When it comes to, you know, a defense that's based on a mental health crisis, what goes into bringing that defense to a judge and a jury? I imagine, okay, you've had conversations with people that are in the medical field, but walk me through that.

So let's talk about one that would happen here in Minnesota or North Dakota.

And I've litigated a number of these.

Somebody gets charged with typically an egregious crime, but it doesn't have to be.

And I meet with my client, and it's clear that either my client, when I meet with them or before, had a serious mental health problem.

I'm not a professional, but I can tell something is amiss.

We would then have asked for a mental health evaluation.

Bruce, do you have anything to

Yeah

... and I've been around gun culture, and I've studied Second Amendment jurisprudence for, you know, longer than I've been a lawyer.

We're in a very weird cultural moment.

Back in February when Alex Preddy was killed by an ICE agent, he was a lawful concealed carry holder.

He was sober.

And, um, the director of the FBI said, "You can't come to a protest with a loaded gun and an extra magazine and expect," I'm paraphrasing, "and expect to not be shot by law enforcement." If the director of the FBI under the Obama or Biden administration had said that, there would be hundreds and hundreds of people with their AR-15s at protests.

Because indeed, from a purist perspective on the Second Amendment, the point of the Second Amendment is not to hunt, it's not to defend your home, it's to be able to r- fight back against the federal government.

You've got thoughts on Tony Romo's OWI in Wisconsin.

But I'm curious, in the profession of which you guys are in, talk to me about it, Bruce.

So law is an intrinsically language-based field.

There are pictures, there are people, but every single case generates text.

There's a transcript of all the hearings.

Every case has some kind of an order or opinion.

And AI as it stands today, and I'm not saying anything none of us, no one else doesn't understand, they're large language models.

So they're really good at working with language.

This isn't real.

The next steps, I mean, what legal grounds would the family have against, say, the city or the Fargo Police Department underneath Chief Cebulski at that time?

So one of the problems here is, and we talked about this several months ago, Tyler.

I realize that, you know, some of this stuff, the nuances get lost.

But at the time, based on my reading of the documents, prosecutor, I didn't see the original evidence, but they appeared to have probable cause to charge Mr. Jones.

That is to say they had enough evidence that they could bring a criminal accusation against him.

And then once he was out to warrant, Mr. Jones and his family wanted to try and get the charges dropped while he was out to warrant.

The problem is that law enforcement really doesn't do that.

Why choosing one? Why saying this is the path we want to take? Bruce, I'll throw that to you.