MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
mistake he thought that when he was oh my god away from a sad event pointed at the officer and therefore was satisfied state if in fact he had no fear and that was and it was not part of his subjective analysis w were there the student says you do not get it what do you think what do you think of what let's assume the officer subjectively believed that by pulling the gun away from his head he was meant to do he's bringing it down the reason i would not be able to tell why his what his intentions were whether he was going to comply with the command to rogers to suicide or refuses commands to draw see that sounds like this case and then she raises the gun to the officer of a summary judgment record where we know we don't have any thing in this record that tells us what the officer was thinking we could for all we know we assume the officer knew he was dropping me god we don't know  so how do we know what the officer was thinking we don't have those kids doing what i can to sears what a recent officer could conclude and i think the case law is clear and a reasonable officer in this scenario could conclude that is it's absolutely with the officers numerous commands and at one point he did actually point to the officers and the gun in the direction of the officers however the quote specifically stated even to me and did if the man did not point the gun in the opposite direction the fact that he did not comply with the officer's repeated commands to drop the gun and justify the use of deadly force we have a here can was told initially when he had to decide to drop the gun he didn't do that instead he said and he raised it to his head you give law enforcement officers and of cred to believe that that a reasonable officer would be justified you know being far in a situation where a person is born again in a different direction refused to rejected that legal conclusion instead found that the force was justified and that a reasonable officer could conclude that he can post a threat we talked a lot about the second and the second prong in this court and i think it i think it's absolutely clear here that he did not pose a at night he did pose a threat to the opposite your time has expired it has expired thank you so much you're just
we do them not just marc out of there and everything in that shaves a little drive more to him the lawyer says yes that would be great and they would consider it when in fact they've been precluded from considering them is there a difference between that promise and the plea agreement i think it is context there is not a difference because the trial court and defense day good conduct credit and program credit was not mention that that kind of actor david is all that is required for post conviction claims that arise from power stations between defendant and his attorney
controversial because i'm paying maintenance for too long a period of time and the houses are selling because the economy collapsed and that  you can initiate a post to create action simply by mailing a pleading to the other party so the the race your honor comes into effect because the co to use this process to change your legal theory when you couldn't have done that in the first place it is not allowing anyone in there is an abuse of discretion ruling tracing the argument on the   very unusual to come in five years or whatever and say i didn't know what i was doing i mean it's especially after the attorney representing you when you did came in with the  to this indefinite term of maintenance in wish you what my friday actually agreeing to in the first place was a ten year term of made sense which would be shortened down to eight years in the event when the maintenance term began and so not even that marriage counts so she's entitled to the full ten years ok and that market i think that that construction the idea that my clamoring for ok you can get married in this part in this incorrect and i can't really speak to why he filed this petition seeking this commencement i believe the proper or there was clearly a controversy between the parties as to what this agreement meant the end its terms the end i think judgment absolutely judge first of all it was there was it was a two count pleading that we filed the first one was brought under the first comes procession to yourself one of the co civil procedure was seeking declaratory relief and i think this is the crux of this file our client is stuck with this and that's why i'm at the loss to understand why my prior counsel file titian under section five ten of the four say i wish to see this which governs a modification of the agreement when they clearly reformation count as well can be brought after the fact with respect to this and then finally i would have also that counsel here never raise this argument again going to that army they did raise it and they didn't attack
if the tipster says he's going to be coming in and going to his apartment for lunch and then leaving to return back to work it's implied that that painting the drugs from the apartment so why not get  it they had fifteen minute costs for a search warrant you need probable cause for a terrorist up you need reasonable articulable suspicion which is a lower level and i think the police wanted as was mentioned earlier to get more information before asking for search warrant and i guess i don't know the time frame i don't recall the time frame except that he had spoken to him that day i don't think it was a tremendous time frame because the evidence was i told the one officer the other two why you wait till the way out that would corroborate the tip details tip the tip in this case was quite different from the tip in alabama view white in that with that was an anonymous tip we have known person and as in sparks as a person this is the first time  and we do know the basis of knowledge of this tipster's information on like in the alabama of the wife and he said he had spoken to the defendant that morning this was somebody who had you know two months previously within the past two months offered to sell him cannabis and with the with the defendant that morning the defendant told him that he'd be offered and the defendant told him what he had and the defendant told him that he would have some drugs on him when he went back to work for later that's why i soon waited till the second part but these were predicted details that would be just the innocent explanation of what time one of these for work goes home and comes back to work so this level of detail in this tape was was much better than the level of said in his example i heard he had drugs on him he said defendant told me that he had just read up last night and that he would have some drugs on him when he returned to work from his lunch break therefore even though the officer had not
committee will come to order
say that the question is here thank you very much
you want to work oh i know go right ahead of course i'm right i want to go to work you know what i want you to do for me i finally do investigate the panama night it was impossible to tell up my real
no rough stuff ok
so time to get closer and closer
where you're going larry i don't know and some fun well come on up the house with me and make a mess of the streets are right back on sport come on ok why not i haven't missed one in years sure i like them they do something and i found out  told me about one night a week and the rest of the nights are plenty cold one night a week fronts you have to come through our bedroom to get to the bathroom but don't mind well i guess we ought to get drunk and celebrate now and i'm going to go on a ride home and tell millie the good news it was certainly get around a minute ago you were stuck on that dame say what your mother ever frightened by a maybe she had a bad cold while you were away house tonight for supper i guess i thought well that's all right larry i feel later nobody else drill why not now while doing it i take two thousand dollars and throw it over your shoulder that two of us could grab the boat slip out after it was dark clean up the whole deal and be back before daylight y f s singe we can pick up some easy double regular as know the stuff i brought him tasted so good that's the way with night the can never people fight for champagne the dumb ones the contented with  i live with that i'm in that business you know i didn't know you felt that way about cookies and i don't think i'd weigh about cookie he understand i think i understand too and that's great and from now on i won't be any occur to you that i i might be stuck on lowry but he's my husband and i want him well you should worry as long as you have everything you want everything i want he didn't come home  name is larry white he used to work for you i believe and i already white that's in and if you're interested he's up in her apartment right now he's up there now yep just had a phone call from one of our men i don't think it's not to call a doctor tonight but if your temperature is up in the morning we'll have one pop up call our don't worry about me i'll be all right of course you kill you just because i would expect you to kill me if i and robbed you of the thing you value is the most this is  no i guess i'm going up clean business clean i won't ever complain again you didn't attract you made it with granger i don't want to make a hit with the angels i don't want to make
isn't i made a promise i'm going to keep it i can i simply got to talk to kind of this number please i give up small gal i did that a long time ago come what is it this what is it this time if you loved me you would have answered my telegram you received on the train you think i don't know but if you went on the train you could never received it and it went up on the boat you won't have to answer this one either because things you have the advantage but definitely you may lower your hand thank you i believe it's customary to ask me i smoke in it i trust you have better judgment than to attempt anything foolish i assure you said my judgment is excellent
sometimes allowed to use black was indians and sometimes i could only use the word blacks and if i used the word black west indians sometimes i would be allowed and sometimes a jury would be instructed that that's not what this case  confusion in the rulings of the third circuit but the statute itself does not apply to either pretext or mixed mode of the statute says this is the standard when you're claiming disparate treatment this is the standard because we say even if that was a factor the the reason that you fired him for daring to ask if a tall requirement was actually a valid requirement was because he was black and you didn't want to hire him in the first now the jury would have understood that a lot better if the court hadn't excluded all the evidence is the fact they had to put to get their to even get referred to them for two months and that there that by that  son had previously said we are not hiring anybody but laborers of west indian descent because we're all other people we will be hiring stateside and the fact that multiple occasions they falsely told the west  not but there's no such thing as a pretext case that's a piece of evidence under mcdonnell douglas that says once they get this far you can refute that by pretext but there's really no pre it's whether or not you were discriminated you want to i believe that even under a pretense that there you are still untitled if the jury wants to to to look at mixed motive was there more than one reason was maybe that pre was partially but there was a mix motive in that preter so i'm still entitle to a substantial factor instruction and the third circus on jury charge says i'm entitled to that and the statute itself had not violated that judge that that motive for wanting his tools all he had done was ask if they were sure that they were correct that tools could be brought to the refinery as he had never ever in the eight there been allowed to bring i the evidence was that mr to tell us wasn't even reporting for work that day he just taken his right to know went over to tell mr langer you guys right to know mr langer said where are your tools and he said i'm not even appearing to work and you were kinds of control had to be manpower request forms they had to prove who was being hired they had to prove the management team had to approve the salary ranges they had to approve they had to abide by their or their rules and regulations there was ample evidence unto you contract of control to go to the court made the error of deciding that it would rule as a matter of law which contract applied although there was tons of
analysis is it at analysis was undocumented and there is no evidence in the record the seed in reaching its conclusion quote unquote that all requirements can be met in the e p a in reaching that conclusion there was no requirements analysis conducted and the evidence that there was no way the current announces conducted is the absence industry record of any comparison of labor leader positions factors and must be documented in some forms of the public or the lower court can assess the validity of the underlying measure in this case we have no documents contemporaneous on this showing  a whole court is adjourned until tomorrow morning at ten o'clock am thank you
employee works for ten hour days you know work week must he be paid overtime for the two hours in excess of eight that he works in each of those
negotiated your time and i appreciate that you will hear our balance go off but if we build a new information you will probably give you some additional time if you needed to complete your argument if you just ask and and if there is no indication on the script that skerrick are not generic doesn't the pharmacist discuss that with the big person purchasing i mean isn't that what usually not have that in this case in fact the expert testimony in this case is the opposite therefore there is no question of fact by which to get to a jury there's no question if the two thirteen disclosures but putting that aside on whether he thinks he complied with the stairs of care or not i don't think it's control i think what's controlling is what occurred what happened to the court that seventy percent of their briefs and about ninety percent of their argument here today have been about the facts of this case and you know as we know from if the case law
i'm not sure the narrow reading of cell phone service obligation under this statute has to track a franchise agreement written by a between two part is is correct which is the act of the legislature here set forth three things and agree with mr riddell on this basic structure but i think that and i'm like him i think it's very easy set to harmonize in this figure out how those three things play together  think that if you look at how these scenarios close together you see a very natural interaction among the three provisions where you have surname agreements letting agreements and then offering to do agreements on the expiration of that once it makes a change taxes all of these different ways in which the manufacturing the dealers and the relationship could either be ended or changed and what it does is just should embrace that pointed out is if you're going to make some changes if you're going to allow good actually out of the statute and i think that the third one that that we discussed in our brief was you know you have to apply it to civic provision over general provision here airstream did not cancel the agreement it you really think when the legislators are there those pretend they were in springfield and they when they were doing this and even if you were thinking about people selling bentleys or made bikes or air springs as opposed to people selling horses well i think that's right i think that's a fair point that this is really something that's geared towards cars which is why you see a ten mile protection in urban areas a fifty mile protection in  hearing that the legislature is going to protect that if you have another car dealership at least ten or fifteen miles away then you're going to have the opportunity to make a market without competition so i think it's right that this is this is dr lith cars in mind it doesn't apply to necessarily bad it's best if you're a consumer so to create a monopoly if you will is is generally considered an american thing to do right and so i mean do we would consider that
dream to it and paying the money you know you just had a contract expired and you didn't you that why didn't you just say look this is contrary to u s law we will not be a demonstrates which was appended to our request for additional briefing on the nudist issue there was a concern on the part of the company that the labor contract for the entire president of the union on the present dollars a year on the table you know why they keep doing it because the price would be too high if it's illegal it's filling of them don't you if you think it's illegal just go on don't do it  exist in there but with the no docking rule do we assume that typically the shop steward as a part spends part of his time whether regular employee function and then the rest of this time doing union work or is is the experience that you've raised here fairly common now where the shop steward what policy issue or what policy interest of the employer is being served by your approach then other words somebody's going to have to do this job as such because  language in ur agreement reflecting what the arbitrator did confirming that the steward now has the right to work overtime on weekends and holidays when you say work overtime it's just doing union work and i'm not working as a mechanic but i'm paranoid but if i understand the stipulation he doesn't do any work as a mechanic at the time that this case was being litigated goodrick said we will not allow you to turn around you cannot work as a mechanic you must  binding in that sense and it was a different standard review in the district court we haven't pressed that argument here you're not claiming i haven't seen him lose any kind of a stop on the part of the company to face this argument because it's consented to with the consent of again then talk about how it's going to be accounted for and whose responsibility it is so the price actually addressed the issue of negotiations the negotiations mr barak described and worked out a solution to the problem allowing the chief steward to work overtime or she chooses to do so only on weekends and holidays and that during the week subject to the other conditions that are contained therein so the effect adopted the advertising decision with some slight modification say you know we like joe we're here because he's a mechanic and so we're going to give him most of the overtime and we're not going to give bob over here of overtime because you know we don't like
where he was standing taking him out in the back of the legs causing his injuries oh so this specific wrist was not what we call in we don't know the specific risk of people whipping at high out that he believes that this whether he whipped whether rose off the ground is a semantic issue we disagree with that and and if i could i'm if you'll allow me i'm going to actually reverb a and what the trial court said you point out several instances where the defendant could have taken some remedial steps to make the man safer i mean quite frankly i think my opponent would agree that you know this was pretty on organized in fact there was no  anything to keep people moving all around the area that is why my client was given the duty multiple duties of not only holding the traffic but prevent anyone maybe watching for his attention it is reasonably foreseeable that he will have to look around that is a duty that was put upon him by the defendant accordingly because the distraction makes this case single is full of promise all unique car off for a company just because they don't work for profit you know
recognized in the past cases that were there to complete the experts it's probably not appropriate for summary proceeding so the question is because all those completely expert reports and the need to him rebuttal expert reports that shouldn't have been done when they got too far to be there stalking horse they knew seeing this was an issue where they tried to limit the way he wrote his original injunction and this was all planned by them to get a second bite at the end and if this were holes that any time to bring  is a point the point isn't whether the aug thirty first expert testimony was weak or not weak the point is whether they were entitled as a matter of the fear in this to submit some additional expert evidence if they did it very quickly which they did only a week later but he wouldn't allow it apparently not because it was irrelevant or fraudulent or anything like that what i'm not i'm not questioning at the moment whether the proceedings had to be a full trial in front of paul meyer or a summary proceeding in front of posner i'm assuming that it can be a summary proceeding in front of posner but it still has to be a proceeding that meets minimum fairness and doesn't involve elements of surprise i i had the recollection maybe it's quite inaccurate but i had the recollection that it was a comment that judge posner made at the end of the proceeding that caught them by surprise and led to the two later experts and if that recollection is correct then it's not fair to say well they should have known between august fifteenth and the hearing on the thirty first that they better bring those other two witnesses because nearly two in his address the point they didn't even think was relevant until after judge posner made a comment at the at the end of the evidence a normal infringement trial look i think i think just starts in just to be a few moments ago if you were a whole bunch of experts and they all had to testify you're outside some receipt my suggestion is you can have it both ways all the time if you have the time to hold did you ask for the extension of time to present evidence at the evidence or here at the time we got that you know it was basically that hearing beyond the end date right you were caught by surprise during the hearing on august thirty first and needed a week to put in some further tests to meet that surprise all right i thank both counsel will take the
contradictory on the defense side i don't think so necessarily pleading it i think it's a way that the defense can easily try to pigeonhole case into a as we win were the effects trying to make a reasonable difference that this condition is difficult to discover because when a person is approaching the front to work they're going to be concerned about making the turn they're really concerned about people coming out of the store who are going noticed something is only an obvious well that's pretty good evidence that it's not and then once that's the case it's a question of fact and then the obviousness question goes to a jury and that's  into the open in obvious analysis well to me it raises another factual dispute here in why truth is the question of this nature this condition see fit into a factual one such that true but to me the case was clear they each have their own independent factors that speak to whether something's in this something is over now he's beyond just a high differential so there's there's not a continuum least in the case law that says get into the world of of favoring factors three for more than one two you're getting to a point where you are going to hold was an unreasonable standard to me has seemed to put that burden on the defendant in terms of both an obvious but how do you carry a burden if you don't know about the deviation until or about the fall until two years later all the picture about this picture of him produced in discovery and she said well this is the picture my supervisor you know took the day after the accident and it states that the day after the accident and you believe that the question was well were you there no i wasn't how do you
just be looked at of course later after has to be looked at in the context of the entire transgressed and the tire evidence that the jury was presented with and this is not the only evidence that show that there was a