Reflecting on Justice and Consequences

Okay, I have to tell you. I was just looking on eBay where I go for all kinds of things I love and there it was. That hologram trading card. One of the rarest, the last one I needed for my set. Shiny like this Designer Handbag of my dreams. One of a kind. EBay had it , and now everyone's asking, Ooh, where did you get your windshield wipers? EBay has all the parts that fit my car. No more annoying. Just beautiful . Millions of fines, each with a story. EBay, things people love. Why didn't the defense talk about why Carmelo had this knife? To our point, you know, why did the defense allegedly say? And I read there were shock s and gasps from the gallery where the defense almost implied that Austin was the one that sort of made the knife go in. I mean, if that is true , that is so disturbing to listen to. If I'm Austin's parent in there, I mean, I'm getting kicked out of the courtroom, Mark . Well, welcome to one angry man and one really angry woman and submin for Harvey Yacht Rock Levin none other than Lauren Angry Conlin. Lauren, how are you today? I'm not that angry today. Lucky for you, Mark, I have been a little angry this week. You've caught the brunt of it, but we're not I caught okay, I'm not going to get into it. I'm not going to waste. Please don't please don't you have been the angriest. You would think I don't know what, but you have been so angry at me this weekend I know , I know . We won't get into it, but we're good. I'm not angry. I'm calm. I mean I take it back. By the way, this is your not angry persona. Okay, go Yes, I am I am not angry. Well, listen, the aftermath of what we're about to speak about is making me a little angry, but nothing personal, of course. So we're good . Okay . So what are we gonna talk about today as if I didn't know? Yes. We are going to talk about the murder trial of Carmelo Anthony and we're going to talk about the verdict, Mark, and we're gonna talk about, as I mentioned, the aftermath. And the aftermath I think is definitely one of the most shocking aspects or I guess not so shocking now that we're living in twenty twenty six and people are basing all of their judgments on emotions and not evidence. That's that's my issue right now . And the part of what we're talking about , if you don't know is this is a seventeen year old African American young man who was convicted within the last seventy two hours of the charge of murder and the victim and the deceased was also a seventeen year old white, one of two twins, but only one was stabbed on one stab wound at a high school track mate under a tent during a rain break, if you will , in which the testimony at least in general terms was that it was a tent for a high school was attended that was at a track meet that the young man who is accused and now convicted of murder went into that tent, did not move when asked to move. There was words back and forth. I believe that most people would say that the deceased put hands on the accused and whether it was a shove, whether it was push, it was characterized in both ways . And then the accused now convicted whose hand was in a backpack who had said basically touch me and see or something to that effect. What happens? See what happens, reached in, three and a half inch knife, plunged once , one stab wound , unfortunately, fatal into the heart , then left was caught and said when caught , then somebody said I've got the alleged perpetrator or something of that effect, he then responded not alleged. I did it. That's that's what he said. And Mark, I think what's also important to understand is you and I did a podcast previously beyond a reasonable doubt where we're discussing this and it's important because you know, I 'm just used to calling murder murder one . And when we referred to murder as murder one, you know, in Texas, there's capital murder, murder, manslaughter. There's no second degree murder . And I think that in every state, the premeditation element is also different. So I was looking at this and again I was not in the courtroom. I'm basing this off what I'm reading, you know, obviously my favorite reporter from court TV Cody Thomas. I'm basing an awful link to be joining us shortly. Yes, yes, our favorite. So what I'm thinking in my head is like, well, maybe this is man'slaughter because he didn't know Austin Metcalf. He, you know, I'm thinking it's going to be explained to us why he brings a knife to attract me. Maybe he was beat up previously by other kids at another school. None of that came out, none of that happened. And the fact that a jury rejected a sudden passion plea , which again, would cap his sentence at twenty years instead of thirty five years, which is what he got, they rejected that . The jury thought deliberately intended to kill . I mean and that's that and that blew my mind without again being in the courtroom because you know, the defense painted Carm elo as a good kid, you know, got above a three point zero grade point average. He wasn't some thug. He participated in after school events. He worked two jobs. So I was shocked to hear that was cold blooded murder and it broke my heart. I mean, it absolutely broke my heart. The Metcalf family , what they are dealing with now is disgusting. They are getting death threats. Why? I don't know. Why are they getting death threats, Mark? In both directions , it has become incredibly heated. It's become incredibly polarizing . think that not only in that direction, in the other direction , and it unfortunately what happens in America in these kinds of cases. And it's just unfortunate I think it would have been better I just I really evolved on this issue if there had been cameras in the courtroom. Definitely without a doubt, also Mark , I think Carmelo should have taken the stand. The mug shot of him where he looks very scared , he looks nervous. And by the way, guys, I'm talking about this case objectively. I obviously he is a convicted murderer and he took the life of another person. And we don't tolerate that in this country, of course . But I just, you know, putting him on the stand may have shown the jury that he didn't, you know, intend to kill. I mean, his family is over here saying justice for Carmelo. They want , you know, they're saying it wasn't fair. Well, I'm trying to figure out what what wasn't fair, what's not fair about this. I'll talk with Cody a little bit about that because he was in the courtroom and I we've heard so much about what happened in the courtroom. He was there. Unfortunately, cameras were not. Unfortunately, I don't think and we'll ask him, I don't think there was a transcript or a daily transcript that was released , which at least would have been helpful. I mean appellate courts all the time decide trials and or the appellate rights in a trial based on a transcript. And I don't think the public had that . One of the things I think was particularly irksome to me as somebody who does a fair share of murder trials and over the years I think this idea of the binary, it was either a murder or a not guilty . I don't think that there could have been a credible argument that he was not guilty of murder and not guilty of any crime, if you will . Because the force that was used , and when you enter into an affirmative defense, which is self defense , the force that's used matters. It's what is that force in reaction to . And so if it's a push or it's a shove, does that allow you to use potentially deadly force with a knife? And I don't think anybody is going to say if it's just a push or a sho ut. T your point, if he had taken the stand and had said I thought they were going to jump me and beat the hell out of me and I've had to your point also I have this framework where this is happen ed to me before or something like that and they were they were over me and they were much bigger than me and that's what was going through my mind. And it was a split second reaction and of course I didn't mean to kill him. I just did it. I kind of fled I reached out. Yes, I had my hand in the backpack, but it was no different than a cop who's got his hand on the gun and saying don't move. I had my hand in the in the back pack and I said, you know, touch me and see what happens. I was trying to be a tough guy because I'm only one hundred and sixty pounds and they were in excess of two hundred pounds. That at least gives you an argument that you've used excessive force for the situation , which doesn't mean you're not guilty and walk out the door. It means it mitigates the murder to a manslaughter to your point. Right , right. And I think that what I have been thinking about also as you're talking and I think you mentioned this the other day , the imperfect self defense where you, have to take some kind of culpability here, which is what he should have done, especially because he already admitted to it. So that's number one. And then going back to what I said when, you know, I heard his family on an interview saying , It's not fair, this is not fair. I think they only it's a two parter for me, right? I mean, you've got the lawyer that I believe from what I have read , I wasn't there. He did not do a good job in my opinion for a number of reasons. And you may or may not agree. And then again, I put myself in the shoes of a defendant if I'm , on you know, trial for something and there is not one Caucasian person on the jury, I might feel a certain way, right? I might feel, okay, I'm a little uncomfortable here, but I guess I'll trust the lawyers and I'll trust the judge. So that is definitely going to be part of his appeal, I'm assuming. Yeah. And that's a heavy heavy lift, and I'll tell you why. The heavy lift part of the jury selection is the way that the law is written at least as you see it in Texas might have been a different result in California , but because California's got what's called the Racial Justice Act and there's certain things that certain little you've got more tools in your toolbox. But in Texas when the prosecutor is saying and being challenged for challenging a African American and is using the statement, oh it's an educator. I didn't want an educator because an educator is going to be unduly sympathetic to whatever. You can always if you if you've got brain cells that are operating and you can't figure out a way to justify without it saying without saying, yeah, of course I got rid of her because she was African American. You think I'm gonna let African American woman sit on a jury with an African American seventeen year old who is accused of killing a white kid? Are you crazy? I mean absent some prosecut or who you give truth serum to, you're not gonna get that. Right, right. Okay, well, I mean again, I do think he has a shot with his appeal over ineffective counsel, perhaps. I mean, right. I mean there's what's called in the law a ineffective assistance of counsel IAC. I'm not going to opine on that because I know that I've certainly seen cases where somebody when it was not televised and somebody thought that the defense lawyer did something in a courtroom and I've read the transcript and I know that that didn't happen and it became part of the legend. So I don't know. We'll see and we'll but like don't you think it just goes back to you know, I have spoken to Cody numerous times throughout this past week and he even said he's like I'm, wondering as well Cody of Court TV. Cody of Court TV, exactly, who's coming on soon . But he even said, you know, why didn't the defense talk about why Carmelo had this knife to our point , why did the why did the defense allegedly say and I read there were shocks and gasps from the gallery where the defense almost implied that Austin was the one that sort of made the knife go in . I mean, if that is true , that is so disturbing to listen to. If I'm Austin's parent in there, I mean, I'm getting kicked out of the courtroom, Mark, right then and there. I am getting kicked out. I'm sorry. So there is a lot of things, again, to your point may or may not be accurate here, but a lot of things were shocking and very disturbing from the defense side . Right. And that's I guess I don't want to make the whole episode . This is why you should have TV's in the courtroom, but obviously right, but obviously this is a case and we've seen many of them where the public has a real interest in it , and fortunately or unfortunately there are real lives that are at stake and real lives that have been lost. And it I think would probably take down the temperature if you could actually see what was happening. Oh, I agree with you. And listen , we both know people who look at evidence and see the evidence in a completely different way than maybe you or I would. I have experienced this, but at least we have it, at least we have it in front of us to argue. That's that's all I'll say. say I do I feel so horrible for the Metcalf family. You know , I I feel bad for Carmelo's family in terms of, you know, they're losing their son and he made a very very, , very poor decision that affected so many lives and you can't take it back. So, you know, what are people learning from this? I mean, I don't stab someone, don't bring a knife to attract me. Don't I it's just, you know, it's it's not I saw something today. I don't know if Branson's got it available, but obviously this has the race factor on both sides has now taken this to a new level. Let me let me make one up y'all can make let me make something racist up so y'all can go viral. I got a new name for Mellow, okay ? Because he was such a little boy y'all trying to portray. How about watermelon felon? How's that one strike ya? I hope he enjoyed his first night in that sale last night. Smart security made simple . That's the new blink two K video doorbell lineup. Choose battery powered convenience or hardwired reliability . Whatever suits your home, set up in minutes , then start greeting your guests and seeing your deliveries in detail from anywhere. Leave it on the mat. Thank you. Because whether you're a renter or homeowner, you deserve peace of mind. Shop new blink two K video doorbells at Amazon . com slash blink because he's gonna have many nights to think about what the fuck he did you give a pass to somebody who's lost their son, but I don't think we're really moves the ball forward in terms of turning down the temperature . Well, he said , I'm going to give you some I mean he okay , I think from what I've also read, they've they're getting death threats. This guy's had it up to you. Not making excuses though. I'm not making excuses. I understand an age where you have to frame everything and you have to be worried about the repercussions , but the fact remains that that invokes a and provokes and at the same time there's been they should they've lost their son, they should be not getting death threat . He should not be reacting in this way. The there's at the same time, the parents shouldn't be reacting that way. But I'm not gonna scold people, but I think also if you had a little more transparency and a little bit more real time coverage of this, we wouldn't be where we're at. Yeah , I mean, again , parents that have lost children and then on top of that, they're getting harassed and he his dad said it in I think his victim impact statement, you know, stop making this about race. It's not about race. And I think he's saying that just of course from the perspective of sitting inside that courtroom, seeing all of the evidence, seeing kid after kid testify along the same lines of saying that Carmelo was the aggressor. Austin didn't want to fight him, even said allegedly, I'm not going to fight you, bro. I mean, it's it's, yeah, it's he's had it. He's had it. I don't think he should have , don't think he should have said that, but he said it . And yeah, and here we are. So Mark, we should bring in Cody, by the way from I'd love to I really want to talk to him and see what he 's got to say about this. There were very few, I he'll tell us how many , but there were very few journalists who were actually allowed in the courtroom is my understanding. And so that's also I think a problem because then how do you what's the what's the pool for people who are in there? So straight from court TV is Cody by by as I mentioned or may have mentioned from court TV and straight from the state of Texas covering a very kind of gripping case, if you will,' Creody. How are you? Welcome. Doing great, doing great. Thanks for having me. You have a very gripping case, nonetheless, very polarizing case across this country caught a bunch of headlines, but I was in that courtroom, and I can tell you it was quite it was quite the emotional rollercoas ter on both sides. So I have a question since it was not televised and Lauren, I'm sure will jump in here, but there's been a lot and when you say polarized my friend Chris Cuomo had mentioned the other day and I thought it was a spot on observation that it's almost a one hundred percent accurate Rog test for where you are on the ideological or political spectrum . And I don't disagree with that. I have used that thought experiment with virtually everybody I know who I have known for years and know their political and ideological leanings and it is spot on. If you found the same thing ? Yeah, I mean that's a great analysis. I hadn't heard it put that way, but I couldn't think of a better way to put it. I mean, it was one of those cases . course Of you look, at the optics here and it's, you know, just generally speaking, it's where the public either takes one side or the other, and it's almost like no one wants to see it down the middle. But of course, you know, and that and that's where, you know, the importance of public transparency comes in when it comes to these trials. I mean, you know, people would love to have those cameras or at least audio recordings come out of the courtroom so the public isn't in the blind and only has to rely on eight of us coming out to give our versions of what happened. And you know you, have to think about nine hours a day with just a forty minute lunch break and maybe a ten minute afternoon break. You have each of us trying to condense nine hours into these, you know, five or six minute hits on television. You know, so of course naturally some things are going to either be forgotten or things are going to be construed a different way just because of, you know, it's like a game of telephone. You're taking in nineteen witnesses and trying to put them in a three minute segment on television. So you know, that's public transparency is great, but we have to do it, we have to do for this trial. And yeah, I think that's a great comparison to the Rorschach analogy there. Yeah, and one of the things is when you have a case like this that reaches a certain level, I always call it the supersize case where for whatever reason reason there's traction, there is I think it should almost be mandatory that there is televised because we're never going to get to the British model where they just clamp down on it, clamp down coverage and eliminate coverage under contempt of court. So if that's going to be the case, rather than have people argue, and I've heard I've heard arguments that at least you seemingly are legitimate and then ones are just so crazy that you don't even know how to engage with them and you could settle it if you actually had we don't even remember seeing daily transcripts posted on the internet. You had to rely on reporters, as you said, one of eight doing their best to basically try to transcribe or dictate what it was as opposed to just a cold transcript like an appellate court would get. And that is disconcerting to me . Yeah, I mean, you got to think Mark, we're sitting there on our laptops with only ones allowed in that courtroom with electronics. Other people couldn't even bring phones in. And then, you know, this judge was laying down the law in that courtroom, making sure these electronic devices were only used for note taking. So we're sitting there trying to keep up like the court reporter with everything being said, following each witness that comes up, following the verbiage of what's being said in the best way we can while trying to retain the information as well, thinking about our live shots or newspaper rights later on. So it was, you know, it was this over encompassing, you know, task, but of course we tried to do it to the best of our ability and get those facts up there as best we could. Sorry. I had a question. I had a very specific question I wanted to ask you, Cody, because I think this sort of made Carmelo Anthony's defense fall apart. And we talked about this. How many witnesses would you say testified that Austin Metcalf said , I'm not gonna fight you, bro. There was only a handful, Lauren. I don't remember the exact number somewhere between four and six of them. That's a lot, right? No, yeah, that is a lot. And you got rememberta the pro secution called twenty one witnesses, the majority, I'd say probably seventeen of them were seventeen or sixteen of them were student eyewitnesses. And then the defense only called six witnesses. In their entire case, which I believe half of those were students , but on the prosecution side naturally, you know, every single last one said Carmelo was the instigator was the aggressor. Well, some students, you know, some students did admit, you know, these are two boys at a competitive track meet. Of course there there were was some yapping back and forth and they did admit that Austin was a little boisterous. But at the same time, they were talking about how Carmello was stubborn didn't want to leave the tent, talking about you're going to have to move me. And that's when a couple of those witnesses said I'm not going to fight you with a track meet. I'm not going to do this. And then of course it leads to the whole the hand in the backpack to touch me and see what happens. The whole incident that a lot of these students described as happening so fast that they didn't even realize what had happened. You know, and you know, a lot of them talked about how you got to think. It's twenty twenty six with a bunch of teenagers around and not one single piece of video evidence from a cell phone was presented. Yeah, that's that's what I was expecting going in. 'Cause even back when I was in high school, as soon as you think something's building up, you're getting the phone. Oh, they're about to do it. They're about to do whatever. And a lot of those students, all of them said they, you know, they heard the boys yappin' and saying whatever they were saying to each other, but not one of them felt nervous or concerned enough to where they thought a real fight was going to happen, you know, because it's just again, testosterone, hormones, seventeen year old boys talk a smack at each other. And then of course, we know the horrific tragedy happened here that has changed both families live forever. Obviously you have one child that's not coming back, one child is going to be behind bars for a very long time, two families that are affected it's like on the same scale but on two different sides of the spectrum, right? So it's just a sad thing overall, but it's very interesting that not a single person talked about really Austin being the initial aggressor here . Well, there was a reason for that, I think, but let's talk about the book ends of this case because I think that's interesting. I've always taken the position that a trial, especially a trial like this is one or lost in jury selection. It doesn't matter. I know that I get a lot of pushback for that, but when you've tried hundreds and hundreds of cases , I can tell you that it's a very rare case that once jury selection is over, that it's not preordained. I've told the story. People have heard it. George Zimmerman there when it was an all white jury that was selected. I remember going on CNN that evening and saying Marco Mero would have to trip, fall and hit his head in order to lose his case. And in this case and this will be the comment section will go wild because we're at TMZ . But in this case, when there were three African American or blacks and you could you were in the courtroom, you tell me who were excused because supposedly they were educ ators and that was the pretext, if you will. The explanation excuse me, pretext has a pejorative sound to it, even though I mean it that way . But that was why they were excused. Well, once that happened, that preordained this case. Now, people will say, well, why are you injecting race? I'm not injecting race in that sense. And Cody, you tell me if I'm wrong based on what you watch . If you are going to hear a case, a court case, you're not the lawyer's not going to change your mind about the way you've been raised in twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years . It's going to be how you come into that courtroom and what your viewpoint is. And if you eliminate people who have a different experience, cultural and just societal angle . You're you're you've already skewed the playing field. Am I wrong? Did you see anything I mean, that was the whole crux of, you know, those headlines we saw once it was announced and, you know, the public found out that there were no black people on that j ury. You know, now you know, the people in support of Carmello were saying, Well, this isn't really a jury of his peers because not everyone on that jury, no one on the jury has this shared experience of what it's like, you know, growing up as an African American child or in this country. So that was the whole crux of it. There was a little diversity on the jury. There was three Asian women and two , what looked like to be Middle Eastern women. So it wasn't just an all white jury, but of course majority white women. I tell you how many times , so when you make a peremptory challenge, that's what it is. You get to exercise defense and prosecution, even though I don't even think prosecutors who have the burden should be able to exercise them. But if you do as a defense lawyer , there used to be to be a term. You can't use it anymore because it's politically incorrect. Defense lawyers were the one who got rid of As ions for the most part. It was called the Orient Express , and that would be subject to a Batson challenge. Prosecutors would say because prosecutors felt and this went on for decades that, defense lawyers were getting rid of Asian jurors because Asian jurors for the most part, the kind of the prejudgment was that they were they tilt prosecution. So when somebody says, Oh, it was still not all white but it had an Asian component to it, that does not for most defense lawyers, if you're if they're going to tell the truth, they're going to tell you that is not an upgrade for a cross section of the community that is not tilting towards the prosecution . Yeah, and you know, Mark, I mean, regardless of the makeup of the jury, right? The facts of this case were the facts. And it was almost as if, you know, a from a defense standpoint, you had an uphill battle from the beginning because one of the key things about this case, one of the exhibits that were presented was that once, you know, after the stabbing happened and once he was apprehended on body cam . The woman radios in, hey, I have the alleged suspect and then you hear Carmelo clearly clear as day say, I'm not alleged. I did it. I mean, you have you have you have an admission to doing this act, whether it was self defense or murder or whatever at the time, right? When he got apprehended, but you still have him saying I did it and that his actions ultimately led to somebody dying. So it was an uphill battle from the beginning and I'll tell you, you know, one of the most emotional parts of this trial, I've mentioned it on several different segments and platforms so far was there was this one coach Mark that was a fourteen year Iraq vet who has seen death before right and knows what the last breaths of someone sounds like versus just someone gasping for air. And so he was the one kind of doing chest compressions. He was a coach and then there was another coach on nine hundred and eleven. So the coach testifying the veteran was saying that you know he's doing chest compressions and the kids' eyes are rolling back and he stop s breathing, right? And so now the coach that's on the phone with nine hundred and eleven is talking about, oh, he's not breathing anymore, he's not breathing. And then all of a sudden you hear the nine on the nine eleven call, where we're listening to this in court. This coach says, Oh, he's breathing again. He's breathing again. Well, the veteran coach who was who was testifying who had seen death in carnage in combat in Iraq and three tours in Iraq said he knew those breaths that were coming were like the death rattle breaths. And he knew this kid was dying, but he said he didn't speak or say anything because he didn't want to kill the hope of the coaches and the students surrounding. So he just kept on doing chest impressions whether you know, I mean, he knew they weren't going to work. And as we're as he's testifying to this, he's getting emotional and crying. You're listening to this emotional nine eleven call. The MetCalfs are crying, and then I look up, and this is the only time I saw any real emotion from the jury, there were two or three of the men wiping their eyes with Queens, and of course the women were tearing up too. And it was Mark at that moment, I was like , I know we had this was the first day, I believe. This was Thursday when the testimony started. And I'm just sitting there thinking, you know, maybe the majority of this jury, if not all of them, have made their decision right then and there. Because at the end of the day, facts are facts, but also there's a human component as well, an emotional component that we can't these jurors are not robots, you know, they're probably parents and everything else. And they're probably thinking about their families, how they would be effective if something like this happened. So that was the big takeaway from the trial as a whole to me. That was the most emotional moment for me personally. But of course, you know, how this ultimately went out guilty of murder, you know, the intentional causing of harm that resulted in death, not the manslaughter charge, not the sudden passion which the sudden passion thing only came up in the closing arguments before the sentencing, right? And I don't know why they would not have as the defense. If you're going to argue sudden passion, why not try to harp on that from the beginning instead of maybe instead of trying to go for the home run acquittal when you have the kid on camera saying that he did it. Just an interesting case but ultimately you know ended up in thirty five years behind bars eligible for parole after half of that. So he's got he's got quite some time behind behind the plexiglass seeing his family from now on. And a lot of people have asked why is it or how did they rush to sentencing? That's that is part of the Texas framework in Texas unlike other jurisdictions, a lot of other jurisdictions, the jury goes out virtually immediately and they deliberate on what the punishment should be. So that once again emphasizes the fact of what is a jury? It's the conscience of the community and what is the conscience of the community? It's who do you have in the jury box? Given all of that, though, the one pushback I'd give is that if I got one more question, time for one more 'cause I got reading television in a second. I know. But you have to go to court TV? Yeah, I got to go to court TV. I got to switch studios man. I joined you for a little bit. I love to see your beautiful faces, but your boy has to run. Court TV Cody, Court TV Cody . Laurie, how ever. Yeah, I love Cody. I was glued to Cody's coverage. So I just want to thank you, Cody. It really was helpful to listen to you. And I'm sorry you got heckled outside of the courtroom too. That's crazy. I mean, that's the nature of what's going on, nature of the business, you know, it's that kind of deal. So but we're here. But right now folks, I got to go. And I love you a lot. Thanks for having me. Find me on Instagram, Cody Thomas Ucore,nd allers that good stuff, I'll be around. Thank you, Cody. All righty, I'll see y'all later. Okay, that was too short , but unfortunately you had to get back to the anchor desk and what's your takeaway from that? Do you change your mind after hearing that? No, I mean, everything he said, you know, I had been following throughout the week, but I did see he actually sent me a screenshot of him on a live shot and he was being heckled by a bunch of people in the back calling him a traitor just, you know, because he's black and he was reporting simply the facts and the evidence and he was getting heckled and he was being harassed and I was just like, oh my goodness, oh my goodness. I just, you know, every aspect of this case, I think I've said it a million times. I just I hate it. And even talking about it, Mark , even talking about it, it's like you just get destroyed for being objective. Like, you know, not taking sides, just simply looking at the evidence. I mean, from a human being perspective and from the perspective of a parent, I mean, I am just I am gutted. I am not okay with sending a child to attract me and getting a call that they have been stabbed to death out. That is that grinds my gears and that upsets me on an emotional level. But again, when I am parsing through the evidence here and what was said in court, what not was said, I do look at it from a different lens, obviously, as do you . Well, and I think there are obviously and it's a cliche or a platitude that there are no winners here, but I think that if you take a look at the way this thing unfolded and the way it , what's particularly frustrating is the legal explanations in terms of the understanding what self defense is, what imperfect self defense is, what is the kinds of legal analysis that you have to do when the criminal justice system gets involved. And the father of the young boy who was killed, he made some good points in not in this interview, but in other interviews that I've listened to him about said it would have gone a long way to him had an apology . And that's kind of a sort of justice concept . And I know that you normally would not do that, but there are times when you just don't follow the rulebook. There's nothing wrong with an apology or some outreach to say look , this was obviously something nothing that anybody intended. There is we didn't have enough time to ask Cody, but reportedly there was testimony that in real time , the accused now convicted said he's not going to die or didn't worry that he asked. I actually have the original police affidavit, excuse me, where he is in the back of a squad car and he asks is he going to die? And you know , I go back and forth because it's like he's seventeen years old . You're obviously not an adult. Your brain isn't fully formed, but God, you know better. You have to think about the consequences of your actions . If you stab someone there is a chance they are going to die. And that's that. And Mark, I also want to point out going back to just, you know, state murder charges and just, you know, state laws in general, I just started thinking about like the Luigi Mangioni case. Luigi in New York is charged by the state second degree murder only. The minimum for that is actually fifteen years. So if you think about this state by state here, I mean it's it's kind of wild. I have to say . Well, I'll leave it at that. That's probably on a note where we can leave it. And Lauren, thank you for being angry woman today transitioning two angry men to one angry man and one angry woman. And maybe we'll see you next week. You never know , because Harvey is constantly on a yacht somewhere and living that first world life that we all aspire to. Oh man, I love it. Well, I'll be around whenever you need me and I'm, just pr Iaying'm for the Metcalf family that they have peace , you know, in losing their son. So yeah, want to leave it at that. Nobody wants to be in their position . No. Thanks, Lord.