and on. one. i. think. they would like to do is go did you know the price is the only industry specifically mentioned in the constitution and . that's because a free and open press is critical to our democracy shrek help us. a little. bit you know i'm sorry and on this show we reveal the picture of what's actually going on we go beyond identifying the truth rational debate and real discussion critical issues facing america are you ready to join the movement then welcome to the big picture. well i'm tom hartman and washington d.c. and here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture last night the republican controlled arizona state legislature approved

a bill that would make it legal for businesses or individuals to refuse to serve gays and lesbians but if that legislation about religious freedom and shows discrimination that and more in tonight's big picture rubble and if you think the world is crowded now then watch out by two thousand and thirty six out of ten people on earth are going to live in urban areas will technology help keep things under control i'll ask anthony towns a senior research fellow at n.y.u. has written center for transportation and that's conversations with great minds. you need to know this earlier this week one of the jurors in the michael dunn case sat down with a.b.c. news to talk about that case take a look you think michael dunn got away with murder at this point. i

i do myself personally yes when you went to the deliberating room you thought michael dunn was guilty yes or of killing seventeen year old boy yes or what convinced you that to me it was unnecessary you didn't think michael dunn had to kill jordan davis i don't believe most of the jurors while valerie thought the dunn should have been found guilty for the marriott murder of jordan davis two jurors thought the dunn was justified in taking the actions that he did so why did those two jurors think that dunn was justified in opening fire on an s.u.v. filled with teenagers after argument over loud music because of florida's stand your ground shoot first law during closing arguments in the dunn case dunn's defense attorney corey stroll repeatedly instructed jurors to look over page twenty five of the jury instructions he said to them i'm going to talk to you a little bit about justifiable use of force is honor's going to instruct you in ages twenty five to twenty eight i ask you when you go back in the jury room go all

the way to page twenty five and start there because the law is going to tell you very clearly here's what page twenty five of the jury instructions if michael dunn was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where you had a right to be he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand is ground and meet force with force including deadly force if he reasonably believed it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony that's the alec stand your ground clause the dunder jury agonized and that ultimately caused a mistrial on the first degree murder charge and except for a different victim it's the exact same clause the exact same jury instructions that allowed jury george zimmerman to walk free in the trayvon martin case but it didn't always used to be that way in florida before florida's stand your ground shoot first law was enacted in two thousand and and five. jury in michael michael dunn

like case would have been read these jury instructions the defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm in less he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force the fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked can not justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force in other words of michael dunn had been tried two thousand and four he probably would have been convicted of the murder of jordan davis because he didn't do everything within his means to avoid danger before resorting to force after all he could have just driven away but he didn't. now that doesn't matter because of the stand your ground shoot first was thanks to that law as dunn's defense attorney repeatedly pointed out to the jurors all done had to do to get away with the murder of jordan davis was asserts that he was scared for his life and for

a white races like done for black teenagers in an s.u.v. it was a frightening thing stand your ground shoot first laws have made it all but legal in red states for all frightened white racists to shoot and kill a black person as long as he can convince even one member of a jury that the blackness of his victim right and bottom line here is the stand your ground shoot first laws are inherently racist the rubbing salt the wounds of four hundred years of slavery legal apartheid and discrimination so isn't it time to remove these racist laws from the books resource and sanity to our judicial system and society let's rubble. running for the rights big picture of a large dutch martin advisory board member of project twenty one and contributor to townhall dot com roger hickey co-director of campaign for america's future and net purple assistant managing editor of the american spectator like guys for joining so

you heard my intro anybody want to take this thing on it's just seems to me like this is this is wrong well i won't necessarily call him a racist because i don't know if there's any evidence to that but i was honest he's got he's been right racist letters been making more races phone calls he's he's been going off on. let's look at it this way i honestly believe that personally even with the stand your ground law he should have used a lot more discretion if he wasn't being attacked he should have just driven away i will give you that he should have just driven away there in the open air odd says he doesn't have to stage a ground shoot first laws says all he has to do is assert that he's a free will if you eat well if even that being the case still. this use the law is no you know i mean actual rifles. through the american legislative exchange council it's been pushed in over twenty states and this is the result is sounds to me like he's basically trying to use the law to justify what he did and i think in this case it just doesn't look like that's going to fly for the

simple fact that he was in his car these young teens were in their car ok if they're playing loud music just drive away yeah i'm with you but the problem is in the state of florida or in any state in order to get a first degree murder conviction that they've been in a unanimous jury they ended up with two and three people who said no we're not sure you know he really was afraid of those kids well listen to the law is terrible it encourages people to to think that they can use their guns whenever they want to. but the facts of the case showed that the kids were not threatening him that he was he initiated the the contact with them and and he was the one that caused some caused him to be engaged with those kids he had absolutely no reason to pull out his gun and i agree with you that the that the law makes a guy like that feel like he can get away with everything i mean i mean it's

possible that when the n.r.a. wrote this law and pushed into the states they were thinking racist but the consequence of this law has been that a lot of basically white racists are killing black people get away with it and this guy didn't really want to start a fight he would it was very clear that you have any thoughts and i would just say i mean to clarify one thing first juror number eight who was the one african-american on the jury panel did come out today and say that this case and have anything to do with race. i would know that all this jury only sorry it has anything to do is raise the case juror said that race was never brought into the case race was not it was never mentioned right issues which was a horrible mistake on the part of the process of i wouldn't call i would call these laws inherently rates that's the problem with this seems to be the consequence of the laws and you're right the problem. this seems to be that people are getting away with this and in this case i don't understand why it happened because this guy claimed that he saw one of these african-american boys pull out a shotgun there was no shot going in the vehicle he went home and talked to his fiance that night he never said anything about

a shotgun there was no evidence of you know any sort of weapon or any blunt instrument of any sort that could have been misconstrued as one so i'm not a huge fan of stand your ground laws and i think you're right in the sense that i think they cleave open the law little bit too much and leave too much room for people like michael dunn everybody is pleading stand your ground everybody's trying to apply this even if they wrongfully shoot somebody but in this case i just maybe i don't transplant myself into the courtroom i don't understand how you don't find this guy guilty even understand your ground it doesn't make sense it's the big thing that had the scratching my head was in florida maybe this was a bad jury instructions but in florida if you're prosecuted for first degree murder it's the discretion of the jury to say we're going to find him guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter they can downgrade the and manslaughter is like basically accidental death and the kid was death so how could they not have at least found him guilty of manslaughter and i just i would be i haven't read the entire jury instructions but if that was not included in the jury instructions that's terrible and him last night the republican controlled arizona legislature

approved legislation that allows business owners asserting their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays and lesbians legislation allows any business any church or any person to use the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination legislation now goes to governor jan brewer for signing arizona republicans claim that the legislation is about protecting religious freedom of democrats that states say it's all about discrimination i would have no problem with a law like this if it only applied to things like saying your church doesn't have to you know get the catholic church doesn't have to marry methodists you know you can do it you can religiously discriminate but when you start saying that your lunch counter. refused to serve somebody because they're gay this is i got a problem with this and tom this is happening all over america you know. rand paul the u.s. senator from my state of kentucky ran for election in favor of the right to discreate

he said that he would not have supported the civil rights bill on the grounds that it forced people to give the combinations and service to people that they did want to serve and i wasn't even there it wasn't even religion involved it was race i often on my radio show play that clip from the one nine hundred sixty nixon kennedy debate where the moderator said you know what would you do about these african-americans who are trying to sit at this lunch counter will worse and nixon goes into this long rambling thing about polar bears in their heads of going to straight to gether and i've asked them to behave appropriately and then they go to canada and he says i take the law after them this is a violation of the law you know and he cites what the law is he says you know basically it's rather as is jail and which he did i mean you know they actually sent down the national guard anybody but in this case we don't have title two of the civil rights act applies to ration nationality it doesn't apply to religion and we have a first amendment in this country which guarantees you the freedom of association this is not as some people have been saying equivalent to jim crow laws it was the

decision is it different from the freedom to conduct business is a congregation it out a right no association means that you can have anybody going where you want i mean association is a very considered a very broad term but not if you don't think obama said all right the problem is man if you're wrong you're doing drama is getting special privileges from the government you're getting tax advantages when you incorporate you enter into a contract with the government essentially to say you know i want to be able to deduct my lunch from from my income taxes in exchange for that i will conduct myself but we don't have a law that applies to your incorporation that says that you can't you know not allow a gay person and we do have a right with regards to the civil rights act we don't with that and we have a first amendment that has been really broadly interpreted as allowing you to practice your religion in whatever way you see you just have twenty seconds i want to get to what you don't want from an economic standpoint if i were. a small business owner if a gay couple wants to come in and spend their money for me to well provide them with a good service i'm not going to deny them just because i disagree with a lifestyle that's going to hurt my bottom line so it's bad it's bad economics bad

for business it is that i think that you're all right after the break. i got a quote for you. that's pretty tough. stay with substory. let's give this guy like you would smear that dime in stead of working for the people who most issues the mainstream media are working for each other bribe writers vision. is. a good run but it was. a piece of. it was a. very hard to take. once you get on a plane fly have you ever had sex with that her big hair the police.

chief. what. if. what if the pope.

welcome back to the sides big picture of a with me dutch martin roger hickey you met purple let's get back to it on wednesday f.c.c. chairman and former comcast lobbyist wheeler announced that the f.c.c. would not appeal the d.c. circuit court of appeals a net neutrality rule in the basically blew up net neutrality that really rejected net neutrality and that had been the rules are going to tell us why the obama administration however the f.c.c. did say that it's going to rewrite net neutrality rules and make sure they hold up in court although let me add they said we're going to do it on a case by case basis no it's not a common carrier also this week we found that netflix has come out and said they're seen over the last thirty days have seen a thirty percent or fourteen percent decline in the speed with which they can

deliver their movies one of people who works on our radio show has the rise and files super high speed and they're they're fighting netflix which has been through a model i'm finding netflix is or not just netflix anything i speak is being throttled and if i put a v.p.n. in so that they can't do deep about packet inspection they can't see what it is i'm looking at virtual private network then they they shut me down to zero and it's amazing i mean you know this and all this was like illegal thirty days ago these you know what what is going on with neutrality i mean isn't it time for us to be talking about it yet it's time for everybody in this audience to be rewriting the f.c.c. and talking to congress. and say look i don't want the big guys having privileged access to the internet which used to be wide open and available to everybody that's that's what net neutrality is all about is making sure that the corporate guys can't pay for privileged access to the internet and. it's really

a free speech issue for the twenty first century i would i would i would assert that the internet is the information commons of this generation much like public libraries and therefore it should be considered a utility should be considered a common carrier it should no individual corporation for the purpose of profit i mean they can deliver it to you and say you may have certain amounts of it. to be able to say oh you're looking at that website we're going to charge you more for that i don't get it if it doesn't pass the smell it's all of the technical mumbo jumbo that you i have no idea what you're talking about in terms of brass tacks yes i agree with you i'm sure that the internet is basically a common error for everyone nobody should have an advantage this war is getting access to information over anyone else but even here's the thing about the internet thus far the reason why we considered our information commons today is because it's been so vastly unregulated i mean this has been a great read through by international treaties this has been agreed to it's been

our consensus in this country for a long long time i think we ought to keep it that way and so far every obstacle that's come up in terms of people having for you know good solid access to the internet has been knocked down by innovation has been knocked down by creative destruction i don't see a need yet. i think that government ought to regulate reactively i think if it sees a problem that can't be solved any other way that isn't being solved then you can maybe go in and think about how do we solve this right now they seem to be going after a problem that really for the most part i know there's been some isolated examples but for the most part doesn't exist maybe it will not one day but i haven't seen convincing evidence that this is a huge problem that the feds need to get involved with we don't have. really good internet service in this country because of because of a lack of regulation i mean in france where they are not just friends most european countries and certainly south korea they say and and japan i believe they say you can own the copper coming into the house but that doesn't mean that you can limit

what goes through that copper so right now if i've got comcast coming to my house comcast has got to be my eyes whereas if i was in south korea or in france comcast comes into my house i pay them fifteen bucks for the pipe coming into my house that i can have a a well provide the internet to me at one hundred minutes or i can have comp you know compuserve provided to me at seventy minutes or whatever and you can you can you know for thirty five dollars a month in france you get high speed internet you get one hundred channels of t.v. and you get telephone service because it is like you had it there regulating it in the with a bias toward competition that's correct and access as and that's what we're not have that what we're doing is we're and then with a monopoly comcast is trying to buy just about every cable system in this country this is not the most pernicious regulation in the world in that it's centrally such as a level playing field right it is not josie you know i'm talking about you know what i'm going to corral and yeah this is not the most we do this in a lot of industries right we don't get in and start tinkering but we do create a level playing field i'm just not convinced the need is there to do that yet ok. i

don't know state republican state representative paul shepherd as introduced a new bill that declares that the e.p.a. is regulatory authority is unconstitutional it violates the u.s. cars intuitions true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers. i don't get it you know there can't be constitution clearly says. that it's put in place to promote the general welfare article one section eight congress has the power to to. create regulation what is unconstitutional about the e.p.a. i don't get it this guy is clearly not a teddy roosevelt republican you know this guy richard nixon or about exactly who started the. it's the battle that's going on and this guy is not going to win there's far more americans who want our their air and water and parks protected then there are libertarians who want total chaos in the wilderness

and something tells me that introducing this a piece of legislation. i get the feeling that. something else is pushing i don't think that his motives are purely political i think he might have you think he's got a primary challenger from the tea party come letters or your he took a pretty common. to these days it wouldn't it wouldn't surprise me at all if he could be had some lobbyist in his ear. ok. you can't know if i federal laws i know this is a regulation but it's under the clean water act it's part of implementing it therefore you can't know if a tenth amendment doesn't even cover that that's right you know but that being said we shouldn't the e.p.a. over regulates a lot of the time and they harm businesses that i think are people who if you can demonstrate at one that obviously i mean i think about congress hasn't corrected that so far most of these laws are being made without any oversight from congress whatsoever and we ought to get out of this model whereby congress passes some broad we're all of legislation and regulatory branches they are all the congress is

providing continuous oversight we don't have a seasonal congress anymore congress is in session fifty two weeks out of the year has the potential to be and every single week the congress is in session they have the ability to say you know that's being overregulated we're going to pass a law to change that right so there's continuous congressional oversight or not which we have had since the eight hundred thirty but they're not there holding hearings and they're you know getting up and give out source that are not striking down those regs and that's all you need to do is take it up with the regulatory agrees that the e.p.a. is constitution. yeah i would probably agree to that ok let's move on to chain c.p.i. thing because i think that's one construct i have shadow it's going to do so is the oppressor part of the president obama will not include the chained c.p.i. in his budget. after sixteen senators hundred seventeen representatives bernie sanders is really the point man on this thing he's been pounded on this let me play in the chain c.p.i. for our viewers who may not know or talk about really quick it chains the consumer price index the inflation adjustment for the annual increase in social security

payments to behavior as the does the word change so if people are eating hamburger right now it is two dollars a pound in the price amber goes up to two dollars fifty cents a pound and so what it will do is have a look at their behavior oh people stop eating hamburger now they're eating chicken it's a buck and a half a pound and so there's been no inflation so you get no increase if they stop if chicken goes to two dollars or three dollars a pound and they starting cat food it's cheaper knowing so they chained c.p.i. was a bad idea to begin with and i will i don't believe in using the federal government to try to regulate behavior i don't do i don't believe that no matter who does a republican or democrat. through all of that economic reality should be able to regulate behavior as it has been the government sister out of it we regulate behavior time a tax code you know we encourage people to buy houses would have given them tax breaks of course we do of course i mean we should well i didn't say that i mean i mean it is if it was working a real events it is it's actually i remember going to prison we're not right so it's good for economic benefits to the point where everyone's benefit in nobody's

actually losing out on five of the whatever the government wants to step in to try to regulate behavior you know but try to use some legislation or some you know rhetorical sleight of hand to do so far that's us be obama administration did not want to regulate behavior they wanted to cut spending in social security and they wanted to offer that up to the republicans as part of a grand bargain a deal here will harm our most important constituency seniors and labor and the others that support it and enter in return you'll give us tax increases it was a cynical ploy. i hope obama didn't believe in it really but the fact that he has. pulled it back and not have it in his budget is a big victory for people who want the government to stand up for seniors and stand up for social insurance and it's it means that in this next election republicans can't cruz democrats of wanting to cut social security it's

a really big victory you know i think it is i think the problem with chain c.p.i. is that it doesn't do nearly enough i mean the last cvo report which came out a couple weeks ago shows that by two thousand and twenty three you know entitlement spending is going to completely consume the federal budget it's now we have a man it's absolutely true and it's absolutely sincere it is you know a two point seven trillion dollars surplus that a lot according to the c.p.o. not according to the actors are exhausted with the spending that's going to happen on this and yes you're right most of it does come from health care but the spending on entitle isn't going to find it's going to do that if the cap social security not only would be fine but it would produce enough certainly you know you can have all their medicare money has to come from somewhere and yet medicare let's not have a big night people who are in more than one hundred thirteen thousand dollars a year pay the same percentage of their income into some scary tax and where that's why i haven't seen the graphs on that i'm not sure that would solve all our problems going to we're going to really what we need we need a comprehensive plan to deal with entitlements this is not going to go away it's a very important issue a big victory in california tim draper a silicon valley can venture capital is backing a plan to break california it is six individual states earlier this week he got

approval from the state began collecting petition signatures to qualify the proposal for a ballot initiative in november we think california has grown so big and so on governable and all this kind of i think what he's really up to here by choosing six is he's trying to get silicon valley broken out so that these guys can do a libertarian experiment just like they want to do with belisle off the coast of detroit you know it's like oh we're going to we're going to create john galt ville . i've been saying for a long time ago that i think that california should be broken into three states texas should be broken in two states florida two states new york and two states would have a much more representative son maybe even thoughts we have one minute what does he think that's going to accomplish though i mean it does. you haven't proved that he had a whole bunch more senators yeah i'm for it if it could be more democratic senators you're right. but i don't think it will fly in california but if they could do it it would be great there's going to be i think more new republican senators and democratic senators i'm a fan of this point i think so i can also you know what beyond that i think local

control is the best i think that you know it's unfair to the farmers in the central part of the state to have to be run by you know the l.a. and san francisco politicians or do you think it should have six or should be figured south central north you know that makes sense i mean why not divide up jefferson central a few more times get more republican guard so we got out that's a lot of democrats i think if you did so kind of allies a lot of democrats though overall california would would result in a lot more democrats than you know to that they have now it's alaska governor by the way from the central part of california was born in the central part was elected in one nine hundred seventy so they've been under represented for a very long time and one dutch martin roger great purple thank you so much for being with us he's coming up with the rise of internet technology cities are becoming more and more like smartphones so what kind of killer app will we need to use to prepare them for the future we'll ask anthony towns a senior research fellow at n.y.u. has written center and trends for transportation and so that's conversations with great minds right after this break.

patients are forced. looks and the finish line out of error on.

my hearing. but i. think. i would rather i asked questions to people in positions of power instead of speaking on their behalf and that's why you can find my show larry king now right here on our t.v. question.

for the first time in human history more than half of all people on earth live in cities and over the coming decades that number will grow so much that by two thousand and thirty the world health organization estimates estimates that six out of ten people live in urban areas so i right now cities across the world are experimenting with new technologies to solve old problems like transportation and waste disposal i guess for tonight's conversations of the great minds anthony townsend the senior research fellow at n.y.u. has written center. transportation and has written a link about this phenomenon as well as its potential dangers in his new book smart city big data civic akers' and the quest for a new utopia and then he joins us from our new york studios anthony walker. hi tom .