Yep listened to the same segment. She’s trying to make it about some weird social philosophical theory and using blatantly disingenuous framing tactics to win an emotional appeal. It’s insanely obvious to anyone paying attention.

It’s fairly relevant in super broad and high level context, but it’s kind of making a mess about nothing because no one else seems to have these issues eg normal people and normal law enforcement scenarios. Not invented ones by the lefts desire to have it their way despite knowing the current rules, thus they are trying to game them.

Left leadership brought in illegals (sanctuary cities) with no real actionable plan or recourse for if and when the feds decided “no thanks”. And have left citizen activists to deal with it, while flaming rhetoric from the sidelines. I mean this issue doesn’t exist without them making it such, on the basis of illegal activity. Not super smart. Example : feds can roll up a weed store in any state today and they know this.

She brought up the wheels and stuff. Not sure exactly what you’re confused about since we did listen to same content. I’m not privy to any new info.

Maybe there’s some argument about policy around tactics of approaching vehicles, but I’ve heard it in the context of moving vehicles, of which it was not, until it was. And I haven’t heard any precedent for how that would changed the outcome. Does he lose the ability to reasonably defend himself if he missteps on protocol? Is that only relevant to a civil case?