rned into a zombie slave, but we are going to be there. I mean, you will be. You are part machine already, and it hasn't killed you so far. So we have to watch out for this, of course, because there's a dark way it could go, and it could easily go the dark way. But not necessarily. I would, if I had to predict, far more likely the technology integrated in our body will be positive, just like up till now.

Now, are you a cyborg if you're part chemically altered? You're a cyborg if part of your body is a microchip or any mechanical device, by definition. But what if you were born as a regular human but now you're a human plus whatever vaccinations and chemical alterations have been added to you? Aren't you always that new modified thing after a vaccination? I feel like we're already chemical cyborgs too. So just being a chemical cyborg in the future doesn't mean that it will be worse, because we're already chemical cyborgs now.

I'm not going to tell you that I know. Whenever I talk about a topic and I don't act critical enough, somebody's going to say, "Why are you supporting putting chips in people?" Nothing like that happened. If you imagined I just supported putting a chip in a person, that didn't happen. I simply didn't criticize it. I'm simply talking about it. I don't know if this will be bad. It easily could be. It would be pretty easy to imagine it becoming bad, right? But that would be true of everything. Almost everything that we enjoy today, you could have easily imagined it would turn bad, right?

What about China boiling the frog? What is not a slippery slope? Isn't that the issue? See, my problem with this slippery slope is that there's nothing that's not a slippery slope. And if everything is a slippery slope, it just becomes sort of meaningless.

All right, well, we don't want the dictators to control us with microchips, but I'm less worried about that than you are. Maybe irrationally. I don't know.

The Floyd trial is going to enter a new phase, I guess, maybe today or tomorrow. The defense will be presenting its case. Now, did you know that the defense hasn't really done its full case yet? So if you were to look at what you believe about the Floyd and Chauvin situation today, it's based on mostly seeing the prosecutor's best evidence. We think it's the best. What happens when the defense really digs in? Probably in the next 48 hours, if you're following it, you're going to say to yourself, "Whoa, there were some surprises. I really thought that prosecution had a good case, but now that I've listened to the defense, it changes everything."

Now, there's nothing more humbling than thinking you understand the law and then listening to an actual lawyer set you straight. So yesterday I was listening to Alan Dershowitz's podcast about the trial, and I was also listening to Viva Frei and Robert Barnes. And by the way, you should follow them on Locals and on YouTube for anything legal, especially. They do some of the best easy descriptions of what's going on with new stuff you didn't understand before.

But here's one of the things that both of them told me yesterday that I hadn't heard in the news. So here's something that mainstream news, as far as I know, is not even reporting, but it seems like an important fact. It goes like this: that if the moment of death of George Floyd is sort of indicated by the prosecution — and it has been, that there's testimony that you can tell the moment of his death — the problem with that, according to legal experts, and I didn't see this one at all, this was invisible to me, is that you can't be guilty of killing somebody after they're dead.

Now that makes sense, right? You can't murder a dead person. But here's where it gets technical in the Floyd-Chauvin case, because there's some of the evidence, a good deal of it, that makes Chauvin look the worst happened after the prosecution has told the jury that he was already dead.

Now you say to yourself, "Yeah, but that would tell you a lot if the way he's acting after Floyd is dead, if he didn't know he was dead." Your common sense says, "Well, it doesn't matter if he knew he was dead. You're still learning a lot about who he is and what his intentions were by what he's doing, because he didn't know, right?" But apparently the law sees it differently. The law says that whatever brutality he did or did not inflict after somebody's dead, it can't be against the law. At least it's not murder. It might be some other law.

And so all of the video evidence, the video evidence that happened after that presumed moment of death, which might be like three minutes — it could be a pretty big amount of the nine minutes that Floyd was on the ground controlled — and it turns out that that last three minutes might be some of the worst part of it. So that legally it could be tossed out. But does that matter? That's a technical thing I didn't know, and I was kind of surprised actually, kind of surprised to find out that that would be meaningful in this case.

However, both Robert Barnes and Alan Dershowitz make the following point, and I think Barnes did it the best. He said that in his experience — and probably research too, I don't know — that only 10 to 20 percent of juries look at the facts to make their decisions. Now of course they all look at the fact