Speaker 1: You're listening to bill handle on demand from KFI AM
Speaker 1: six forty.
Speaker 2: KFI AM six forty bill handle here Monday morning, August
Speaker 2: twenty six. Well, that war, regional war in the mid
Speaker 2: East has calmed down a little tiny bit. Well, the
Speaker 2: war is not yet a massive war yet. And I
Speaker 2: explained that this morning at seven am. And you go
Speaker 2: back on demand and take a listen to that. And
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris bringing in a reported five hundred and forty
Speaker 2: million dollars since the launching of her campaign a month ago.
Speaker 2: It's pretty impressive. Trump has raised a reported one hundred
Speaker 2: and thirty eight million dollars. But Trump's campaign is mature.
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris is brand new, so you would think she
Speaker 2: would have this initial push. You've heard of Nimby not
Speaker 2: in my backyard. I'm going to give you a story
Speaker 2: of nim Free not in my front yard. And this
Speaker 2: is an LA Time story about Benjamin and Christine Granillo
Speaker 2: bought forty years ago a two point two five acre
Speaker 2: property in San Bernardino and what's going on in the
Speaker 2: neighborhood in Bloomington where they live. Developers are converting the
Speaker 2: ten Freeway and adjacent communities into a logistics corridor for
Speaker 2: the good ship into southern California, from ports into online shopping.
Speaker 2: We're talking about fulfillment centers. We're talking about these warehouses,
Speaker 2: warehouses two million square feet right there in Bloomington. They've
Speaker 2: already demolished one hundred and seventeen homes and yet another
Speaker 2: distribution center. Let me tell you, the Inland Empire is
Speaker 2: sort of a center for warehousing. It's unbelievable. So they
Speaker 2: decided they weren't going to sell their home to a
Speaker 2: developer most half and now looking out of their home
Speaker 2: instead of this view they have, they have a view
Speaker 2: now of rubble and there'll be a four hundred and
Speaker 2: eighty thousand square foot fulfillment center. Their street is going
Speaker 2: to become a truck route. Next door will be a
Speaker 2: parking lot with hundreds of truck and trailer stalls. And
Speaker 2: they didn't sell. Are they completely nuts? Yes they are.
Speaker 2: And here's what the City Council of Bloomington did with
Speaker 2: the supervisors. They voted to allow all of this to happen.
Speaker 2: And of course lawsuits are flying. These hundreds of homes
Speaker 2: will be destroyed, and the supervisor said, you know what,
Speaker 2: it's a small price to pay, as most of the
Speaker 2: cities say, you know why, we're going to get schools,
Speaker 2: We're going to get sewers, we are going to get infrastructure.
Speaker 2: When you hear about these developers coming in just grabbing
Speaker 2: land and putting up a big time density apartments, condos, malls.
Speaker 2: Today with developers have to do is they have to
Speaker 2: give so much to the city and the neighborhoods. It's
Speaker 2: completely insane. It used to be they would just put
Speaker 2: up a forty unit apartment building. That's it. They'd get
Speaker 2: the permit. It didn't matter what was happening next door
Speaker 2: if they got the zoning. Today you want to put
Speaker 2: up a forty story or a forty unit apartment building
Speaker 2: or condo project or in this case, massive warehouse facilities. Well,
Speaker 2: just to give you an idea of what they did.
Speaker 2: Just in Bloomington, right they have a two hundred and
Speaker 2: thirteen acre industrial park that is a business and they
Speaker 2: went in front of the San Bordino County supervisors who
Speaker 2: voted four zero to approve, by the way, several thousand
Speaker 2: jobs to Bloomington, which is majority Latino, twenty three thousand
Speaker 2: residents not rich, and what they're putting in infrastructure, new
Speaker 2: streets with traffic lights, sidewalks, a modern sewer system. Oh,
Speaker 2: let's talk about a modern school. Because there's a school
Speaker 2: right next door that's falling apart, has been put up
Speaker 2: there decades and decades ago. They say, we'll buy you
Speaker 2: a new school. Just do a land swap. We'll take
Speaker 2: the land from the district and we'll buy the land
Speaker 2: over there, and we'll build you a new school. They
Speaker 2: are spending tens well actually in this case, forty four
Speaker 2: and a half million dollars just to the school district
Speaker 2: for that school and the jobs. Let me tell you
Speaker 2: what developers have to do. You want to put that
Speaker 2: forty unit apartment building up, guess what you have to do?
Speaker 2: Green belts, improvements to the sewer system, so the entire
Speaker 2: area gets it. And so the lawsuits have been flying,
Speaker 2: and effectively what they're saying is, we want to keep
Speaker 2: our views, we want to keep our community, because this
Speaker 2: is going to bust up our community, and it is. Now.
Speaker 2: The question is where do you go, Nimby, Not in
Speaker 2: my backyard. Let's do it someplace else where, someplace else.
Speaker 2: How about San Bernardino is someplace else? Yet at the
Speaker 2: same time people live in San Bernardino. And so what's
Speaker 2: the answer. You know what, move out of San Bernardino
Speaker 2: and move to Beverly Hills. You won't have that problem. Oh,
Speaker 2: by the way, you probably could move to Beverly Hills
Speaker 2: because these developers, in this case, for example, you sell
Speaker 2: to them as those people did neighbors of the Grenillos.
Speaker 2: The developer buys houses from them, or for them in
Speaker 2: this case, or their neighbor. The neighbor gave up the
Speaker 2: land and in exchange what they got was a one
Speaker 2: point one to three million dollar piece of property. Their
Speaker 2: property was worth two hundred and fifty thousand, and the
Speaker 2: developer put up one point two million dollars for a
Speaker 2: home for them, completely paid for. That's the way it's
Speaker 2: going today because it is so difficult to get the
Speaker 2: zoning in exchange, this is what is demanded not only
Speaker 2: privately for neighbors, but also publicly for infrastructure for schools.
Speaker 2: And uh, what can I tell you? You know, I
Speaker 2: understand you don't want to live in a one point
Speaker 2: two million dollar home. You'd rather live in your home
Speaker 2: in the middle of Bloomington. Well, doesn't work that way.
Speaker 2: It's hey, that's the wave of the future. And so
Speaker 2: where are you gonna build it out? In the Mohave Desert?
Speaker 2: I guess so, oh wait a sec that's land that
Speaker 2: is restricted the Mohave Desert. Doesn't that protected land? I
Speaker 2: don't know where you go with this, but this makes
Speaker 2: sense to me as long it is it not in
Speaker 2: my backyard. I know that sounds a touch hypocritical because
Speaker 2: I am a hypocrite, But the bottom line is this
Speaker 2: actually makes a lot of sense. I mean, thousands of
Speaker 2: jobs versus a few hundred homes. Where do you go? Okay,
Speaker 2: we can fall Now. I've been in love. You've been
Speaker 2: in love and in love with whom, well, certainly your
Speaker 2: loved one, But animals you're in love with? Well, how
Speaker 2: about AI? And that's the problem. People are falling in
Speaker 2: love with. They're getting addicted to AI voices. Even open
Speaker 2: AI warns that this using the AI voice can be
Speaker 2: quote emotional reliance. This Seagull Samuel, senior reporter for Vox.
Speaker 2: Before joining Vox, she was a religion editor Atlantic and
Speaker 2: then said, this is our last day together. Now, let
Speaker 2: me ask you, she wasn't saying that to you. She
Speaker 2: was saying that to the software open Ai tested out
Speaker 2: GPT dash four oh latest generation. It speaks in its
Speaker 2: own voice, and users were forming an emotional relationship with
Speaker 2: what ai. I'm gonna tell you why. On the one hand,
Speaker 2: it is dangerous and on the other hand, if you
Speaker 2: look at it carefully, you're really falling in love with
Speaker 2: straight out a computer and it's not really real even
Speaker 2: though it seems real, okay, and open ai, even open
Speaker 2: ai thinks there's that risk of this emotional reliance. And
Speaker 2: open ai says the ability to complete tasks for the user,
Speaker 2: also storing and remembering key details and using those details
Speaker 2: in the conversation creates a compelling product experience and the
Speaker 2: potential for over reliance and dependence. In other words, we're
Speaker 2: doing a great job of basically fooling you into thinking
Speaker 2: you're a real talking to a real person, and that's
Speaker 2: our success. However, it could really hurt you. At least
Speaker 2: they're admitting it, and they're even giving you a warning,
Speaker 2: although they're moving balls to the wall ahead with this
Speaker 2: open Ai. The I'm talking about the companies that do this.
Speaker 2: Open Ai says, the ability to have a naturalistic this
Speaker 2: is a quote naturalistic conversation with the user may heighten
Speaker 2: the risk of anthromorphisation. I'm always get confused on that.
Speaker 2: And that's what we do that giving human like qualities.
Speaker 2: We do that to animals, you know, animals that talk
Speaker 2: during the commercials. Even Nemo the fish, when he talks
Speaker 2: to other fish, fish your friends, not food. Nemo really
Speaker 2: doesn't talk to other fish in English, although we connect
Speaker 2: with that. Isn't that cute? Right?
Speaker 1: Well, wilbur Hello, wilber.
Speaker 2: Mister ed the talking horse. So the problem is people
Speaker 2: are becoming so addicted to this stuff and it becomes
Speaker 2: so real because it used to be early on there
Speaker 2: was some kind of system, but it used your voice
Speaker 2: to come back and it was a little stilted, and
Speaker 2: you could really tell it was a computer or talking
Speaker 2: to you. Today, even a loved one, if you have
Speaker 2: a recording your dead relative, if you have a recording
Speaker 2: even a voice message left all of a sudden with AI,
Speaker 2: it can turn into having conversations with a loved one
Speaker 2: and that can be dangerous stuff. And as they tell you,
Speaker 2: this isn't real at all. What you're talking to is
Speaker 2: the machine that has just yet us And no, that's it.
Speaker 2: It's a binary system in the end, you're simply talking
Speaker 2: to a machine now, a very sophisticated machine that can
Speaker 2: mimic human voice, and with algorithms, can actually anticipate what
Speaker 2: someone would say based on the entire history of that someone,
Speaker 2: every picture, every phone call, every message left right, every
Speaker 2: written example, every letter that that person has ever produced.
Speaker 2: Putting all of that together, you now are talking to
Speaker 2: a computer that's as close to being real, and some
Speaker 2: people straight out fall in love with their AI computer
Speaker 2: straight out. Hey, what are you wearing tonight? Hey baby,
Speaker 2: how about going out tonight? See that that's what scares me?
Speaker 2: Your voice? No, No, that could be birth control. I remember,
Speaker 2: I remember, yeah, I remember having a conversation. This is
Speaker 2: what I'm frightened of is having a conversation from someone
Speaker 2: I met, you know, years and years ago, telling me, Hey, Bill,
Speaker 2: you're the best I ever had. Thank you for the
Speaker 2: two hundred dollars. Okay, I'm gonna leave it at that.
Speaker 1: If you didn't leave anything, you put it all on
Speaker 1: the table, you would leave something.
Speaker 2: Hey, Neil, what are you wearing now? This isn't me talking,
Speaker 2: This is a computer. Oh my god. Maybe how am
Speaker 2: I getting together after the show? All right, we're done.
Speaker 2: Let's move on. Okay, since it is a Monday, it
Speaker 2: is time for do they have a case with our
Speaker 2: guest and part of the show. Do I guess? Now?
Speaker 2: Do I actually use that word? You've been part of
Speaker 2: the show for so long, Wayne.
Speaker 1: Yes, sir, Plus we're going to be together next week, yeah,
Speaker 1: next day through Friday.
Speaker 2: Yep. Now right, Neil is filling in for Gary and Shannon.
Speaker 2: I believe, And so you're you're coming aboard, which is
Speaker 2: back to old times. You know it's I'm having terror
Speaker 2: dreams already about it.
Speaker 1: All right, all right, here we go. I just want
Speaker 1: to say before we get in this case, ladies, the
Speaker 1: guy who's the subject of this case does appear to
Speaker 1: be single, Von Davis. I want you to know something.
Speaker 2: Bill.
Speaker 1: You might think, why is he bringing up an old case?
Speaker 1: This is a brand new decision. However, the situation goes
Speaker 1: back forty years when Von Davis stabbed to death his
Speaker 1: wife and was convicted of second degree murder and went
Speaker 1: to prison, came out on parole and shot and killed
Speaker 1: his ex girlfriend. So he gets charged for that, and
Speaker 1: he decides instead of having a jury trial, he will
Speaker 1: waive a jury trial and he will be heard and
Speaker 1: sentenced by a three judge panel, which happens, and they
Speaker 1: give him the death penalty. Now he goes up on
Speaker 1: appeal and he says, you use some things as aggravating
Speaker 1: factors in giving me the death penalty that you shouldn't
Speaker 1: have used. And the appeals court said, that's right. Go
Speaker 1: do it again, you three judge panel. So they get
Speaker 1: him again and they go, okay, we will not consider
Speaker 1: those things, but we're still looking at the fact that
Speaker 1: you stabbed your wife to death before you shot your
Speaker 1: ex girlfriend. So death penalty again. He appeals again. This
Speaker 1: time he says, when you re sentenced me to death
Speaker 1: the second time, you did not take into account my
Speaker 1: prison adjustment. I was being a good boy in the prison.
Speaker 1: You didn't give it any weight. And an appeals court says,
Speaker 1: do it again. Now here's where we get to this case,
Speaker 1: because you can imagine how many years this took to
Speaker 1: get to this point. He comes back down. It's a
Speaker 1: different three j judges because the original three one of
Speaker 1: them passed away, two of them retired. Now it's three
Speaker 1: different judges. They look at it and they say, just
Speaker 1: the fact that you shot this woman after you'd been
Speaker 1: convicted of stabbing your wife to death is enough to
Speaker 1: give you, yes, sir, for the third time death penalty.
Speaker 1: Here's the complaint from him. Now, way back thirty whatever
Speaker 1: years ago, when I agreed to waive a jury and
Speaker 1: be dealt with by this three judge panel. I agreed
Speaker 1: to be dealt with by those three judges. You're not
Speaker 1: those three judges. A deal has been broken. I get
Speaker 1: another do over, or you have to throw out my
Speaker 1: whole case. And the government says the deal you made
Speaker 1: was not which three judges. There's no such thing as
Speaker 1: making a deal that only certain judges will deal with
Speaker 1: your case. That's not what the deal was. In fact,
Speaker 1: it wasn't even a deal. You unilaterally waived your jury
Speaker 1: trial in favor of three judge panel, which nobody could
Speaker 1: have stopped you from doing anyway. So does he again
Speaker 1: have a case or has he finally met the end
Speaker 1: of the rope?
Speaker 2: I think he has met the end of the rope,
Speaker 2: and it depends on the language of the appeals court
Speaker 2: decision and the language of remanding cases. When a case
Speaker 2: is sent down, when an appeals has been filed and
Speaker 2: the appeal is granted to the defendant, the court will
Speaker 2: send it down for example, another trial or another sentencing.
Speaker 2: And the question, and this is in this case, does
Speaker 2: it say it will be remanded to the court as
Speaker 2: opposed to it is remanded to that judge or that
Speaker 2: panel of the court. And I don't think that appeals
Speaker 2: Court said that. I don't think names were mentioned, and
Speaker 2: they normally don't. It is it goes to the court
Speaker 2: and the court said, And the fact that if it's
Speaker 2: a different judge, I don't think that matters, because judges
Speaker 2: are deemed non biased. It doesn't really matter who the
Speaker 2: judge is. It is the system that it prevails here,
Speaker 2: and the court met the requirements of the system. He's
Speaker 2: a loser and he goes down and he is going
Speaker 2: to get the death penalty, which means if this is California,
Speaker 2: it means absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, I
Speaker 2: heard of defendants asking for the death penalty knowing that
Speaker 2: they weren't going to get fried or in this case, injected.
Speaker 2: It's because it's better food on death row.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and better conditions in a lot of ways. Well,
Speaker 1: so number one, you're right. Number two, serious question is
Speaker 1: somebody leaking these cases to you in advance because it's
Speaker 1: not just that you got it right. You get it
Speaker 1: right a lot, But the thing you said is specifically
Speaker 1: what they said. Judges are fungible. It is assumed that
Speaker 1: any judge is an unbiased, impartial, reasonably competent judge. That's
Speaker 1: why you can never have a dealer or an agreement
Speaker 1: that it will only be a certain judge. And can
Speaker 1: you imagine if that was the rule every single time
Speaker 1: somebody comes back on a remake and the original judge
Speaker 1: is not available, that's the end of their case and
Speaker 1: they get to walk.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. And to answer your question,
Speaker 2: does someone leak the case to me? No, No one
Speaker 2: leaks the case to me. This is always a case
Speaker 2: to first impression where I've heard it for the first time,
Speaker 2: a legal term where the court hears it for the
Speaker 2: first time. I have heard it for the first time.
Speaker 2: Although I must tell you I do have a dartboard
Speaker 2: that and sometimes it works.
Speaker 1: It's lucky throws.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Just to put a cap on what you said. If
Speaker 1: it was California, this is Ohio, and he's not going
Speaker 1: to get executed in Ohio anytime soon, because you may
Speaker 1: recall the governor suspended executions in Ohio, why while they
Speaker 1: deal with methods of execution, and.
Speaker 2: The same thing in California has not been eliminated, is
Speaker 2: simply on moratorium because of Gavin Newsom. And we'll see.
Speaker 2: Are they going to reinstitute it? I'm sure they're not.
Speaker 2: Although this Supreme Court is not going to hold it unconstitutional,
Speaker 2: it will not. There is no chance that it is
Speaker 2: under the Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual. As a matter
Speaker 2: of fact, they will uphold a traffic ticket that gets
Speaker 2: the death penalty. I am convinced of that. Okay, moving on, Wayne, all.
Speaker 1: Right, so you said a lot of these things geop
Speaker 1: political things have calmed down, but this woman has not
Speaker 1: calmed down from buying a bunch of guns. Here's what happened.
Speaker 1: And if you want to know how this can happen,
Speaker 1: when I tell you what happened, it's in Arizona. She
Speaker 1: shows up at a gun store and she's looking at guns,
Speaker 1: and while she's looking at guns, she's on the phone,
Speaker 1: and she's also taking pictures of some of the guns
Speaker 1: and sending them somewhere. And she ends up buying seven
Speaker 1: guns and fills out all the paperwork and off she goes,
Speaker 1: and she doesn't take the guns with her. She's gonna
Speaker 1: come back and pay for them or pay off the rest,
Speaker 1: puts it posit down anyway. She goes, and as soon
Speaker 1: as she leaves, the owner of the gun store calls
Speaker 1: the ATF and says, hey, man, I'm that was really
Speaker 1: sus I'm pretty sure this woman is a straw buyer.
Speaker 1: She's not buying the guns for herself. She's not the
Speaker 1: actual buyer of the guns. I don't know who is.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying you might want to take a look.
Speaker 1: So when she comes back to get the guns, the
Speaker 1: ATF agent is there and he says, hey, man, I'm
Speaker 1: really concerned that you buy these guns for somebody else.
Speaker 1: What do you have to say about it? She says,
Speaker 1: oh no, and he goes, hey, mind if I look
Speaker 1: at your phone, and like a dummy, she says sure,
Speaker 1: and he goes in there and he opens up WhatsApp
Speaker 1: and there's a bunch of messages between her and her
Speaker 1: convicted felon son, who is, as you know, not allowed
Speaker 1: to buy guns, about her buying all these guns for him.
Speaker 1: Boom busted. Now she goes up on appeal and says,
Speaker 1: you cannot convict me of making a false statement in
Speaker 1: the acquisition of a firearm. Here's why she's got two
Speaker 1: arguments argument. The first, criminalizing lying on an ATF form
Speaker 1: violates the Second Amendment. I have a right to put
Speaker 1: something on the form that I know is not true.
Speaker 1: You want to deal with that one for yeah, before
Speaker 1: we get to the other one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that went far. I That, by the way, is
Speaker 2: very similar to a case where someone came in robbed
Speaker 2: the seven eleven with a gun and argued it is
Speaker 2: his Second Amendment right to walk into a seven eleven
Speaker 2: and put a gun to a clerk's head and ask
Speaker 2: for money. It's a Second Amendment right. That's akin to
Speaker 2: that one. Okay, So let's dismiss that one almost immediately. Okay.
Speaker 2: Now let's sake as well. Yeah, of course, all right,
Speaker 2: let's go on this number two.
Speaker 1: Okay. I mean, there's some creativity at play here, I
Speaker 1: will tell you. So the problem is, her son is
Speaker 1: a felon, can't have a gun. She bought the guns
Speaker 1: for her son, she lied on the form. Here's what
Speaker 1: she says. All right, the felon in possession statute is
Speaker 1: unconstitutional because it's unconstitutional. My son and actually is legally
Speaker 1: allowed to possess these guns. And therefore, when I lied
Speaker 1: and said I'm the buyer of the gun, even though
Speaker 1: that wasn't true, it's immterial because the person who really
Speaker 1: was buying them in essence is allowed to have them
Speaker 1: because the statute that forbids him is unconstitutional.
Speaker 2: Okay, well that's no, that's not just creativity, Okay, I mean,
Speaker 2: that's right into insanity. This is one of those where
Speaker 2: the courts, whichever judge or appeals court heard it, they
Speaker 2: go home, or they meet at the water cooler and go,
Speaker 2: guess which one I got today? This one is a doozy.
Speaker 2: And of course, the felon in possession of a gun,
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's ever even been attacked on
Speaker 2: constitutional grounds, frankly, because I don't know if what lawyer
Speaker 2: would ever make that argument, even a gun advocate, crazy
Speaker 2: gun owning lawyer would make that argument. So it was
Speaker 2: one of those I think it would have should have
Speaker 2: been dismissed with two words no, no, And that would
Speaker 2: be the case. So Wayne, don't tell me I'm wrong,
Speaker 2: because it's impossible for me to be wrong.
Speaker 1: Oh no, you are right, You are so right. And
Speaker 1: here's the best part of this. She comes up with
Speaker 1: this convoluted argument first to try to make the case
Speaker 1: that the kid is allowed to have guns because the
Speaker 1: statute that forbidsham is unconstitutional. Therefore it doesn't matter if
Speaker 1: she lied. But here's the crazy thing that she and
Speaker 1: her attorneys. In fact, I want to scroll back up
Speaker 1: and see if it says who her attorneys were, counsel
Speaker 1: Wendy Overmyer, oh from assistant Federal Public Defenders there. Okay,
Speaker 1: So here's the thing, and they should have known this.
Speaker 1: There's already a Supreme Court that says it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: if the real purchaser is allowed to own guns. Lying
Speaker 1: about it is material.
Speaker 2: It's lying on a federal form.
Speaker 1: The entire argument that she made was already foreclosed.
Speaker 2: Right, Okay, two easy ones you get. You threw me
Speaker 2: two easy ones today. Well, first one legal issue that
Speaker 2: should have been discussed and was second one. Thank you
Speaker 2: for that. You just added to my percentage of right decisions.
Speaker 2: All right, we're done and I will catch you next
Speaker 2: toe you next week, yeah, Monday and throughout the rest
Speaker 2: of the week. All right, we're done, guys, coming up tomorrow.
Speaker 2: It is Amy at five am with a wake up
Speaker 2: call and comes back. Thanks Michelle for hanging out twenty
Speaker 2: six years on this show and she had to come
Speaker 2: back and slum kno Is with us. I don't know
Speaker 2: why I mean mentioning his name. Neil and I are
Speaker 2: once again here. This is KFI AM six forty Live
Speaker 2: everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. You've been listening to the
Speaker 2: Bill Handle Show. Catch my show Monday through Friday, six
Speaker 2: am to nine am, and anytime on demand on the
Speaker 2: iHeartRadio app.