Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Welcome back to on the -- -- foxnews.com.
Live time for the big list.
And we have a single man hit list today and he is a single man and -- Tom Ruskin former NYPD detective at the president.
Of this AMP -- good to see Tom could see you let me let's get to that -- and -- case who just talking about right now do you think this changes anything.
I think as I said here -- solid state.
Months ago I think that the evidence is and -- I don't think presumably just pulled the trigger and shot.
I think there was a confrontation.
I think the medical evidence that was revealed today.
By his -- -- and by the prosecutor will show that there was some kind of fight.
If he was put on the ground in the videotape that they now have shows this kid on -- pummeling.
I think it.
-- better for the stand your ground law.
Is it did in that case fault if that -- -- case in all of this is a -- as you rightly point out.
We don't know what the prosecutors -- but if that would -- be the case if there was a fight.
And he pulled his gun on -- Florida's -- -- -- what you like that -- at all is -- golfer.
I think that's that you're -- to some several legal conclusions -- yeah.
I can do little.
It's just a giant stride Diana to -- -- step too far at night.
Really it's it it's -- incredibly complicated.
Set of facts because if he were the one who you know imagine that he was the one.
Who ran up and -- done on Morton from behind it took him down to the -- was doing the pummeling first right and then.
And you know then the victim is able to rule -- -- And roll on top of him for a minute and then the apples there again shooting kills it.
Knowing it he attacked -- any killed -- and all that Morton never did was defend himself for a few seconds that you can't say that if this happened or he had a thing.
Then it's clear that he's gonna get off Scot free it's just it's it's not clear he's going to be -- jury.
I agree with -- it really depends what led up to the fact that if the approach one.
And had a conversation even though the dispatcher told him -- Does not make -- be aggressive.
If -- -- attacked him.
You know long Bob's theory but reversed then I think he may have been.
Justified under the stand your ground law.
But it's definitely going to be a test of that law and we'll see what happens that law yet aside -- -- selling it bring about a lot of debate on that -- I really want this guy.
Hey guys -- trial if it should be on trial I mean I I I think that that is a law that really.
Encourages vigilante -- in a way that is unhealthy I mean it sounds great you know defend yourself -- you know who's -- who's.
Who's against that everybody's in favor defending themselves but.
The problem as usual list positive that you.
You know people the legislators who think through these things and had all sounds great don't really think that'll be unintended consequences of this law on this this case is one such consequence.
A couple of questions for you here acting to politics 01 we get to questions I think Sarah I writing is -- 57 says with a bullet trajectory.
Tell you anything about whether he was on his back on the ground or standing.
That -- and also from king of politics.
Could security god be charged with stalking when he fact that may have caused the fatal application that ended the life of one of the principles of the crime.
The bullet is a business -- to Sarah's.
Question -- directory it really he's going to be the forensic evidence is gonna -- this case together.
And yes the bullet trajectory will show where they were approximately where they were when the bullet was fired.
That's depending if they voucher.
The two clothing if they -- that -- -- holding which we know that they didn't.
And they captured.
-- -- Because that's very important to -- victory and then with a bullet actually into the body right to the second thing a security guard in the commencement of his job.
Cannot be charged with stalking it would really be a stretch -- the security guard was talking when he's doing what he's being paid to do.
All right I want to get to a good couple of other stories that.
Called our attention this week we we -- fuel -- full.
Backed the idea of that up to 30000.
Drones those unmanned aerial aerial vehicles.
Could be in the skies of the United States according to the FAA.
And they can be looking to and obviously they -- -- your backyard they could even look into your home.
What does it mean nobody according to -- -- of -- on I was given the government any right to do that.
Ball doesn't disturb you that this new technology is going to be up there flying -- I mean obviously there's great -- enforcement.
-- -- -- -- -- -- You stick a camera with someone's backyard fence it's an invasion of privacy.
Well they're already doing next call a satellite.
I mean I heard you know there's there it I'm not sure how much don't always -- -- another -- will do -- well my concern frankly is completely different totally different the FAA has said that this isn't you you the way you phrase that -- -- -- like these were all government drones and that's not the case only Adam Bryant hit you yes so.
Does that bother me.
-- that bothers me an awful lot and who can control what payload those drones -- -- I mean I I think this is.
Something FAA really needs to step back on to say what her way way way to minute.
We're gonna think about this little bit here this is a safety issue.
I think number one I mean I I'm bothered by the surveillance yes but frankly I think it's a long board -- more than that and I think we really need to think hard.
About safety of our airspace before the FAA says Ollie Ollie oxen free on on on private drone strike at that.
I mean they are a great tool to lower enforcement's home and and a cheap along the net necessarily having helicopters and putting those up ball.
Its privacy issues for if I was the management -- police department might really one of good legal opinion of what we could do what we Q do.
I think that certain times it could violate the Fourth Amendment without a warrant or you know what are what are.
I think to have -- spying and someone's house definitely goes to a search and seizure and the Fourth Amendment.
But you know.
To me is the same is GPS and the Supreme Court ruled on GPS the law enforcement could not -- -- GPS right on someone's caught without a warrant.
So what's the difference all right so now I don't use and the GPS I usually drone to follow them.
And see what they're doing to me I think there's going to be a court case and I think it'll -- on the side of the Fourth Amendment.
Bulk that that was one of the things of that called my -- in particular was this.
Briefly got ahold -- from the US samples which said that.
If want to lead drones or if they drone is flying off to I'm in May be checked at some activity on the US Mexico border.
All or whatever it's doing -- go look at a hostage situation in downtown Chicago and I think quote incidentally.
Captures video of something else that actually their attention on in my backyard with a bunch of bags of fertilizer some tomato -- I might grow marijuana wrote later on tonight using up fertilize it it fertilize -- to build a bomb they can they can keep that this memo said they can keep that for ninety days and stock.
Investigating that it that's historically consistent I haven't read the memo but that's a dead and that's not a surprising conclusion because of the police are in the conduct of legitimate activity.
And they noticed something else going on they can go pursue that something else and I mean that's the general rule so we've that's just how it applies in this particular.
-- is that something lot of fertilize them.
After it took really drawn to tell you have a -- and I would add to that big when I might have a lot of tomato -- as well.
I'll all right it while we're -- on this sort of security -- things let's go to the TSA.
Interesting -- yes -- foam.
I Nigerian man Nigerian born man.
Whose name I'm not even -- a big game to finance but is this thing was been although lately I think was the second in the middle name was on one that I know and -- to.
Worked for twenty years.
Not for the TSA directly -- at JC securities which was a contract accompanied by the TSA doing security as a supervisor.
In -- under false identity Jerry told us we just had he started looking as Jerry -- that Newark -- ample in 1990.
This thing is the the real Jarrett Jerry told -- was murdered right here -- city.
There was -- I mean you think couldn't have been because they would've looked at the age and nationality.
And everything else there was no background checks and shows me.
And if your private contractor.
Coming in the TSA is not doing additional background checks on people not to mention.
That bimbo may be responsible for killing -- world we don't know yet they're now looking into.
-- also have access every portion airport.
Cargo he could have done anything you want to do because he had full access and control as a supervisor very scary front yeah.
-- Bob what do you what do you -- message seemed to me I think we you know.
There -- a background checks for New Jersey State Police US Customs and Border Protection.
This post did not just the personal collection of data the Social Security -- it separate the -- address obviously.
But also fingerprint checks and all of these kind of things well.
What I -- it just beggars belief.
It does -- does -- course mean more to the issues there is that you know you created this enormous bureaucracy out of thin air.
And -- -- going to be a lot of up getting up and running sort of problems inherent in that.
But -- you know of course it's a terrible story what can you say when you're trying to operate something on this kind of the scale things will fall through the cracks and fortunately and these are very very dangerous cracks.
That's really all you can say it's it is a tough tough situation.
This is -- up and running this is ten news you know over the wall yeah he is up and running and I will tell you.
That -- our company was contracted to do the background checks in when did you have yeah initiative right now I should also question I'm on the front -- but.
We would have we wouldn't see the difference right and anyone who really did -- -- -- plus difference right and -- thought I -- certainly it's me and raises questions will we always talk of.
I -- The TSA is the best organization of the government is the best organization to run ample security all.
Private companies whether it security should be handed over to them as they aren't I think believe a couple of Apple's insistence for instance ball.
-- we have the confluence of private companies and the government -- completely appalled when I don't stay in New York State.
Anyone who worked for a company as a security guard has to submit fingerprints and so when the fingerprints went to the state.
And I assume the same things in New Jersey when they want to -- what -- they say that this guy is not this other guy.
Considering a digital fingerprints -- one short answer them.
-- -- let me get to another baseball -- -- your expertise on this the retrial.
Of baseball great Roger Clemens.
Elena on perjury charges.
-- it -- where it.
It's another it's it strikes me is a bit little bit like the John Edwards trial you've got a guy a -- little all the jurors might think.
Seems to me like -- -- up to something but -- -- -- the gestalt witness and everybody thinks why that's the sleaze Bolton.
It'll look like I did.
Is this case as a prosecutor it's very very difficult case in a bit interesting to me -- the macro strategy to Roger Clemens is playing because you know if you think about why he's gone to to do this why is he going to trial because he -- -- it.
I mean he couldn't but he went he went to trial I think.
He's trying to protect his hall of fame credentials you know if -- he's he's making a gamble that you know what.
Odds are pretty good.
And to be able to beat this thing and then they can't keep me out of the hall of -- because you kinky -- hall of fame with his allegations but he was found not guilty right.
So I think that -- that to me is one of the most interesting things about the case because he doesn't need to be a trial he -- cut some plea and forgotten about it sometime ago.
Secondly though yes it's a it's a very very difficult he said she said thing the most important.
-- this happened frankly is that you know the defense lawyers got Andy -- to back up a little bit.
On his testimony because there is a guy that everyone's going to believe.
And so repetitive left the relatively damning our original answers to the original questions in the record.
I think the jury might -- -- well I don't have -- that -- the guy but this -- a pretty credible person and he says that.
Clemens relayed this -- -- and then or -- that the next day we had the the defense come up on cross and say no wait a minute.
Mike you've got that wrong -- -- some chance you got that wrong and edited yet -- like maybe 5015 pentagon.
To recommend -- forensics again here on this indeed the evidence that Brian McNamee the trainer allegedly kept in -- Viet N.
Is it different is gonna make a big difference I I don't know of community and even exist anymore but yes it would then you have to prove that he did use it.
Just because McNamee McNamee is convicted of giving -- and steroids to players he's done it but before.
So the fact that he had it doesn't initially convict Clements.
And really did -- just saying he.
Clemens tell the truth to congress -- Eli.
Somebody somebody like Brian McNamee.
Is here real credible witness -- as a jury look at it involved and think I have some issues that.
They they do juries react very badly historically my experience due to guys like this and you know it it goes beyond that do a lot of times.
I think juries excited about them so -- and it.
If this is the kind of case that that the prosecutors are relying on this guy what does it say about the case overall not just a -- -- that got them have played close attention to the rest of the prosecution case.
A lot of them the jury will look at -- got to you know I don't know what the government's trying to do you do here but I don't really like it and it can really have been very negative impact on the rest of the prosecute.
I was like the question yeah afterwards mr.
-- You offered anything in.
The -- your testimony yesterday when you look horrified came one letter for consideration against you a sense which you've already pled guilty to him.
Of course he's there and of course he's testifying and is he testify against a great just to cut his sentence what not to do jail Clemens gets off.
It's going to be close I'd -- six slide yes 64 yes all right I want it still care about JPMorgan that we don't got time until.
Tell me something very it's not very quickly evacuate people -- -- to losing two billion dollars when we come back I can give you limerick on it which I know it'll appeal to you think.
A limerick I have a limerick on the subject.
That was a young.
From chase is there their war.
It's an overall they're gonna make mistakes they're okay cancel this is -- our mind.
After all right so I thought I think apple would DOJ prosecuted thank -- two -- focus it.
And Tom Ruskin former NYPD officer and president of CME -- great to have year's Olympic mountain thank you gentlemen I thank you for.
Filter by section