Stay updated with breaking news from Recertifications. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
was an action error, you know, anyone -- well, first of all, it's not any human. it is an officer of 26 years of experience who has had training and has had certifications and recertifications. so -- um, but it seems to me like it might be working. >> mark, just finally, look, we always talk about the effect weekends have on juries and having them reach a decision. i mean, this is -- this is christmas coming up here. >> they're -- they're going to have a decision tomorrow. i hate guessing because we always want to be a fly on the wall but they are not going to spend her time on this and if they don't get a decision tomorrow, by noon or 1:00 or 2:00 in the afternoon, they may very well hang. >> mark o'mara, sarah azari, interesting discussion. thank you so much for your insight. >> thanks, john. happy holidays if i don't see you. so breaking news on the january 6th committee involving michael flynn, the former president's embattled national security adviser. the details, ahead. oh no.
her if you will in front of this jury who had to hear her apology and explanation as best she could give it. >> the prosecution flat out says that a mistake is not a real defense here. >> it's not, john. inherent in the crime of manslaughter under minnesota law it is the accidental killing of another human being. you call it accidental or mistaken. you have that mistake in the offense. so a mistake is not a defense to the mistake. it isn't. i think the defense has been quite cleverly misleading in repeatedly telling the jury in closing arguments that it was a human mistake. it was an action error. first of all, it is not any human. it is an officer of 26 years of experience who has had training and certifications and recertifications. it seems to me like it might be working. >> just finally, look. we always talk about the effect weekends have on juries and having them reach a decision.
to say that she never, in her 26 years of being an officer, had deployed a taser. well, that goes straight to count two and criminal negligence, right? the idea that, you know, you have had all these certifications and recertifications and you are out in -- in the public to protect and to serve, which is your duty and your oath of office. and you have, you know, these -- these weapons on your body that you are completely ignorant of using. and by the way, there is a department policy that you are supposed to test fire your taser each time you sign onto your shift and you failed to do that. so it goes to criminal negligence and i think she really sort of established the prosecution's case through some of these admissions. >> the -- the defense tried to humanize her. talked about her family. how she decided to become a police officer. is -- i mean, will the jury be tasked with looking at that? or will they just be looking at first, second-degree manslaughter charges? >> well you know, anderson, the jury is not supposed to apply heart to the facts. they are supposed to apply law
you know what, you've had certification, recertifications, 26 years of experience, so too bad that you didn't know, but you should have known. >> right. the defense rested its case after potter's testimony, who do you think has the upper hand heading into the closing arguments? it's hard to think that the prosecution is not feeling, you know, pretty positive about where things stand right now. >> i think, you know, again, when you're looking at the law and the facts, it's completely on the prosecution's side. i think they're going to argument that not only was she justified in deadly force, that's one of the things -- they're going to argument that her mistake given that she's an officer, has a badge, has training, was completely unreasonable. she acted with criminal negligence gens and manage handled her weapon, which is
to say that she never, in her 26 years of being an officer, had deployed a taser. well, that goes straight to count two and criminal negligence, right? the idea that, you know, you have had all these certifications and recertifications and you are out in -- in the public to protect and to serve, which is your duty and your oath of office. and you have, you know, these -- these weapons on your body that you are completely ignorant of using. and by the way, there is a department policy that you are supposed to test fire your taser each time you sign on to your shift and you failed to do that. so it goes to criminal negligence and i think she really sort of established the prosecution's case through some of these admissions. >> the defense tried to humanize her. talked about her family. how she decided to become a police officer. is -- i mean, will the jury be tasked with looking at that? or will they just be looking at first, second-degree manslaughter charges? >> well, you know, anderson, the jury is not supposed to apply heart to the facts. they are supposed to apply law to the facts.
think the whole community, the whole state is doing it, especially in south florida. other parts of the state don't even have 40-year recertifications. we did that a lot of that after hurricane andrew, which i recall very well, increased our building code, we were much more exacting in the requirements. the question is, are we making sure the requirements are in fact enacted, do we need new requirements? i think all that is going to happen, but we're not going to just sort of rush into something. we want to do it in an informed thoughtful way. >> right. before i let you go, i want to ask but this "washington post" reporting about frank moribida, the structural engineer working on the buildings and its repairs. i wonder as we think about how to make sure this doesn't happen again, does there need to be a situation in which there are two separate structural engineers working on the recertification process of these buildings to make sure you got four eyes
recent recertifications or pending recertification and so far, really, we've only found four balconies that needed to be shut down. nobody had to be evacuated. but north miami beach, one of the cities, did their own audit and determined that a building did need to be evacuated as a result of the findings, so i'm hoping other cities will do the same, and of course we're all looking together at what can we do to strengthen these codes in future so that we get earlier notice of any potentially hazardous conditions and take all the necessary steps to protect everybody. >> all right, mayor danielle levine cava, thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you. so, the storm system that floridians are watching, taupe elsa, has already killed three people in the caribbean. let's get the latest on its track from cnn meteorologist tom sater. which way is it heading? >> the 2:00 p.m. advisory did give a landfall on the southern coast of cuba. about an hour ago, the sustained
building. so in your view, all of these structures, right, would have regular inspections or reevaluations. but are we now seeing the consequence of perhaps inspections, reevaluations not happening frequently enough, or is it that there are not imposed restrictions on how quickly you have to address problems once they are cited by way of inspections and recertifications? >> all the the comments you just stated are being right now, from what i'm seeing with the government officials, the inspectors, the building inspectors that i'm with, they're focusing all those energies in the same fashion. because right now, we have to do all of that. we are stepping back, and we're looking and assessing each and every building. we to ashave assess each and evy building because it's a large quantity of structures we live in. hotels, apartments, condominiums. some of them have been
year number 3, it's going to magnify. it's not a straight line, it goes up geometrically. i'm not at all surprised. even with inflation and the cost of construction going up, it's no surprise to me. >> two issues. one, knowing what you know about this building, what's your reckoning about why the repairs weren't done when they were supposed to be? what was your experience working with them? >> this building is sort of an anomaly. i'm used to doing 40-year recertifications when the building department asks for it, which in this case would have been the year 2021. these people had the foresight, for whatever reason, maybe they already saw the damages, that they chose to do it three years before ahead of time. so when they saw the damages, they should have, you know, immediately jumped on it and done something about it. but it's very complex, all the different pieces that go into play as far as banks and assessments and the people
year number 3, it's going to magnify. it's not a straight line, it goes up geometrically. i'm not at all surprised. even with inflation and the cost of construction going up, it's no surprise to me. >> two issues. one, knowing what you know about this building, what's your reckoning about why the repairs weren't done when they were supposed to be? what was your experience working with them? >> this building is sort of an anomaly. i'm used to doing 40-year recertifications when the building department asks for it, which in this case would have been the year 2021. these people had the foresight, for whatever reason, maybe they already saw the damages, that they chose to do it three years before ahead of time. so when they saw the damages, they should have, you know, immediately jumped on it and done something about it. but it's very complex, all the