.jpg)
Blue Grit Podcast: The Voice of Texas Law Enforcement
2024: Ranked #1 Law Podcast
Host: Tyler Owen and Clint McNear discussing topics, issues, and stories within the law enforcement community. TMPA is the voice of Texas Law Enforcement, focused on protecting those who serve. Since 1950, we have been defending the rights and interests of Texas Peace Officers by providing the best legal assistance in the country, effective lobbying at state and local levels, affordable training, and exemplary member support. As the largest law enforcement association in Texas, TMPA is proud to represent 33,000 local, county and state law enforcement officers.
Blue Grit Podcast: The Voice of Texas Law Enforcement
#031- "A Pioneer Attorney for Cops"
Get ready for an enlightening journey that tracks the fascinating path of Bob Gorsky, the longest-serving TMPA attorney. Picture a young man in Kenmore, New York, who majors in sociology and eventually aligns himself with the powerful field of law enforcement representation. Bob's story spans over 48 years and narrates a tale of evolution, resolve, and constant learning. As we listen to Bob's journey, we uncover his profound impact on the landscape of officer-involved shootings, acting as a pioneering force for change and justice.
Our conversation moves fluidly through the intricacies of police shooting policies, the repercussions of dashcam videos in investigations, and the amplified scrutiny of officers involved in shootings. There's an emotional undercurrent as Bob discusses the evolving penal code, the necessity of having an attorney present, and the shifting dynamics of walkthroughs. The conversation brings to light the meticulous preparation that the Rangers undergo to navigate scenarios where immediate statements aren't accessible.
The podcast rounds out with a focus on the pillars of honesty and training in law enforcement and the crucial role they play in shaping an officer's relationship with attorneys like Bob. Brace yourself as we delve into the harsh consequences of dishonesty, the rigorous criteria of prosecutors, and the constant battles to gain access to legal aid. Politics, its pervasive influence on the prosecution of law enforcement officers, and the potential for progress in Austin also take center stage. Tune in for an episode you won't soon forget.
email us at- bluegrit@tmpa.org
That really pushed things towards the association focused on. We've got to have the right representation immediately. I think I'm the first attorney and this will probably be the most thing I'm most proud of is a lawyer, first attorney to regularly respond to an officer about shooting.
Speaker 2:Hey everybody, it's BlueGrit podcast. Clint McNeer and Tyler Owen. We're back. How are you, tio?
Speaker 3:I'm good man, Good Just hanging out.
Speaker 2:Let's do this how you be Good. Good, good, good thing to do with you Yep Drove in this morning Zero traffic.
Speaker 3:How was that Ford doing?
Speaker 2:Ford road. Ford road good.
Speaker 3:Oh it did. Hmm, Drove like a Crown.
Speaker 2:Vic, I guess right.
Speaker 3:No, it didn't, it drove like a Caprice, it flew down here. Oh, it did.
Speaker 2:Yep, like a Chevy Caprice police car. Oh, really it was good, oh, okay.
Speaker 3:Well, that's a shocker.
Speaker 2:Yep, we are proud to have, I would guess, the longest serving TNPA attorney on the show, mr Bob Gorski.
Speaker 1:How are you?
Speaker 2:We're good, sir, we're good. How was your trip now?
Speaker 1:It was wonderful, very smooth, like yours. I was in my Jewish boy Cadillac Right down 35 without a problem.
Speaker 2:Waco's is like a new place now, when you can actually drive through the city, I know, without touching your break.
Speaker 1:I was very happy. I thought this might be one of those four hour trips, but it was much less.
Speaker 2:Yep, I like those two hour 40 minute trips, right, right. Tell us who Bob is. Tell us a little bit about you, our listeners, who you are, and then we'll dive into who you are, as we know you.
Speaker 1:Well, I grew up in Kenmore, new York, which is a suburb of Buffalo, just adjacent to Buffalo, and I graduated from the University of Buffalo State University of New York at Buffalo in 1970 and or, excuse me, 74. High school graduation was 1970. And I was actually a sociology major. When I was in college I thought I was going to become a social worker.
Speaker 2:You kind of still Thank God, you did not do that.
Speaker 1:I was a co-director in college of a big brother big sister program. It's not now part of the big brothers of America program, but at that time it was. It was informed at the university and it was growing.
Speaker 1:And I joined in as a big brother for a young boy and also became the co-director of the program until I graduated. So while I was in college I knew people who had gone into social work and they all complained about the bureaucracies and the budgets and difficulties and I thought maybe that's not for me, that's not police work, and I thought I could go into police, into law, and still do something, maybe in juvenile. And actually when I started law school I thought I might end up in criminal defense or juvenile law, something of that sort. But I wasn't going to work until my second year. But late in my first year April of it was actually 1976. I was, I had taken a year and I was in my first year of law school A friend of mine walked into a party and we were in a study group together and he said, hey, this firm needs another clerk.
Speaker 1:It's Phil Burleson's law firm and you know you used to been working and I had seen Phil's name in the newspaper. He was known as a criminal defense lawyer. He represented Jack Ruby along with Melvin Bell Eye and he had made his name after he left the DA's office in that area but still did a lot of different things, but I knew that name and I thought, you know I wasn't going to start working this soon, but maybe this is an opportunity I don't want to pass up. And I'm not sure. Initially I even realized that he was the first lawyer for the Dallas Police Association, the first lawyer for the Texas DPS Officer's Association, and that the firm was representing police officers at that time so what year was that?
Speaker 1:1976. And so two weeks after I went to work there as a part-time clerk as I was finishing my first year, the Colin Davis shooting occurred in Fort Worth. And shortly after that, because Phil was brought in to work with the Raceworths, haynes and other lawyers in the firm, phil basically was gone for a year in mostly in Amarillo where the case was moved to Amarillo. But I clerked there and I graduated from SMU in 1978. I began to work on police cases, mostly with Jack Pate at the time, and at that time officers called us basically after they'd been suspended, after they'd been terminated. There was no representation in internal affairs, there was no representation immediately after an officer involved shooting. But when I graduated and they all joked that I just refused to leave and I stayed on with the firm. I was the first lawyer those guys had ever hired. Usually they just had lawyers in the firm that had established practices or had left the DA's office to open a practice. So I said the clerk that wouldn't leave.
Speaker 1:The clerk that wouldn't leave, which is actually what I've referred to as Zach Horn is, so I stayed on and began to really focus on representation of law enforcement officers. We had very few firefighters back at that time. We have a bunch now coming to us, but at that time we had very few and it was all police you committed. So yeah.
Speaker 1:I worked with Jack Pate and Jack was doing a lot of family law at that time and I really just dug in and focused on our police representation. I remember going to a DPA board meeting and standing up. I didn't know a lot of those guys and you know I've been around there as a law student but really I was a lawyer now and I was more engaged with them and explain to them how we need to do some things differently and how we were going to conduct ourselves. I've sort of carried that forward.
Speaker 2:Well, and for our listeners, what's interesting to your point about? Back then? You were really kind of only involved after they'd been suspended or terminated. And for our listeners out there it's kind of like the ball games over and you're only brought into appeal the results of the ball game. You're not allowed to participate.
Speaker 1:It was very reactive, not proactive.
Speaker 3:Yes, the not thinning.
Speaker 1:Now we're trying to bring in the yeah you know we spend a lot of time now and have for many years trying to, as we represent officers, also teach the associations and the officers we represent what you need to do to stay out of trouble. Back in those days it was more reacting to the trouble that existed and the you know law enforcement and the public's response to to critical incidents in particular very different back in the late seventies and officers didn't assume that they had rights. At that time Most officers thought I don't have my, I left my rights at the door.
Speaker 3:Oh, a hundred percent for the job yeah.
Speaker 1:And that changed. In the early eighties. The politics in Dallas in particular changed, and there were a number of officer involved. Shootings that got a lot of public attention, a lot of criticism. There was a congressional hearing that was held in Dallas. John Bryant, who's now in the state legislature, was a congressman. He brought the judicial committee I can't remember which committee exactly criminal justice. John Conyers was the chairman, but he brought him down to Dallas to have a major public hearing about police department and use of force, and we had had a controversial shooting at one point in time in that era.
Speaker 1:An officer shot an 80 some year old woman who had come to the door with a gun in her hand, shot, killed her and of course, he was on probation.
Speaker 1:He was fired, got a lot of attention, though, and a lot of criticism of the police department.
Speaker 1:Even though the shooting was justified, he was not charged with anything, and so officers began to think you know, I don't know if the city's got my back and we had one particular case probably the most memorable case, one of the most memorable cases of my career where an officer came home from court and found a burglar in his house.
Speaker 1:Didn't have a cell phone back at that point in time. Some people might have, but he didn't have one and he handcuffed him in front and he went to call for help and the guy came up with a gun, which I think was the, as I remember, the officer's gun or one of his guns that was in his house. He shot and killed the burglar and he was brought down to the police department. I got a call and I'm not sure if an association person called or how that came about, but I got a call. I went down there to the police department. A city attorney, police investigators and internal affairs all took him in a room and say you can't come in here. He didn't have a right to a lawyer and he panicked and he lied about the circumstances and panicked, meaning it was a justified shooting, but he just by shooting.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, he was, he was ultimately cleared.
Speaker 1:We, you know we polygraphed him on the. You know what the facts were and what, how they all played out and he was cleared on everything. But they fired him for lying and I'm convinced this is a good cop. I'm convinced he would have if I would have been with him. We've explained it. You know should have cuffed him the way he did. You know he that's where he messed up.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's where he messed up.
Speaker 1:And we would have explained it. And you know the firing was for lying, not for the shooting. Yeah, and that really pushed things towards the association focused on. We've got to have the right to representation immediately after a shooting Officer's going to be identified as a suspect, essentially in a homicide.
Speaker 3:At what point did Garity get kind of introduced to? Do you remember that you know?
Speaker 1:I'm. I'm sorry to say I don't remember what year the case came out, but it was. I think Garity might have even been before.
Speaker 3:Was it intro before that incident? It may have been before that happened.
Speaker 1:That's a good question.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, as I get older some of the no, yeah.
Speaker 1:But so we pressed on DPD to allow us access and the chief, Glenn King, was the chief at the time and he pushed back and we threatened to sue them. We told them we're filing a suit on Monday If we are not given the right through policy to have access to our client after shooting Friday afternoon. Before that Monday we got a call from one of the assistant city attorneys yeah, we're going to implement a policy, you can be out there.
Speaker 3:So basically, what you're saying is is that you Basically essentially have more the pioneer.
Speaker 1:You know I've asked other lawyers around the state if any of them know of anyone that was regularly responding to shootings back at that time and I can't find one. As far as I know. It wasn't happening in Houston, wasn't happening in Austin. I think I'm the first attorney and this will probably be the most. The thing I'm most proud of is a lawyer, the first attorney to regularly respond to an officer of shooting, and I'll tell you about the first one I went to. This is how much I had to learn. I walk into an apartment. It was a Jamaican drug gang. I don't know if they'd shoot out with cops or shoot out with each other.
Speaker 2:Cops came, I'm going to guess like 8081, when the Jamaicans came in and were killing everybody. This was 83. 83, yep.
Speaker 1:And I walked into the apartment and I see a puddle of red and I said one of the detectives, that's where you shot he goes. No, that's where a bottle of wine spilled over the body's over there it was like a naked gun movie, the naked gun movies where the cameras would like I pan to the bottle tipped over at the white on the floor. And I'm thinking Gorski, you know you got a few things to learn.
Speaker 3:I wasn't a police officer, right, I was just. You know, I came from New York, who was trying to learn my way. I was like go.
Speaker 1:You know, over the years I've hired lawyers that came out of law enforcement, which is a great thing to have?
Speaker 3:Oh, absolutely. And then around running.
Speaker 1:And then there's other ones, like me, you know, and Zach, that have kind of had to learn as we go through it. So that changed the landscape. And the next department that I remember in the Dallas area that came forward with a policy was Plano and Chief Glasscock.
Speaker 1:Bruce Glassco actually reached out to me and we had you know, we got along but we always had our differences, you know, battles with him. But he reached out and said we're going to have a policy and we had a. If I remember, we had a case or two where you know, we have an officer of all the shooting. We were okay to go out there but then someone would move them. You know I remember one we're one of the supervisors moved our client. We're trying to find them and to kind of hit them in somewhere, you know. So we got to have a policy and he said that's fine, we'll do it. And so we, we work with them on their policy and then over time, you know, others have followed suit where I mean I haven't run into it. I don't think we've run into a situation in many years where we got any, you know, pushback.
Speaker 2:And Bob's a humble guy that won't brag on himself, but for our listeners I want to reiterate a huge point prior to what year was the shooting where you pushed back threatened lawsuit and then you guys were allowed to then respond to shootings?
Speaker 1:So it would be 83. 83.
Speaker 2:Part of that time you're involved in a shooting, no matter how just fired or not, you didn't have access to an attorney until you either got fired, suspended or whatever. And let's be crystal clear after you take another human's life, justified or not, in Dallas County and every other county around here, the title of that report at that time it is what it is You've, you've taken another human's life. It's a homicide investigation and you have rights just like everybody else in prior to 83 and Bob. Pushing back and changing that focus is where we're at now, where soon as you're in a shooting you call the 800 number, you get TMPA. Hey, I need an attorney out here with me ASAP. That's the reason we have that right now. It's super important.
Speaker 2:And Garland, years ago, when we were looking to go to to get away from who we were affiliated with, we were researching the other companies and when we looked at TMPA I guess 15 or 20 years ago they said well, you'll have access in the Dallas area to Bob Gorsky's office. My dad started at Dallas PD and 67 and literally my entire lifetime I could hear my dad when I was a kid saying Margaret, if some shit ever happens to me, you get Bob Gorsky on the phone and get you, get Bob Gorsky out there with me. So as we sat there with TMPA staff and they said, yeah, you know there's, there's attorneys located around the state, but for you and Garland you'd have access to Bob Gorsky, and I thought, okay, I've heard that name literally my entire life from my dad and there is value when you're looking for your legal protection and understanding who are the attorneys affiliated with that organization and having somebody that's a pioneer in it how many years now 48.
Speaker 1:48. November, november, november, be 48. Almost got this figured out. That's still learning. 48 years, 48 years, that's awesome, still learning. And you know, fast forward the next 10 years and the scrutiny and officer involved, shootings of course became much, I mean really heightened.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Where DA's offices and the police departments are? Are, you know, turning over stones that they didn't turn over back in 83. You know, back in 83, in that era, investigators would come out to a shooting and often, okay, let's check this out. Okay, this is the basics. Okay, this is a good shooting.
Speaker 3:Yeah, we're not doing phone dumps.
Speaker 1:Go to the station, right, right, go to station, write a letter. Now, you know you start adding things like dash cam video. You know it changed a lot of things. The first problems we had when the dash cams came out is we want to see the video before we're going to provide a statement. And we got pushed back on that and pushback what was really only from maybe one source of DPD, but it was a number two chief and he was over CID and he said I don't think you all should be able to look at the video. And the investigators didn't care. And we reached out to the DA's office and they didn't care. They said it's okay but he wouldn't do it.
Speaker 1:So, um, I was at the race track actually one day when Phil Burleson Jr Phil's son that was working for us at the time called me and he was out in the shooting and they want to see the video and they're telling him. Chief chief said Walter says we can't see the video. I said, well then, it's someone we're not getting a statement. That's put him in a tizzy because investigators want to get a statement. They want to do the things we did at that time. At that time we were giving statements. We've, that's evolved. We don't do that as quickly as we did back in those days and, um, by an hour and a half later, finally, word came down. Okay, let me see the video. And so we've been seeing the videos ever since. So you know we have to push back when certain problems come up, and we've had to push back at different times with DPD and other departments.
Speaker 2:But and I think that's part of the reputation that you have in a 48 year career you built in your firm and Zach and John and Robert and all those guys is sometimes people think an attorney should only be a a whole bulldog, and that doesn't. That is not always the best option that I've seen.
Speaker 2:Um, and there's. There is times when, uh, catching flies with honey is the better option and I think you guys have always balanced well. In one of the instances early on, when we switched to team PN had access to you guys. A Garland officer was just under the bridge on Ferguson road in Dallas, was doing an undercover deal and ended up involved in a shooting. They were going to dope rip him and he shot him at the gas station and they got out there and told him that he wasn't going to be able to see any video.
Speaker 2:I was association president at the time, so I'm getting a kind of panicked phone calls. Well, then I got a phone call and I don't remember which attorney it was out there and it may have been you, but it was somebody from it was you or your firm said um, they're telling Garland you can load up and head to the house, cause if, if we can't see the video, then we don't talk about what occurred. And like 30 minutes later I got a call back, said oh, they've reversed that now. They've decided now it is okay for you guys to see video. And I thought that's that's how you that's push back a little bit and we get through this.
Speaker 1:No, I've never been a believer that you you have one approach that fits all situations and in all people that you need to deal with. There may come a time where you need a pounded table and there are times when you need to be practical. You be realistic and diplomatic and you've got to be able to to adjust depending upon who you're dealing with, what the situation is, and that's the way I think we've all operated at my firm. You know day one.
Speaker 2:Well, and if broken a deal and trying to get out of there is is truly my best legal option. I didn't want you, you know, I wouldn't want my attorney telling me let's go drop a nuclear missile in this mess, and then I ended up indicted or something something works out of it.
Speaker 1:It's like everything in life. You got to have some common sense. Yes, what do you business?
Speaker 3:Yep, yeah To apply. It is where it comes down to it, yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and the other major thing I'll throw in that the chains, the landscape, is our ability to be present during an IA investigation. That changed several years later. We DPA led the the the battle with the department and it was. It was just kind of a repeated. We need to have this ability and push back and we finally convinced the department that you know, when one of your guys, gals, get sued over an incident, the statement they gave your investigator is going to be exhibit one in the lawsuit.
Speaker 1:It helps you if they, if they're writing, we're not changing the facts. It's like anything a shooting or the shooting and I could play. You know we're not going to change the facts and the lawyer, we're not going to create facts that don't exist. I mean, that's the one way we can get our clients fired. Is if we were to tell them not to be truthful, yep, but how it's couched, how it's, how it's written can make a huge difference in terms of how it's perceived, particularly if they're involved in litigation. So when DPD agreed to allow us to be present and there are still some departments that don't allow that that also changed a lot in terms of representation of officers.
Speaker 2:I think that's a huge point. You know, when people say, well, if you didn't do anything wrong you don't need an attorney, or you know, I don't know why you think you need to have an attorney, in there there's, you don't have to have done anything wrong to be accused of a crime. We're seeing that in Dallas County right now. We have people indicted that didn't commit a crime officers. But the other thing, too, that I always try and express to people is the lawyer's not in there to help me create a lie or manufacture a lie. You're not going to give up your 48 year career to help me make up some scam or some story. And even the bigger point of that is now everything's on video. It's audio recorded, it's on body cam, it's on car cam, probably on 12 people stand around with their cell phone cam, it's on surveillance camera. The facts are what they are.
Speaker 3:Well, and it even goes back to even like last session with Senator West filed the bill of duty to report right, dmp is legal plan. We did not provide an attorney for witnesses. But then we as field reps had meeting after meeting and so we were not providing attorneys at that point time to a witness. Let's just say, example me and Bob got me and Bob got into a shooting and I witnessed it. Tmp wasn't providing attorneys then. But now, since this duty to intervene is what I'm referring to now, with everything going on, we're providing that attorney because of everything going on. And so that's, that's another aspect of it, because whatever I provide as a witness statement, the department can come back and say that I'm falsifying that or what did you stop Bob from shooting Exactly? And so, depending on what district attorney or what county that you live in or work in, they can come back to pending.
Speaker 1:So that's why we as an association are always trying to evolve and trying to assist our members and go off y'all's recommendation the attorneys that we have working for us, and when you're in the middle of you know a shit store I mean whether it's a shooting or some kind of event that's led to an investigation you're not always going to be thinking of things that are facts in the case, that need to be articulated, and articulated in the right way, okay, and so having assistance with that isn't changing the case, but it's making sure that that your perspective, your side of the case is being articulated in a way that the investigators and others that are going to see this and address it at some point in time in some forum will be able to understand what you went through, why you did what you did.
Speaker 2:When, as a Tyler, you said perfect, as the law evolves and how things are or Rescuted evolves, legally, things have to evolve too, cause, dad, that's in the 60s. If you shot it somebody and missed, you just pick casings up and went to the house and I'm like dear God, what did you say?
Speaker 3:And he goes. Yeah, if you didn't you didn't hit.
Speaker 2:Anybody is like oh good, no blood, no harm, no foul word. We'll go to the house.
Speaker 3:It might be like that in some places in Texas.
Speaker 1:Well, it in a miss shooting was looked at differently, even my early days. But no longer he's no longer that way.
Speaker 2:And now you're better shooting a human than a dog. I mean, you shoot a dog in some places. You're going to exactly.
Speaker 3:Well, I mean, look at that, 10 years ago you wouldn't ever thought this on an attorney, but these days, some some depending on, just like you said and I like the way, I like the way you articulated that, if you you have to evolve and you have to you can't treat every single situation the same. It depends on the circumstances and it depends on what's going on. So I think I think you said it best.
Speaker 1:And the emotional side of what, particularly with an officer, of off shooting, what an officer goes through and you know I've only been there from being on the other side of the chair but not from a shooter standpoint, but the what I know from talking to officers, obviously the literature, you know, being trained by people that are experts in the field of how the psychology works after a shooting, and everyone goes it's involvement. One goes through different emotions, they're not all the same, but they're not in a position to fully think through and discuss all the facts, even sometimes many days later, and so it just critical to have someone with with you that can help you through that. That's a it's and it's a privilege conversation because your companion officer that's not privileged. So you know you might have officers and people that'll talk to you about it and help you through it. But it's also helpful if someone that you can talk to without any concerns about it being used against you later.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and privilege Bob's referencing is defined in the penal code um clergy pen and it uh doctor privilege and attorney client privilege, and actually those are the three primary ones.
Speaker 1:Yes, yes.
Speaker 2:The the evolution of an attorney being able to be present really changed the dynamics of officer involved shootings. I worked them at Garland and and it's not an adversarial event Um, and I know years ago when I was working them, a walkthrough is a given. Or have you seen a shift in that, with everything being videoed, Are there as many walkthroughs or are you still participating? In the volume of walkthroughs.
Speaker 1:Very, very rarely will we do any kind of a walkthrough. Um, at times we might, as lawyers, tell the investigators here's some things that you might need to know or want to know. That's coming from us. It's not our client making a statement. You know, there could be a unique circumstance or there'd be a reason to have the officer say anything in front of the investigators. When I say we're talking soon after the event at the scene, so to speak, um, that was something for a long time we did, but it was done. No, no recordings. Uh, it was done typically with only the CID people, not the IA people involved. Um, but uh, those things have changed with was now all the investigators pretty much pull out their phone and start recording and they go. You know, they go to the wit. The witness officers immediately are trying to get statements. You know we used to get out to the scene of a shooting and even have an opportunity sometimes to speak to the other officers Sometimes not as easy now because of the way that's handled. So you know, david Brown, we had a lot of disagreements with David Brown, dallas, he is the first chief to actually take a position. I don't want you to get a statement from the officer for three days.
Speaker 1:A lot of people were critical of that. We actually thought at times that was too much time because our client wants to after they've gotten through at least a sleep cycle or two or is ready to. Okay, we're going to give us, we're going to talk to the investigators and we want them, I want to move on and I want to go back to work. Yeah, get back on the horse. And so sometimes there were times you know, we would actually day or two later, you know.
Speaker 1:Okay, our clients, I think we're ready to visit with you. No, we can't do it, she won't let us. So, um, so, yeah, the walkthroughs are. It would be a very unusual circumstance where we I can't imagine doing a full walkthrough, for sure, but in terms of even some dialogue, where our clients making any kind of a statement immediately after and we didn't come to the point now that I mean the rain, the, the Rangers who work a lot of these shootings. You know, obviously, dps cases, but also some of the counties and the communities outside the bigger cities, and they're they're understanding a realistic and prepared now and we have one that they're not going to get anything from our client, you know, immediately after.
Speaker 3:I think that also comes with your tenure and your experience, and they kind of have known that.
Speaker 1:Bob, you know the Gorski law firm name though because DPS has never put a policy in writing on how an officer involved shootings handled the standpoint of the lawyer role. They won't they. They told us that we can be out there, they have no problem, but they weren't going to put it in writing.
Speaker 1:They have they have been very recent. I haven't heard about it, I don't think they have, but um, yeah, so uh, but we've, we have. You know, you have to train and I don't mean that in a demeaning way, but we, by going out to these cases and dealing with the rangers and dealing with investigators in different departments, we hope at some point in time they get to a point. Okay, they understand what our role is. They understand that we're not there to screw with them. We're there to protect their, their officers in their department, just like they would want protection if they were involved.
Speaker 2:I think there's a level of mutual trust that gets built, that they understand and respect what you need to accomplish, and you all understand and respect. That's what.
Speaker 1:I. I hope we've done. Yeah for sure.
Speaker 3:There may not be a policy, but but the training that I went to put on my rangers it's a 48 hour period. That's what the Rangers are teaching and that's what the Rangers are teaching other Rangers is. 48 hours is what they're not asking for that way though. Oh yeah, well, and that's because of Bob Gorski, yeah, and sleep pattern and so forth, yeah.
Speaker 2:For our listeners, those REM cycles of sleep that Bob referenced um, you hear a fog of war, you hear, um, people not understanding what just occurred. Um, due to the over, the larger the stress, sometimes, the larger the critical incident and media they have. And when your mind minds that information is during REM cycles of sleep. And so, uh, it's a reason we always tell you if you've been involved in a shooting or a critical incident, don't go home and drink, because alcohol diminishes your REM sleep. And it's during REM sleep, specifically, where you have this movie reel with these scenes that are missing, these chunks of space that you can't recall. It's REM sleep.
Speaker 2:And so, when your mind minds those information and recalls some of that information and there's been numerous studies done in four sciences is a key to some of this research that during REM cycle sleep specifically helps people's memory recall and it's best to get a statement that's accurate than fast. And so, rather than showing up on seeing it in a statement and getting some information that may be 50% accurate, there's not a point in that verse 48 hours later, when they've had one or two REM cycles of sleep and they can give you a accurate, uh assessment of what occurred. And then Bob mentioned maybe 72 hours is too long and there's been discussion Is there a sweet spot in there, because you can have corruption, of that recall? They watched the news, they read an article. A buddy called and said you didn't shoot twice, you shot once. And another buddy calls and says you shot six times, not twice. So now they're not sure. Is there a sweet spot you feel like when there's a good, accurate recall?
Speaker 1:You know, in my experience and and currently at at my point in my life and my age, I don't get up at two in the morning and go out to these like I did years ago.
Speaker 2:Yes, okay.
Speaker 1:I'm fortunate to have wonderful lawyers in our firm that do a tremendous job. So, you know, they may have different thoughts on their more recent experience, but, um, you know, a day or at least one sleep cycle, if not two, but you know, and there could be times that three days is in the problem. It's just that I know we had gazes where we were ready because our client was anxious to move forward, you know, but, uh, and there are probably people of science out there that might have different opinions on that, what's best, but, and you know the I don't know how many times I've had officers focus immediately after a shooting, when we were first talking with them, focused on some aspect of the incident that may not be of any significance in terms of their relevance, but they continue to repeat it. I just remember that belt buckle he was wearing, or you know. And they keep repeating over and over. And this is when we're out there at the scene, which is another reason why you don't want to be out there.
Speaker 1:okay, now let's, let's try to put it all together and do a walkthrough, or put it all together and go write a statement immediately thereafter. So, yeah, and, and there are ways to look for an investigator standpoint. They, they want to get information, they want to work the case, but we're, we're never going to if we know something about the effects and apprehension or we're the weapon, but it might be. You know, I know one time I saw an officer put a gun that was lying in the street because there were kids coming up to a block before the CID. People got there and put it in a trunk of a squad car. First thing I did is tell them where the gun was. You guys didn't need to look there because I saw an officer put that away because there were passersby coming by the scene. We're always going to do things like that, but we can do those things, we can communicate those things to the investigators to help them, without our client just doing a full blown walkthrough.
Speaker 2:Well, I got me thinking. You guys can be there too to assist One of the first shootings. I went out on one officer standing, one officer's, kneeling. They're given commands to a lady with a gun across the street and she ultimately raises the gun at them and they fire. One was standing ones, kneeling. So the one kneeling, the one standing's gun's going to be right by his head. And during the interviews they asked the one standing hey, would you see what do you got? And he goes.
Speaker 2:Well, she came out with a gun. I was given commands, given commands, given commands. When she pointed the gun, I shot Okay, did the? Did the other officer shoot? Nope. Did he give any commands? Nope. So then we go talk to the officer that was kneeling. Hey, what happened? Well, there was a lady came out with a gun. She was pointing the gun at us. We kept giving her commands. She pointed the gun and we shot. I said, okay, you're the only one that shot. Yep, only one that shot. Yep, only one that shot. Did you the only one that give commands? Yep, I was the only one that gave commands. That's their truth. I mean, that's their. If they, that would be their statement.
Speaker 1:They each had blocked out what the other one was yeah.
Speaker 2:And they were their focus and if they both gave a statement that they were the only one that gave a command and the only gave one that gave a shot. Is that the truth? It's their truth. I mean it's not in and it needs an attorney to help understand and explain that. That is their truth. That's not the truth. That is their truth and that makes it the truth. I mean, that's that was their perception of they. But I guarantee you they would have both passed a polygraph that they were the only one that gave a command and they were the only each, the only one that shot. And that's just not what occurred. Without having somebody there that can help navigate through that, it'd be easier for somebody to show up and go either both line Right, exactly so you started with DPA and then DPSOA.
Speaker 3:In what year?
Speaker 1:Uh 78 when I was licensed.
Speaker 3:And then, what year did? Did the TMPA approach you and I think that was about 1990.
Speaker 1:Whenever Jim Lide was the executive director or whatever his title was at that time I think Jim was was the the leader that really got the legal going. And now my, my recall is that TMPA was around before cleat and cleat was started by some people who were TMPA. That formed the cleat organization. But then the legal part of it, the representation, I think, was either dormant or limited until they really got organized with the legal plan. Uh, and I want to, if I had to pick a date, I want to say in your historians in the in the building could help you with this better. That kid was maybe in the early nineties, early nineties. And then we started, I know locally, uh, the suburbs you know, um, I think Plano was probably in our very early one that was affiliated and Garland might have had some I'm not sure Garland, but for sure and um. So we began representing officers, you know in the local area. Uh, through T, you know we had TMPA affiliation.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I had to hire Bob at Plano PD as a jailer when I was about 19 or 20. I don't know, shock me 1992, I think it was I had to hire an ex-girlfriend decide to call internal affairs when I broke up with her. Thank you for that, sir.
Speaker 1:We got a few of those cases actually yeah, not from you.
Speaker 3:Man. So you, you've got almost 50 years of experience as a pro labor law enforcement, really attorney. What I guess? If you could sum that up and give one advice, I guess, to the listener, watcher warrior, to people listening to this podcast, advice from a 50 year plus experience?
Speaker 1:Well, you know it's. This is going to be simple, but it's going to be obviously focus on what you're taught, relying your training. Uh, be honest, okay, um, I mean, not being truthful will get you fired. It will get you fired because you will not find a prosecutor that's going to want to sponsor your testimony. And even if you've got a forgiving chief, you have a serious and you know some departments couch things like well, it was a misleading and they try to work their way around it in certain cases. But if the prosecutors determine and there are some counties where the prosecutors are very strict on who they're going to sponsor as a witness um, your department may not have any choice.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And um, so you know, but focus on what you've been trained to do. Realize you're going to be, you're watched all the time, you're going to be on some video and you're going to. So you have to be careful with not only what you do but what you say. Uh, it's, it's difficult, I mean, and it's difficult because you're put in these different situations where you've got to make life or death decisions and a lot of people are going to criticize you. Many people might praise you, but you're going to be criticized. But you're just going to have to focus on how you've been trained and prepared to do the job.
Speaker 3:One of the things that that I find interesting is the fact that a lot of our members they think because they they have a legal plan and they do have the Bob Gorski's, the Greg Kegels, the David Willis's, the John Wolf's across the state is that they can not not so much do whatever they want or do make make a mistake, is that they can rely on you guys to kind of build them out. And the fact of the matter is is that you make a mistake like that and being dishonest is probably the most egregious. You can't do that and then call you one of the most prestigious attorneys in the state and expect you to get to get them out of that. And that's one point that I want to make very obvious about this one episode just like you hit on, be honest, it's not hard. That is one thing out of this entire. If you do that, you're good.
Speaker 1:We'll do our best, but we can't change that.
Speaker 3:That's right, not miracle workers, yeah, that's right. And also don't don't call us when it's the ninth inning. Clint says it best. Don't call us when you're you know 10 run, that you know 10 runs down the ninth inning. Call us immediately when it's the first, when, when you know you're in trouble and you know that that that troubles on the horizon. That way we can get the Bob Gorskis and stuff involved early on, so we can get kind of a game plan and that goes for any type of administrative complaint. Yes, if you occurs.
Speaker 1:it never hurts to call and say hey look, here's what's going on, you know, if they don't call, us directly. They call or at least a rep and say maybe I should just at least touch base with the lawyer because I think something's coming.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and to both the I was pointed about integrity Garland, when I got hired, was a bunch of crusty old, a lot of prior marines and just old school style leadership and I love that. Um, I'll never forget they called us all in and said we can fix a whole lot of shit that you break, wreck a car you know, whatever, but if you lie we're going to fire your ass.
Speaker 2:And I thought, holy crap. They said you can have an accidental, just, you can do. You can do a lot of stupid crap and we can figure out how to work through it, but if you lie you're gone. And it is a strong statement when you're young. But when you look at it from where we're looking at it now, it's true.
Speaker 2:You can work through a lot of stuff. Right, once you lie and you publish that lie, you're done. You're done in this industry. Something I wanted to hit on before we get out of here, and you mentioned Brady you know we get calls, if not daily, every week. I got put on the Brady list. I got to put on a do not sponsor list. I got put on this and our our answer often is if there's, if it's not adversely affecting your employment, there's nothing. There's nothing you can do. If you get fired, we can assign an attorney, but simply being on a list is not an adverse action. And if it's done, there's a lot of agencies that go oh good, keep doing your job, we don't care what that says. Short of a legislative change, is there anything you recommend? Is there any? Brady's a big bumbled mess and we have legislators screaming that they have due process and we have no due process and they're owed due process, but for Brady there's no due process. What?
Speaker 1:Well, you know, there are times when we could at least weeding the lawyers, could at least try to find out more about why something has occurred in dealing with the DA's office. And you know, I can't tell you that it's going to be an easy fix. If a DA is determined, we just don't want this person testifying. Okay, they should at least reach out so that their attorney can at least try to find out what's going on, what's caused this. Is this something we can cure in some way? I mean, this is assuming it's not job threatening for the officer Okay, but you can't retry those issues. I mean, you don't have a forum to to to know that you can. Okay, I can get this immediately fixed. It's got to be done through working through with the prosecutors, and the prosecutors have discretion, a lot of discretion right now.
Speaker 2:And there's no for our listeners. There's. There's no right that we have as a member, or you have as an attorney, to force any venue or hearing or no.
Speaker 1:They can just tell you to go pad on sand Right and I think there were some efforts to try to get some kind of way to challenge that, but I don't think that's.
Speaker 2:And you mentioned, the days have a lot of power right now. I'm sure in your time you've seen change, because there was a time even and I've not been around this in years as long as you there was a time where I thought DAs and law enforcement were not on the same team. But we're certainly Heading in the same direction, the very same direction, and in some of our larger areas one of them we're sitting in right now it's not even we're headed in the same direction, it's completely adversarial.
Speaker 1:There are prosecutors that come into office or run for office With the idea I wanted to die. To cap yeah.
Speaker 2:And we're in Austin right now and he publicly announced he's looking to hire prosecutors that are ready and ready and looking to prosecute law enforcement. And do you see that? Do you see that pendulum ever swinging back? Do you see a?
Speaker 1:I think political pendulums always swing, or it's tend to, over some point in time. I don't know Austin as well. I hear the stories and I'm familiar with some of the cases here. You know Dallas County has has obviously gone to that point, not not maybe as bad as it is down here, but on their heels, uh, yeah, yeah, right. So it's been years. And the protest cases with, you know, uh, using a deadly weapon, you know by threats.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, you know so in cases that we never would have seen before. Um, but the politics in Dallas County have changed. I mean it was one time it was very Republican and that's very Democrat, so I can't say that won't change at some point in time, at least up there. And it's not something we see, you know, in every county. Obviously you can go to Calin County and the golfers get a much fairer shape, shape, shape up in Calin County, Uh, and not very far away from Dallas. But uh, you know, someday that might change. I mean, we just have to deal with what we've got at the time.
Speaker 2:Yeah, Well, there was a glimmer of hope in San Francisco. They recalled the DA and I thought, man, maybe that will. I don't want anybody to cover for the police, live for the police, but to pervert the law, to prosecute the police, is a that's a complete opposite of seeking justice.
Speaker 1:So, um, I always hope things will change for the better where we are having those kind of difficulties, and I don't want to rule that out. Now, change some point.
Speaker 3:Well, you got anything else, Glenn?
Speaker 2:Would we not hit Mr Gorski?
Speaker 1:What do we not hit? Uh well, I think you. I think you hit all the highlights. Um, we did 48 years and 48 minutes yeah.
Speaker 3:Well, bob, we always do a three rapid fire questions. All right, uh, clint's kind of soft on the second question, but I think you know probably talked about the second question because you guys talk a lot, so he probably coached you up on the second question. But it's three, three rapid fire questions. Best cop movie or line from a cop movie is question one question. Question two is best cop car? And three, your best drink of choice when you like to relax.
Speaker 1:Okay, uh, let me, let me start with the drink. Uh, tito's and soda, the line. Oh yeah, it's a line. I used to be only bourbon and soda, but I've kind of gone into the Tito's and the vodka, but I like bourbon as well.
Speaker 2:Okay, tito's.
Speaker 1:All right, now best cop car you like, talking about vintage or something. Uh, just the best all-time cop car that you're, of course, you know, not not having driven one. Okay, Uh, I I actually like the SUVs that I see around. Okay, I hear a lot of people sitting on like complaining about the.
Speaker 2:SUVs? I don't know, I like them.
Speaker 1:I like them. Maybe it's maybe I've heard that more from the troopers, I don't know. Uh, I like the SUVs, just in terms of the look Okay, I, I do too, I do too. Uh, best cop, movie, best cop movie or line from a cop movie. Wow, um, it's probably Al Pacino doing something. Okay, al Pacino, I'm an Al Pacino fan, I like Pacino.
Speaker 2:I often tell people when I was young in my like late seventies, eighties, a girl's thought I looked like Al Pacino.
Speaker 1:Now people tell me I look like Shecky Green. So you know. But uh, you know, I actually like that movie, heat with with Da Nero, yup, okay.
Speaker 2:I can't remember a line from a cop movie.
Speaker 1:I actually liked that movie. Heat with Da Nero I can't remember a line. You know the lines that I remember from shows are usually like the mobster ones, like the Sopranos type. I mean those things stick with me, but I really liked heat.
Speaker 3:It was a good movie it was a good movie.
Speaker 1:I just goodbye. I like anything, you know, pacino.
Speaker 2:Yeah, him and Da Nero were good. Yeah, they were.
Speaker 1:And I think almost like they never really worked together in movies. You know that.
Speaker 2:Oh no.
Speaker 1:I think they cut the scenes when you're together at a table, like it's like one scene where they're together in a restaurant and it's doubles when they're filming it?
Speaker 3:Oh, I thought you were watching it now.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you might look that up. I read that somewhere, but I thought that was interesting.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I don't want to get out of here without asking about your mom and dad.
Speaker 1:Mom and dad are actually for a hundred and almost 102 and my mom just turned 99. My dad will be 102 in a while. Wow. He plays the stock market and sends me emails every day, you know, and he's amazing, amazing, amazing person to live through what he's lived through veteran and the whole, the whole bit. And I will, if I can finish. Zach complained to me when I did the ATO podcast that I did not mention him enough, so I've mentioned him, I think, twice.
Speaker 3:Three times and I just said, three times. Three times. I'll say his name one more time. Who is that? Zach Horne? Who is Zach Horne?
Speaker 1:again. He's a guy that clerked for me and wouldn't leave when he graduated, so he is still there in our building.
Speaker 3:He went to a college, I think just down the road from here. Yeah, Some, what is the college? I?
Speaker 1:think it's like Oklahoma.
Speaker 3:That's right, yeah, we could get moderate Eastern state or no.
Speaker 2:Oklahoma. Yeah, we could get moderate at the Cromotris Pass. So now, now I've fulfilled my mission, I don't make you hit a nine.
Speaker 1:I'll say his name one more time.
Speaker 2:I'm on the phone with Zach about, I don't know, four or five months ago. We're talking and he's laughing. What are you doing? I'm reading my daily stock market update. So what is that? An app or what is that? That's Bob's dad, that's right. Bob sends me an email. This stock that you're in is not doing good.
Speaker 3:You need to look at this stock because you're not doing really good. That's awesome.
Speaker 1:I'm proud of everyone that works at the firm.
Speaker 3:Oh, you should be man. You got a hell of a team.
Speaker 1:I've been blessed and I don't want to carry this longer than you need to go, but I've been blessed the people that have worked with me not for me, but work with me for many years. I mean going back to Mike Cronig, who worked here as a legal advisor in Austin, but Mike was the first lawyer I hired as an employee working with me for me. He was the first one back in 90 something. He was just came out of DPD, went to law school and I've been blessed to have those kind of people around me.
Speaker 2:that's you know, always they're like the New England Patriots they continue to find really good agents and the attorneys you guys, literally before you got here, you know we're in there in my phone rings and it's a member and he is a witness to a large deal. That's really a mess. And he said, yeah, you guys assigned me some guy named Robert Rogers and when I had my interview with some federal authorities, they asked if I had an attorney to help me navigate it. And I told them Robert Rogers and they were like, oh damn, he's a really good lawyer. And he said I didn't know who he was, but I was very glad to hear that out of their mouth that I had somebody really good in my corner and Robert's a former prosecutor and has tried every type of case, and that's one of the things that Robert before him and John hearing Robert joined us when John hearing retired.
Speaker 1:Or that Bob basket, who still leases space from us, does some work for TMPA and and those guys with criminal law experience that could try any type of case. That's something that we've been very fortunate to have in our firm my career, of course, for that Burleson and the guys that Burleson paid Gibson and we really appreciate TMPA and everything TMPA has done for us as well. And they have that association over these. Now I guess with TMPA at least what is it? 30, 30, some years, 30,?
Speaker 3:almost started three years.
Speaker 1:It's just been a blessing for us.
Speaker 2:Thank you guys, and they all have amazing sense of humor. My son was at college at UT and was interning in the summer for them and the first time he ever saw a dead body, dpd got a little gunfight with a sex offender and he was deceased in the street. They're standing outside the crime scene. My son's never seen a dead body in college and a few of the lion Gorsky attorneys tell my son you need to go out there and tell that homicide detective that you're going to need his sport coat since you broke college and just kid my son said what. He goes out there and tell him there's no bullet holes in it and he's not going to need it. You sure could use that.
Speaker 2:In my son's call me. He's like I'm not supposed to do this because they're telling me I have to go to death. They're just messing with you.
Speaker 1:I'm not going to take credit for that one. Bob was great having you all man, we enjoyed it. Thank you and tell him very much.
Speaker 3:Yeah, absolutely, you guys stay safe out there.
Speaker 2:Hit subscribe button, man, it's been a great episode Letting a guy thing else Thank you for what you do and the firm does to continue to allow us to be represented professionally and do our job as professional as possible. No matter the adversity that we face sometimes with the movements around the country, it's really comforting to know you still have access to the best lawyers in the country, absolutely.
Speaker 3:They say this is probably going to be the week uh week of conference. So, uh, you guys stay safe or look for another, this week being uh been 2023 73rd TNPA conference. It's going to be a good week. You guys stay safe. God bless you, as always, and God bless Texas Well.
