: businesses were damaged, they were alloted, they were burned out.
Speaker 1: Many of them UM members of the minority community that
Speaker 1: have finally gotten a leg up and and have proven
Speaker 1: to be successful after many years of hard work, and
Speaker 1: what did we do? Um we we kind of um
Speaker 1: burn them down to the ground and threw them out
Speaker 1: of their opportunities for a bright future. And you've got
Speaker 1: to ask yourself the question, who would do such things
Speaker 1: and for what reason? Obviously, if you're trying to be
Speaker 1: constructive to make things better, uh, and there are certain
Speaker 1: things we can all agree to, then how does that
Speaker 1: advance the course of discussion to torch police cars and
Speaker 1: and burn people out of their livelihoods? It doesn't. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: and then the other thing about it too. You know
Speaker 1: a lot of the people that were doing that, they
Speaker 1: knew who they were, but they just give them, not
Speaker 1: even a slap on the wrist. They were they were
Speaker 1: like in and out. It was a revolving door. The
Speaker 1: prosecutors were not charging them with anything. So it's like
Speaker 1: they got a free pass on that, which is also
Speaker 1: mind blowing on top of it, like they you know,
Speaker 1: they knew who was doing it in some locations, they
Speaker 1: caught some of the people and they were not even
Speaker 1: punished for it, which is which is just insane to me. Well,
Speaker 1: it's it's another issue. Um. So you know how we
Speaker 1: generally say don't paint people with a broad brush, And
Speaker 1: we certainly would say that when we're talking about, um,
Speaker 1: police officers in general, we don't want to paint it
Speaker 1: with a broad brush. Um, but you would have to
Speaker 1: say that about prosecutors to a lot of the activities
Speaker 1: that you see going on under the direct results of
Speaker 1: politics and the nature of where politicians are and how
Speaker 1: they are influence and what they are trying to accomplish,
Speaker 1: what suits their political preferences going forward. And I think
Speaker 1: you've seen a lot of that go on in various
Speaker 1: parts of the country, and and and that leaves you
Speaker 1: somewhat speechless and disappointed. Um, But in a lot of ways,
Speaker 1: I'm not. I'm not disappointed that they lived up or
Speaker 1: lived down to the expectations I have for some of them.
Speaker 1: I think you've seen some of the most gross incompetence
Speaker 1: in political leadership in the history of our country during
Speaker 1: this year. Yeah. Well, and following that train of thought,
Speaker 1: I know when you found out that, I guess you
Speaker 1: you know him live A. George Gascon is the new
Speaker 1: district attorney in l A. Shares a similar last name
Speaker 1: to you, and has much different feelings on how to
Speaker 1: treat crime. In fact, the story came out I'm sure
Speaker 1: you saw it here. This last week or so, the
Speaker 1: new district Attorney in l A announced essentially he's going
Speaker 1: to stop prosecutions on non violent crimes including trespassing, disturbing
Speaker 1: the police, driving without a license, prostitution, resisting arrest is
Speaker 1: on that list. UM, drug possession, criminal threats like all
Speaker 1: that stuff is not going to be prosecuted. Uh, for
Speaker 1: first time offenders. I believe. I think it's only for
Speaker 1: first time offenders. But when you saw that, I mean,
Speaker 1: this guy has a reputation. What what was your reaction? Well,
Speaker 1: first and foremost, I know George. I've known George for
Speaker 1: i'd say most of his career here in Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: and I personally like George and I've always gotten along
Speaker 1: with him. And when George left the l A p
Speaker 1: D and ended up in Mason and then ended up
Speaker 1: in San Francisco and on, and I was very much
Speaker 1: distressed by um his politics, which I found shocking and disappointing.
Speaker 1: And I like George personally, but I pretty much am
Speaker 1: on the opposite side of the coin on just about
Speaker 1: everything he believes in politically, and so I'm disappointed about it. No,
Speaker 1: we haven't spoken and what I speak with him, of
Speaker 1: course I would, um, And and do do I believe
Speaker 1: that he's wrong in his approach? Yes, I do. And
Speaker 1: what I would I be quite vociferous in my views,
Speaker 1: You bet, I would be. Um. I think we have
Speaker 1: to look at history, and we have a lot of history,
Speaker 1: uh to look at in terms of what has proven
Speaker 1: to be successful and what has proven to be unsuccessful,
Speaker 1: and how to deal with our communities. There's no question
Speaker 1: that we need to have a bond with the members
Speaker 1: of our community. There's no question that all of us
Speaker 1: are opposed to abuses that occur, and none of us
Speaker 1: want to see abuses at the hands of police officers.
Speaker 1: We can all agree with that, so we have to
Speaker 1: be sensitive to that. We have to hire the best people,
Speaker 1: train him as properly it is possible, and we have
Speaker 1: to hold them accountable. But to watch the nonsense that's
Speaker 1: going on as a result of some of these things
Speaker 1: is kind of extraordinarily disappointing. Yeah, and it's also just
Speaker 1: the quality of life issue with a lot of these things, right,
Speaker 1: it's not you know, I say, well, you give people
Speaker 1: a second chance. But as as you talked about earlier, Chief,
Speaker 1: when you own businesses, and you know, people are disturbing
Speaker 1: the peace in front of your business, causing trouble. They're
Speaker 1: drunk or whatever, and they're making threats and no one's
Speaker 1: gonna be punished for I mean that that affects the
Speaker 1: quality of life. I mean I heard stories in San
Speaker 1: Francisco of what went on when he was running the
Speaker 1: show there, George Gascon in San Francisco, And it sounds
Speaker 1: like that's gonna be coming to Los Angeles. But these
Speaker 1: are really quality of life things. These you know, these
Speaker 1: it seems like you meaningless stuff and the pictures how trespassing.
Speaker 1: Who cares? But you know, somebody's trespassing in your property
Speaker 1: right And this becomes a problem if it continues over
Speaker 1: and over again. We want to espouse that we care
Speaker 1: about people and we're sensitive to about people's welfare. And
Speaker 1: and then if I were to walk you downtown and
Speaker 1: look at skid Row and to realize that we have
Speaker 1: probably sixty thousand people living on the streets in this
Speaker 1: city in the worst of conditions, Uh, what does that
Speaker 1: really say about how we treat humanely those of us
Speaker 1: that have problems in the community. If you have a
Speaker 1: mental problem, if you have a drug problem, etcetera. How
Speaker 1: do we treat you well, Let you live in that
Speaker 1: kind of squalor we let you get exposed to um
Speaker 1: diseases and illnesses and things like that. Uh, we let
Speaker 1: you live in an area infested with with rats and
Speaker 1: feces and all those things that that kind of problem,
Speaker 1: you know, presents to a community. And and and yet
Speaker 1: out the other side of our mouth, we're talking all
Speaker 1: these great wonderful things we're gonna do. And oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, send us more money so we can fix
Speaker 1: this problem that actually we've created. Yeah, we have. We
Speaker 1: have gone a long way to destroy some of these
Speaker 1: major cities in this country. Um. I think Dave's been
Speaker 1: up to San Francisco in the recent past, and it's
Speaker 1: like shocking to hear the stories, and I hear them
Speaker 1: from other people who have been there. But you know,
Speaker 1: I'm a big Kings fan, and I go downtown frequently still,
Speaker 1: and you know, you don't want to get too far
Speaker 1: off the main drags there because you're looking around and
Speaker 1: you're saying, boy, you know, I'm allowed to pack a gun,
Speaker 1: but a lot of these poor people here they have
Speaker 1: no chance as somebody jumps them. Yeah, I was just
Speaker 1: in downtown Los Angeles this weekend. I went to the
Speaker 1: bookstore down there and skid Role. You know, there was
Speaker 1: this point of demarcation, as you know that one in
Speaker 1: one street over was was bad, and then over it
Speaker 1: wasn't that bad. On the other side it was kind
Speaker 1: of nice downtown. Skid Rose moved. All were a couple
Speaker 1: of blocks. Now it's no longer just in that that
Speaker 1: one corridor, and no one seems to want to address that.
Speaker 1: Like the homeless problem, it's even worse, obviously because of
Speaker 1: what's happened now with people losing their jobs. But everyone's
Speaker 1: concerned about other things, but the homeless it just keeps
Speaker 1: they keeps piling up. What's it gonna take for politicians
Speaker 1: to actually do something about that? And it's something we
Speaker 1: look at it this way. If your coach kept presenting
Speaker 1: you with a football team that was three and thirteen
Speaker 1: year after year, what's it gonna take. It takes a change.
Speaker 1: You know, we're gonna have to change out politicians. People
Speaker 1: are going to have to recognize that you can't keep
Speaker 1: voting the same types of people in or the same
Speaker 1: people in, because you're going to continue to get this
Speaker 1: kind of nonsense. It's it's the definition of insanity, isn't it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it is is wild. What's been going on with
Speaker 1: the on this problem? That's great though, you even you
Speaker 1: are allowed to carry a weapon. When you go to downtown,
Speaker 1: you kind of look around a little bit're like, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, what's going on around here? This is not
Speaker 1: This is not where I want to be. If you
Speaker 1: go go a block over. Well, you know, we're really
Speaker 1: concerned about health issues right now, so much so that
Speaker 1: we have this interest in locking everything down. Uh, but
Speaker 1: what are we not concerned with the health of those
Speaker 1: thousands of people in the streets that are living on
Speaker 1: top of each other in destitute conditions. Yeah, we act
Speaker 1: like we're paralyzed and we have no ideas on how
Speaker 1: to deal with them, and then we ask for more money,
Speaker 1: and then pretty soon there's billions of dollars and you
Speaker 1: look around and the problem has grown. So, you know,
Speaker 1: there comes a point where you say stop. You know,
Speaker 1: let's look at this again from the beginning and let's
Speaker 1: figure out ways to fix this. We need solutions. We
Speaker 1: don't need to keep adding to the problem. Yeah, absolutely
Speaker 1: correct here, and so you know, going going forward, you know,
Speaker 1: what do you You say you need new politicians, but
Speaker 1: it's like the same type of people run for these offices.
Speaker 1: So what's it going to take to get some new
Speaker 1: blood politically to actually do something well? I think it
Speaker 1: takes a significant frustration level in the electorate. Um. So
Speaker 1: now we're watching this unfold as it relates to COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen and the countermeasures that are being taken in some
Speaker 1: um cities, counties, and states. We're in a position to
Speaker 1: see what's going on and learn um those various actions
Speaker 1: by elected officials across the nation, and we can make
Speaker 1: judgments is to how they're handling handling themselves and how
Speaker 1: they want to attack the problem. And what's happened now
Speaker 1: across the country is there is a sizable percentage of
Speaker 1: the population that has now come to the conclusion that
Speaker 1: elected officials, many of them, are not to be trusted
Speaker 1: and that their judgments are faulty. Um, that they say
Speaker 1: one thing, but they don't believe it, or they don't
Speaker 1: act like they believe what they're saying. Uh. They impose
Speaker 1: certain rules and regulations and yet they ignore them themselves.
Speaker 1: And the population has had enough, And I think that's
Speaker 1: going to continue to grow, and the frustration is going
Speaker 1: to continue to grow even though we're facing this health crisis. UM,
Speaker 1: the frustration with leadership is um going to continue to grow,
Speaker 1: and that's going to result in some further changes down
Speaker 1: the road. So I saw a great video I think
Speaker 1: it was from San Bernardino, the police, the guy running
Speaker 1: the police out there, who pushed back on Gavin Newsom
Speaker 1: here in California trying to you know, shut down businesses
Speaker 1: as you referred to the lockdown which is really just
Speaker 1: wild here in California right now, with businesses being restaurants
Speaker 1: being forced to close, barbershops, all that stuff. And he
Speaker 1: brought up a great point though about how in California
Speaker 1: and it's in other states, these politicians are using the police,
Speaker 1: their weaponizing the police to fight their battles with mom
Speaker 1: and pop businesses. You talked to a lot of people
Speaker 1: still in law enforcement. What what's been the general reaction
Speaker 1: from from the people you deal with here about politicians
Speaker 1: demanding you go in and you know, lockdown and arrest
Speaker 1: people running a pizza shop. Well, I think, uh, there's
Speaker 1: frustration at every level of of the community, and that
Speaker 1: would include your public servants. UM. So I think the
Speaker 1: address your discussing is a speech by I think the
Speaker 1: Riverside County sheriff. There's about five sheriffs that have taken
Speaker 1: some pretty strong positions in in the state. You know,
Speaker 1: the state's divided, I think into fifty eight counties, and
Speaker 1: the sheriffs are constitutionally um protect the position. And it
Speaker 1: is one of the first things that we did when
Speaker 1: California's constitution was was put together and passed. It was
Speaker 1: it designates who the offices are and how the county
Speaker 1: should be run. The sheriff is is certainly one of them.
Speaker 1: And as some sheriffs may tell you, uh, the sheriff
Speaker 1: may have more votes than the than any of the
Speaker 1: members of the board of supervisors. So it's kind of
Speaker 1: interesting when you watch some of the nonsense that's gone
Speaker 1: on in Los Angeles with the power plays back and
Speaker 1: forth between the sheriff and the county supervisors, and um,
Speaker 1: you know, the sheriff's have said, wait a minute. I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, look back and objectively look at that, and
Speaker 1: let me considered. I have a real responsibility. I swear
Speaker 1: an oath to the constitution also, and and in that
Speaker 1: oath I have to be sensitive to all of these issues.
Speaker 1: And I'm not going to, um, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: be oppressive and abusive to to a largely peaceful and
Speaker 1: responsible community. And I'm not going to be used um
Speaker 1: by some elected officials when they have no substantiated reason
Speaker 1: for the actions that they're taking. On one hand, they
Speaker 1: say it's about the science, except when you want to
Speaker 1: see the science, the science doesn't support their views. And
Speaker 1: then when you find them going out and doing the
Speaker 1: opposite of what they're demanding the public do. Uh, not
Speaker 1: only is there frustration, but you you're not buying it.
Speaker 1: And and it's not just the elected officials. Are the
Speaker 1: elected sheriffs that feel that way? That would be pervasive
Speaker 1: in the ranks. Um, you don't want to be used
Speaker 1: as a sheriff step at here as a police officer, Uh,
Speaker 1: to be a tool of somebody who's doing something that
Speaker 1: you believe is inappropriate and perhaps even unconstitutional. Yeah. And
Speaker 1: I have noticed that the phrase, and we've talked about
Speaker 1: on the podcast with your son here, that the out
Speaker 1: of an abundance of caution. Like I feel like these politicians,
Speaker 1: if they use that line, they think they can get
Speaker 1: away with anything. Uh. And and common sense. That's the
Speaker 1: thing that's lacking. You know, common sense is not common
Speaker 1: right now. But you look at around the country in
Speaker 1: certain states have opened up a lot more compared to California,
Speaker 1: and they don't have the problems that California has. And
Speaker 1: yet as you reference, you call the politicians out on
Speaker 1: this and they just do a tap dance, and so
Speaker 1: it just it's just going to continue on and on.
Speaker 1: But uh, if you were, if you were in charge,
Speaker 1: obviously we don't know all the data and all that
Speaker 1: we know a lot of it on the internet. But
Speaker 1: what do you think the proper way to handle what's
Speaker 1: been going on here with this public health situation with
Speaker 1: the COVID. Uh, if if you were in charge, what
Speaker 1: do you think the proper way to handle it would be? Well, so,
Speaker 1: so remember how we generally deal with a responsible group
Speaker 1: of people. You can start with chill run And what
Speaker 1: is our priority? If I was to tell you, what's
Speaker 1: one of the very most important things we do when
Speaker 1: we're raising children. You want to educate children. Certainly, you
Speaker 1: want to keep them healthy and safe, um, but we
Speaker 1: want to educate them. Education is a top priority. Police
Speaker 1: departments and sheriff's departments. We come in after everything else
Speaker 1: seems to have failed, and we're supposed to fix things.
Speaker 1: We're supposed to neutralize the threats, the problems, and deal
Speaker 1: with the the event itself. But the best way to
Speaker 1: do it is to prevent problems from happening. And so therefore,
Speaker 1: we want a robust educational system uh to take care
Speaker 1: of how we nurture and raise our children. Well, the
Speaker 1: same thing about education goes for adults. Um. We we
Speaker 1: should have launched a major educational effort that goes from
Speaker 1: the top of our state all the way through to
Speaker 1: the local community and make sure that we provide the
Speaker 1: best and most consistent unless they consistent twice uh. Information
Speaker 1: out there. People don't want to get exposed to this disease.
Speaker 1: People don't want to die. People want to live a
Speaker 1: healthy life. People believe in the constitution. Uh, they can
Speaker 1: express their free will, but they want to live. And
Speaker 1: when we start trying to treat them like cattle and
Speaker 1: heard them in different directions, UH, they've gotten to the
Speaker 1: point where they're they're not gonna be hearded. Um. So
Speaker 1: the best approach is always education. The best approach is
Speaker 1: always too patiently try to explain and get them to
Speaker 1: understand and follow without having to force and not use
Speaker 1: coercive force of police and sheriffs departments. Yeah, and we've
Speaker 1: seen as I said, you know, Florida they have had
Speaker 1: a more hands off approach, for example, and they don't
Speaker 1: have the problems that California is now. I also want
Speaker 1: to talk in this political climate that we're in, Chief,
Speaker 1: I love the fact that you, because of your your
Speaker 1: years and law enforcement from what I understand, from what
Speaker 1: your son tells me, and I've heard through the grapevine,
Speaker 1: you have great relationships with people who you completely disagree with.
Speaker 1: You referred to. We talked about George Gascon earlier, the
Speaker 1: district attorney in l A who you are completely, uh,
Speaker 1: the opposite of as far as his some of his
Speaker 1: political beliefs. But but you get along with these guys.
Speaker 1: We live in a world right now where if you
Speaker 1: disagree politically, you you cannot be friends like you know,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm more like you where I have friends that
Speaker 1: are you know, I disagree with politically. But uh, you know,
Speaker 1: how did we get to this point where now if
Speaker 1: you if you're not in lockstep, you're done. Yeah, Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's there's no question, and it's like, um, and we
Speaker 1: can talk politics here. We have so polarized our political
Speaker 1: environment here that it it's now pervasive throughout life in
Speaker 1: the entire tree. Now you line up whether you're to
Speaker 1: the left or to the right of center, and we
Speaker 1: can't find the middle ground anymore. Used to be the
Speaker 1: measure of UM. Successful politician was figuring out a way
Speaker 1: to find win win propositions, meeting somewhere in the in
Speaker 1: the middle. Um And. And that's the way you accomplish
Speaker 1: things by meeting and working with each other. And we're
Speaker 1: not doing that. We seem to have gotten to the
Speaker 1: point where the political parties and the nature of the
Speaker 1: parties and their philosophies supersedes the commitment to the United
Speaker 1: States itself, to the Constitution and to the people of
Speaker 1: the United States. UM. And it's a selfish and absolutely
Speaker 1: selfish way to look at politics, to think of you
Speaker 1: and your party first and not think of the American
Speaker 1: public in adherence to the Constitution and what's best for
Speaker 1: the United States. And that's where we are. And until
Speaker 1: we can find elective officials that are willing to do that,
Speaker 1: we're going to be in a world to hurt and
Speaker 1: guess who's going to take advantage of it. I mean,
Speaker 1: we're reading about it the last couple of days. There
Speaker 1: are people constantly probing, constantly looking for a way to
Speaker 1: weaken the nature of the United States. The rule of
Speaker 1: law here has been undermined now for many years, and
Speaker 1: so there are people who are they don't have the
Speaker 1: best interests of the people the United States in mind,
Speaker 1: political power and political power on the international stage as
Speaker 1: a priority for a lot of people and a lot
Speaker 1: of organizations, and frankly, those of us on this call,
Speaker 1: we really don't count for much. How much of this
Speaker 1: has to do us horn ourselves out to the international community,
Speaker 1: whether it's China, Russia, the UK, Germany, whatever it may be.
Speaker 1: Because we had this conversation off the air, but the
Speaker 1: Chinese have systematically the infiltrated every area of our nation,
Speaker 1: whether it's politically, government, pharmaceuticals and medicine, academics, like they've
Speaker 1: gone through and have taken shots at us and have
Speaker 1: you know, taken a little skin off the off the body.
Speaker 1: We don't even know where we're compromised. That's how bad
Speaker 1: it is. Um. I I remember pointing out a little
Speaker 1: over a year maybe eighteen months ago to a good
Speaker 1: friend of mine. UM the fact that we seem to
Speaker 1: be arresting professors across the country UM at some of
Speaker 1: our major universities for their involvement with the Communist Chinese
Speaker 1: Party UH activities. And and then eventually we learn of
Speaker 1: the gazillions of dollars that are being pumped into these
Speaker 1: universities donations. Sometimes we're not even they're not even reported,
Speaker 1: but but we're talking about billions of dollars that have
Speaker 1: been funneled into the country. And there's a reason for that. UH,
Speaker 1: there's a reason that you know, they're contacting local mayors
Speaker 1: and trying to select people who have shall we stay
Speaker 1: ambition and that may one day become Congress people and
Speaker 1: may find themselves on the Intelligence Committee. There's a reason
Speaker 1: for all of that that doesn't have by accident. These
Speaker 1: are people that are help bent on doing what they
Speaker 1: think is in their interests. And we we seem to
Speaker 1: be naive, We seem to have our head in the sands,
Speaker 1: so to speak, not to be aware of this stuff,
Speaker 1: or we're not being educated well enough by the responsible
Speaker 1: organizations in our government to be aware of this. UM
Speaker 1: we we we we only have to look at what
Speaker 1: going what is going on in the university uh systems
Speaker 1: that to find out how threatening this is because our
Speaker 1: young people are getting hit with things that lay eater
Speaker 1: on translate into problems for our way of life. You know,
Speaker 1: we we believe we have a great way of life.
Speaker 1: We believe this is a great country, and there are
Speaker 1: people outside of the country that believe we are a
Speaker 1: major threat to the rest of the of the world.
Speaker 1: You know, I think we all want to get to
Speaker 1: the Star Trek universe at some point where we all
Speaker 1: get along and all work together, et cetera. But across
Speaker 1: the globe we've demonstrated we continue to demonstrate we're not
Speaker 1: ready to do that yet. And those people that think
Speaker 1: we can just flip the switch and do it are
Speaker 1: are are really causing problems on the international stage, and
Speaker 1: they're certainly causing problems in this country. So do you
Speaker 1: think the root is money? I think money is a
Speaker 1: means by which people can achieve the ideology. So they know, um,
Speaker 1: those that have money to burn, so to speak, No,
Speaker 1: that money can be used to accomplish what their goal is.
Speaker 1: UM value money. It's it's a cornerstone of our capitalistic system. Um,
Speaker 1: we measure success that way. We like the toys, we
Speaker 1: like to buy things and own things, and we like
Speaker 1: to be viewed as uh significantly successful, etcetera. So money
Speaker 1: becomes a natural uh tool to be used against us.
Speaker 1: And it is so when we have positions like Eric
Speaker 1: Swalwell a couple of days ago and Diane Feinstein's aid
Speaker 1: from I think a year or two ago, that have
Speaker 1: been caught or found to be compromised or at working
Speaker 1: for a foreign intelligence agency or a government. What do
Speaker 1: you recommend happens to those individuals here that are are
Speaker 1: actually sitting in a position of power politically. Well, there's
Speaker 1: a question of what the investigations might tell you if
Speaker 1: you do an honest investigation. UM, it shouldn't be surprising
Speaker 1: to anyone that experts know how to work us. You know,
Speaker 1: they've spent a lot of time, they've spent years. They
Speaker 1: know how to successfully um inject themselves into the political
Speaker 1: life of a community or the or the country. And
Speaker 1: they can do it in a sophisticated way. And you
Speaker 1: might not even know it's happening to you until you
Speaker 1: end up in a situation where you're other elbows with somebody.
Speaker 1: You're having dinner with somebody, UM, but you don't understand
Speaker 1: that there's there's another reason other than the friendship uh
Speaker 1: that they have. And I mean we see this in
Speaker 1: criminal activities. I mean, I worked undercovering arcotics back in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy one, and you can see it then with
Speaker 1: the people that you were interacting with. They're not Communist
Speaker 1: spies or agents, etcetera. But they were criminals and they
Speaker 1: had a reason for the things that they were doing.
Speaker 1: And you know, you you kind of learn when you
Speaker 1: get exposed to it. And some people in our country
Speaker 1: FBI UM are are intelligence agencies that are far more
Speaker 1: sophisticated and understand what we're dealing with. But we're not.
Speaker 1: We're not educated at the level we need to be
Speaker 1: what the threat is. And I don't think most of
Speaker 1: our elected officials are educated enough or insulated from the
Speaker 1: kinds of things that can actually cause us grief. And
Speaker 1: although I'm not a fan of Eric Swallwell's UM, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't be the I wouldn't be one to immediately assume
Speaker 1: that he was an agent UM for the Communist Chinese.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say that at all. He could he could
Speaker 1: clearly and easily just be a duke um and not
Speaker 1: know any better. Uh, you know, which is remarkable if
Speaker 1: you listen to some of the things that he said
Speaker 1: over the last four years. So um, but I think
Speaker 1: I think we have to realize there are people that
Speaker 1: are twenty four seven. They are looking to damage the
Speaker 1: United States and to subvert our government, whereas we may
Speaker 1: and not even be thinking about those things throughout the
Speaker 1: course of our days. One of the ways that they
Speaker 1: have gone out for us is, I think we can
Speaker 1: all agree with this is the way that the news
Speaker 1: has been published to the masses, whether it's left leaning
Speaker 1: or right leaning. Is there a fix for that? Well,
Speaker 1: that's that's really problematic when we get into it. So
Speaker 1: you know, I fashioned myself a little bit of an
Speaker 1: expert in dealing with the news media. I also recognize
Speaker 1: that rather than seeing a large conspiracy here, we have
Speaker 1: to understand who we're dealing with. His individuals and they
Speaker 1: have some common traits, um, but they it's the way
Speaker 1: they look at themselves and who they are, and it's
Speaker 1: what their personal belief system is that too frequently gets
Speaker 1: in the way of news and it becomes opinion. And
Speaker 1: it also then provides a slant to the way stories carried, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Now that's separate and apart from what the the um
Speaker 1: the actual agencies that hire the reporters and put them
Speaker 1: on the air or publish their stories. That's that's a
Speaker 1: completely different issue, because again there's an ideology at the
Speaker 1: top of those organizations, whether it be The New York Times,
Speaker 1: watching the Post, ABC News, NBC, there are bosses in
Speaker 1: control that are guiding and directing what is going on below,
Speaker 1: and we've seen some examples recently with CNN. So you know,
Speaker 1: if you get this desire to unify on on a
Speaker 1: purpose to be accomplished, and you have the power of
Speaker 1: your organization to advance that, then you can be pretty
Speaker 1: destructive to the extent that you can influence the people
Speaker 1: that follow you. But when you have so many of
Speaker 1: them that philosophically agree on something, the question then becomes
Speaker 1: is the public well served? I happen to believe that
Speaker 1: in a democracy, UM, we all need as much objective
Speaker 1: information as we can get so that we can make
Speaker 1: good decisions. Good decisions on who we elect office is
Speaker 1: what we're talking about here. So I'd like to know
Speaker 1: the truth about all of these candidates. And the question
Speaker 1: is am I getting it or am I getting only
Speaker 1: half of the story? Which is the half of the
Speaker 1: story that I'm allowed to hear. Uh So, I want
Speaker 1: a free press and I want an objective press, and
Speaker 1: I want to hear both sides of the stories. We're
Speaker 1: not a country that says, okay, we have this. These
Speaker 1: are the left newspapers and these are the right newspapers, etcetera.
Speaker 1: We have our our papers who want to tell us
Speaker 1: that they're telling us the truth. Our agencies on television
Speaker 1: want to tell us that they're telling us the truth.
Speaker 1: But the question is are they really on one side
Speaker 1: of the political spectrum. I'm gonna pivot real quick, and
Speaker 1: uh Ben can jump in on this because I know
Speaker 1: you'll have some fun with it. Obviously, the O J stuff,
Speaker 1: that's one thing. The Michael Jackson cases are another. But
Speaker 1: the North Hollywood shootout, how would you have handled that
Speaker 1: if you were in charge? Well, it's a tactical situation
Speaker 1: once it starts going down. They so they effectively did
Speaker 1: what they should have done. Um, you know the first units,
Speaker 1: and I happen to know one of the officers in
Speaker 1: the first unit that was there when you get when
Speaker 1: you get to that kind of a situation, you try
Speaker 1: to secure the perimeter. You bring in all the resources
Speaker 1: that you needed. They did all of that stuff, but
Speaker 1: we had been in a situation where essentially we had
Speaker 1: shotguns in side arms, and then you're dealing with people
Speaker 1: that are fully equipped for war, not only with body
Speaker 1: armor but the types of weapons that they had. So
Speaker 1: when you have automatic weapons, you have armor piercing rounds
Speaker 1: and things like that, you're ready to see. You know,
Speaker 1: you're a small infantry company and and so you know,
Speaker 1: I think we ended up having ten or eleven officers
Speaker 1: wounded in that two of them seriously, um you know,
Speaker 1: shot through the femur and absolutely vaporized like four inches
Speaker 1: of bone in the femer. I think for both of them, UM,
Speaker 1: terrible situations. Yet we didn't lose anyone, but easily could
Speaker 1: have lost them. And so um, they did what they
Speaker 1: needed to do, and eventually one was killed. He was
Speaker 1: shot simultaneously through the spinal cord at the same time
Speaker 1: he pulled the trigger and killed himself. So both of
Speaker 1: those UM bullets ended his life. And then the second
Speaker 1: one ended up down the street, and three or three
Speaker 1: of the guys that used to work at SLAT when
Speaker 1: when I was at metro Um, they were the people
Speaker 1: that ended up confronting him and he lost that firefight
Speaker 1: and that that ended it. But that was you know,
Speaker 1: as that thing unfold it's easy to go back and say, well,
Speaker 1: this is what we had and this is the best
Speaker 1: way to have approached at et cetera. But that's not
Speaker 1: how the real world works. The real world worked exactly
Speaker 1: the way you saw it on TV and live action.
Speaker 1: Is this started unfolding before your eyes, and it's a
Speaker 1: dynamic situation that everybody's trying to respond to and trying
Speaker 1: to make good decisions, trying not to get themselves killed
Speaker 1: along the way, and not trying to protect the community.
Speaker 1: Pretty interesting case. Yeah, and chief when you're when you're
Speaker 1: out and about, right when you're you're out and about,
Speaker 1: is there a day in normal times when someone doesn't
Speaker 1: bring up the O J case to you? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: I just I did something a few months ago that
Speaker 1: was just not television in October. It was a British
Speaker 1: production company. And I tell people that's a that's a
Speaker 1: case that will never go away because you'll remember at
Speaker 1: the time it happened the way, uh it impacted the country,
Speaker 1: and it's like, uh, there were so many different hooks
Speaker 1: that this had into the community. People that were into sports,
Speaker 1: people that were into movies and television, people that were
Speaker 1: into advertising and marketing, people that cared about society, the
Speaker 1: racial issue and those angles. All those things created a
Speaker 1: following that made that one of those once in a
Speaker 1: century types of stories that just gathered enormous interests. I
Speaker 1: run into people to this day and it'll it'll come
Speaker 1: up um where people want to talk about it and
Speaker 1: I want to talk about it um as one of
Speaker 1: those moments in their lives where they remember every detail
Speaker 1: about it. I talked to somebody the other day it
Speaker 1: was like, yeah, I followed it religiously, all of it.
Speaker 1: It's really yeah. I mean I find those people all
Speaker 1: the time where they find uh interesting perspectives. Um. Because
Speaker 1: it was very dramatic. My part time job for of
Speaker 1: yusually used to reach scripts at night in the middle
Speaker 1: of the night to be rooting scripts for Steven Bocco,
Speaker 1: whether it's Hill Street Blues or one of the other programs.
Speaker 1: But uh so I got to know some of the
Speaker 1: producers and directors and a few of the actors, but
Speaker 1: it was. It was interesting in dealing with some of
Speaker 1: them in the years after the Simpson case. They would
Speaker 1: tell me that, hey, this is this is what I
Speaker 1: do for a living. I do drama. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: thinking of these things. And he said that day I
Speaker 1: thinking of One director in particularly said that day I
Speaker 1: spent the whole day sitting in my bed at Big Sir,
Speaker 1: watching what happened in this thing, this event, and watching
Speaker 1: you on television and the two news conferences. He said,
Speaker 1: I'll never forget it. It was one of those seminal
Speaker 1: moments in my you know, life in this country. He said,
Speaker 1: it just made that much of an impression on me. Well,
Speaker 1: it did. It made that much of oppression on people. Uh,
Speaker 1: it turns out around the globe. You know. A couple
Speaker 1: of years ago, I'm down on Argentina with one of
Speaker 1: the United States national teams and I'm in a meeting
Speaker 1: with their Olympic Committee people. And the guy who spoke
Speaker 1: in just leaked over and he said, the guys are
Speaker 1: talking about Jenny said, what do you mean they're talking
Speaker 1: about me? We're down here to talk about the sport.
Speaker 1: He said, They're all talking about you because they all
Speaker 1: watched you and the Simpson thing. And I'm thinking, these
Speaker 1: guys are in buenas aries and they're talking about watching
Speaker 1: the Simpson thing. It's like craziness. But that's what happened.
Speaker 1: It was it was everywhere, and it was of great
Speaker 1: interest for a number of different reasons. And No, I
Speaker 1: don't expect it will go away for a while. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're teaching as a result of this thing. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of people that just want to They remembered
Speaker 1: so clearly, and there was so much of a following
Speaker 1: and there's there's so much media about it that, um,
Speaker 1: I don't expect it's going to go away for decades now.
Speaker 1: Early on, Like, I know you've been asked a million times,
Speaker 1: but when you first found out about this and you
Speaker 1: realized that o J could be tied to it, Like,
Speaker 1: what was the reaction among the department there, the people
Speaker 1: around you when you found out, oh my god, this
Speaker 1: could be you know, a legendary figure like oh J
Speaker 1: could be involved in something like this. Well, it kind
Speaker 1: of goes back to that Monday morning. I got into
Speaker 1: the office between eight and nine o'clock as I'm as
Speaker 1: I usually do, and uh I was the commander at
Speaker 1: the time, and working with with me was Lieutenant John Duncan,
Speaker 1: who handled a lot of the press and um I
Speaker 1: would have him brief me every morning on anything that
Speaker 1: occurred overnight or over the weekends. And John came in
Speaker 1: and uh I said, anything going on over the weekend?
Speaker 1: He said, not really, it was really quiet. He said,
Speaker 1: although we did have a double homicide in Brentwood, said John,
Speaker 1: a double homicide in Brentwood. We don't even get murders
Speaker 1: in Brentwood. When you talking about double homicide, what's the story?
Speaker 1: And he says, uh, O J. Simpson's ex wife. And
Speaker 1: I said, quote O. J. Simpson's ex wife. Where is O. J. Simpson?
Speaker 1: And he told me, which is interesting because you know
Speaker 1: a lot of people had that rush to judgment charge
Speaker 1: they wanted to make against the l a p D.
Speaker 1: But he said this, He said, I talked to the
Speaker 1: guys from Robbert Homicide and they said he didn't have
Speaker 1: any to do with it. He's in Chicago. Well, that
Speaker 1: was early information. So often the first information you get
Speaker 1: is not totally accurate. That's why you investigate things and
Speaker 1: it takes time. But the first briefing I received. I
Speaker 1: asked that question specifically, and his answer was, now, he
Speaker 1: didn't have anything to do with it. The guys say
Speaker 1: he's in Chicago. Then later on that day, you know,
Speaker 1: he returns, and then there's an interview, and then we're
Speaker 1: watching this unfold. I'm getting phone calls from particularly from
Speaker 1: UM New York and Miami, talking about the O J.
Speaker 1: Simpson I didn't know. Um A lot of us grew
Speaker 1: up here that we're big U c l A Basketball
Speaker 1: fans because we all loved John Wooden and he was
Speaker 1: highly successful. And then we were also big USC football
Speaker 1: fans because John McKay was fantastic and really fun to
Speaker 1: follow and had great football teams. And then we had
Speaker 1: O J. Simpson who was an incredible running back. And UM,
Speaker 1: so we were big fans. And so as the story
Speaker 1: starts unfold over a few days, it starts looking like, oh,
Speaker 1: he he probably did too. O J. Simpson did this,
Speaker 1: and he had people shaking her head. They just couldn't
Speaker 1: believe it. And and it's in a lot of ways,
Speaker 1: were like the general public, which is we watch people
Speaker 1: on television and we think we know them. We watched
Speaker 1: interviews after they've been successful you know, they scored the
Speaker 1: winning touchdown whatever, and they seem likable and warm and fuzzy. Uh.
Speaker 1: They do a broadcast or they're in a TV program
Speaker 1: or a movie, and we like them and follow them,
Speaker 1: and we know the successes of their life, and we
Speaker 1: feel we know these people. And that's always a problem
Speaker 1: for prosecutors when they deal with you know, V I. P.
Speaker 1: S Um, somebody with a high profile, because people think
Speaker 1: they know them. Well, we as we found out, we
Speaker 1: didn't know O. J. Simpson. Um. Eventually we found out
Speaker 1: plenty about O. J. Simpson and so it was it
Speaker 1: was surprising, it was disappointing. And uh and yet have
Speaker 1: you been around a while, you understand that, Uh, these
Speaker 1: things do happen. It happened in this case, tragic case,
Speaker 1: and the one thing that seems to get lost. But
Speaker 1: I always make sure I bring it up as we've
Speaker 1: got to think of those two young people who didn't
Speaker 1: deserve to die, and they certainly didn't deserve to die
Speaker 1: like that. Absolutely, what what do you think happened to
Speaker 1: the murder weapon? Well, he had apple time to get
Speaker 1: rid of it. Um. You know, there's plenty of speculation
Speaker 1: on that. I don't have any speculations that there was
Speaker 1: somebody else involved. Um, I believe that, you know, not
Speaker 1: only did he do it, but he's probably responsible for
Speaker 1: whatever happened with it. Um. And it's gone. And so
Speaker 1: you know, you remember this story a couple of years
Speaker 1: ago over they thought they found the potential knife and
Speaker 1: it didn't turn out to be etcetera. UM. A lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of cases you're short on um, on evidence,
Speaker 1: you're short on eyewitnesses, you're short on a lot of
Speaker 1: things that you think you need. But the O. J.
Speaker 1: Simpson case, yeah, lacking lacking the knife, but the O. J.
Speaker 1: Simpson case had tremendous amount of evidence to the extent
Speaker 1: that you there should be no doubt in anyone's mind,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people, UM, I really don't have
Speaker 1: any doubt that he did it. Yeah, when you chief,
Speaker 1: when you see O J now on Twitter golfing in
Speaker 1: Vegas and all that, and you saw the photos and
Speaker 1: all the evidence in that case goes through your mind
Speaker 1: when you know, I went to jail for a while
Speaker 1: for a crime in Nevada, but he's seems to be
Speaker 1: living living a pretty good life right now. Yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: I think back to what I heard early on, actually
Speaker 1: before I became a police officer. I mean, I didn't
Speaker 1: grow up wanting to be a police officer. And I
Speaker 1: ended up uh going to l A. Harvard College, one
Speaker 1: of our local community colleges here in Los Angeles, and
Speaker 1: so Harvard College down here right off the Harbor Freeway
Speaker 1: in Wilmington's and I took some police science classes. That boy,
Speaker 1: I was hooked in, I mean immediately hooked. We had
Speaker 1: a lieutenant down here that was teaching. The name was
Speaker 1: Rudy da Leone. He eventually retired as a captain from
Speaker 1: our Harlembeck uh station. And Rudy was like the pied
Speaker 1: piper of l A p D. I don't know how
Speaker 1: many hundreds of us ended up joining the l A
Speaker 1: p D over all the years that he taught at
Speaker 1: Harvard College. But one of the things that we've always
Speaker 1: heard about, and you hear it expressed in law school
Speaker 1: and here to express all the time and philosophy courses, etcetera.
Speaker 1: We'd rather a hundred guilty people get released than put
Speaker 1: an innocent person in jail or even worse, you know,
Speaker 1: have them executed. That it's the way the system works.
Speaker 1: You have to believe that we have a great system
Speaker 1: of jurisprudence here. You have to believe in the jury system, um,
Speaker 1: And it's not going to be perfect. And so some
Speaker 1: some some bad guys are gonna walk away. They're gonna
Speaker 1: take their chances with the jury, and the jury is
Speaker 1: going to come back and say, we're just not convinced enough.
Speaker 1: They may go artificially in their minds from beyond a
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt, too, beyond any doubt, and they're gonna say,
Speaker 1: we can't convict you, and you go out the door.
Speaker 1: And if you believe in the system, and all of
Speaker 1: these law enforcement officers that swear an oath to do
Speaker 1: the best they can for the community and believe in
Speaker 1: the system, they shake their head. You know, I watched
Speaker 1: in the yearly seventies, I think in consecutive years where
Speaker 1: guys that had murdered l A police officers um walked
Speaker 1: out of court because juries had come loose, and it
Speaker 1: was just like stunning, UM. But you have to recognize
Speaker 1: that it happens. And celebrities do get a break sometimes
Speaker 1: from the fact that the community thinks they know them
Speaker 1: and jurors are apt to give them more leeway than
Speaker 1: someone else and so it's a little bit of frustration
Speaker 1: and you shake your head. Like I said, I kind
Speaker 1: of think of the poor victims, um this, this guy.
Speaker 1: Eventually we have to hope he pays the price. He'll
Speaker 1: answer to somebody far more powerful than us, but hopefully
Speaker 1: he'll be held accountable for it. But it's, um yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a it's a frustrating thing. Absolutely, listen, Chief, thank you.
Speaker 1: I know when this is all we all got to
Speaker 1: get together and hang out like like you real human beings.
Speaker 1: You know by any time that it's always a pleasure
Speaker 1: to uh spend time with you. And obviously I see
Speaker 1: Dave all the time, but you know, it's good to
Speaker 1: talk to the both of you. Enjoyed it. Be sure
Speaker 1: to catch live editions of The Ben Meller Show weekdays
Speaker 1: at two am Eastern eleven pm Pacific.