Return to Transcripts main page
Dr. Drew
Hulk Hogan`s First Interview Since Sex Tape Victory; Gun Loving Mom Shot By Own Little Boy; Is Mother Smoking Meth in Front of Six-Month-Old Child? Aired 7-8p ET
Aired March 23, 2016 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thank you, Tom Bevel. And I hope someday I can meet you face to face.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DREW PINSKY, "DR. DREW ON CALL" HOST: Tonight Hulk Hogan`s first interview since his $140 million sex tape victory. He says Gawker Picked the wrong
guy.
Plus, I have a gun-loving mom accidentally shot by her little boy who got his hands on her loaded gun. She may now be in big legal trouble.
And, is this mother smoking meth in front of her six-month-old child? And what`s going to happen to the child custody? Let`s get started.
Gawker could be forced to pay Hulk Hogan $140 million for posting his sex tape online.
But Hulk says his court victory is really a win for all of us. I feel like it`s a win. Watch this, from ABC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HULK HOGAN, AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER: When the verdict came in and the people, the jury -- my peers, says we believe you, it just -- it just,
you know -- the world is round. I told you. And it was just really great.
I`m telling you, it`s devastating. It changes your world. When I shake his hand if he`s a Hulk-o-maniac, I`m thinking, what are thinking me now?
Did you see the tape, what do your kids think? The kids go for Hulk Hogan videos to watch Wrestle Maniac. All of a sudden Hulk Hogan sex tape pops
up. Gawker is the ultimate bully and I just didn`t want it to happen to you or anybody here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Gawker`s founder stands by the decision to publish the sex tape. But he heard the jury loud and clear. Now we have this from CNBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the jury did absolutely want to send a message and they wanted to send the message that, you know, privacy is important
and the privacy of private individuals is particularly important. But, generally they did say there need to be a clearer line between privacy and
the free press.
A private person having sex with their partner in the privacy of their own home, I think the conditions would be to be extraordinary to justify a
story like that. But this wasn`t a case like this. You had a major celebrity who would talk incessantly about it, his sex life. Previous
officer even the sex that came out he was joking about it and it wasn`t even in his own house. It was with his best friend`s wife in the best
friend`s house.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Joining me Anneelise Goetz, Attorney, Anahita Sedaghatfar, Attorney of Councilor of Cockprit Firm and Kurt Schlichter Attorney and
Conservative Commentator. Guys, this is what I have a problem with what, many of the things that guy is saying. But isn`t it fundamentally the case
that private is private?
ANNEELISE GOETZ, ATTORNEY: If having sexual intercourse with someone isn`t private, I don`t know what is. When we`re talking about a right of
privacy, if that doesn`t fall under the umbrella of a right of privacy then what do we have left?
PINSKY: And, Anahita you`re denying this? What would it matter what the circumstances of that private encounter is? That`s between two private
citizens.
ANAHITA SEDAGHATFAR, ATTORNEY: Consenting adults by the way. And this guy is still trying to make the distinction between a public figure and a
private figure. In here in this case I don`t care that Hulk Hogan was a public figure, I don`t care he was on the media talking about sex, talking
about salacious things, even talking about the sex tape. This was a private moment he had in a private bedroom. He didn`t know he was being
recorded.
PINSKY: The argument would be that if -- to take this argument his, the Gawker`s argument to logical conclusion, it would be if you do a porn you
have no privacy rights because after all you`re out there doing porn ...
SEDAGHATFAR: I have one better for you. It would mean that you wouldn`t have any privacy rights because you yourself as a physician and on some of
your shows talk about sexual issues.
PINSKY: Yes, I know.
SEDAGHATFAR: You talk about sexual things so would that mean that God forbid if you and Susan had some type of sex tape recorded, that would give
the media free reign to publish it because you waived your right?
PINSKY: Because I`m a public citizen who has a public forum where sexuality is discussed, therefore my privacy rights -- let me read you this
from the Gawker founder. He says, "Celebrities, especially ones as public about their personal sex life as Hulk Hogan, have a narrower zone of
privacy than ordinary people. Is that in the lawsuit when narrow? OK. All right.
SEDAGHATFAR: They have a lowered expectation of privacy, not a zero expectation.
PINSKY: OK. Self-promoters should not be allowed to seek attention and then claim privacy when the narrative takes an unwelcome turn. The
benefits of publicity come at a price and the jury Kurt disagreed with that.
KURT SCHLICHTER, ATTORNEY: Well look, the narrative didn`t take a turn. Gawker published a sex tape with this guy on it. The whole thing makes me
want to shower, Hulk Hogan and bubba the love sponge`s wife making it on camera. Ew. Gawker who has attacked me in print. And they`re just the
worst degenerates on earth. Yes, action for violation rights of privacy exist. And will recognize the law they`re not exact like liable and
slandered, the standard is not exactly the same ...
PINSKY: Explain that explain that.
SCHLICHTER: Liable and slander have a slightly different take.
PINSKY: For celebrities ...
SCHLICHTER: Yes for celebrities, you need to show actual malice. It`s a case (ph) Hulk Hogan versus New York Time. And it`s a very important first
amendment rule. But this is something totally different. And they`re trying to blend these two things.
SEDAGHATFAR: Because that`s for things that are newsworthy, things that have some redeeming value. Arguably if you`re a celebrity or a politician
you do have a lesser expectation of privacy because issues surrounding you are newsworthy but this was a sex tape.
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: How can we imagine a way in which this becomes newsworthy?
SCHLICHTER: It isn`t news worthy. And the reason a value an ostitically the whole things creeps me out. But that being said and Gawker being
Gawker, and its people being as low some and morally bankrupt as they are, 120 million plus? That`s just crazy talk.
PINSKY: The money is crazy.
SCHLICHTER: Oh the money is crazy. The amount is crazy. It`s going to come down
PINSKY: Wait a minute. You guys, it`s not like you guys are three its right. You know like Hulk went into court and went I want $100 million.
His attorneys advised him to ask for that. Of course they did.
(CROSSTALK)
GOETZ: That`s going to get turned down on appeal. There`s no way that stands. And what you`re seeing Gawker do right now, with the news that
they just released, they`re gearing up for that appeal.
(CROSSTALK)
SEDAGHATFAR: I disagree.
PINSKY: They will win?
SCHLICHTER: Oh yeah, they`re absolutely going to reduce it.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLICHTER: But judgment ...
PINSKY: OK, we`re going to have the Hulk`s attorney here in a few minutes, after the break. We`ll hear what he has to say about that. But answer my
question, though. How could you make Hulk Hogan with his friend`s wife newsworthy?
SEDAGHATFAR: I`ll tell you, the defense is arguing because Hulk Hogan, Terry Bollea, what you are, you are going on television, you are going on
how it`s turned, you`re talking about sex, you`re talking about your penis, you`re talking about salacious things, therefore you have made your sex
life an issues, something that is of public interest and the public has the right to see you in a sex tape.
It`s a flawed argument. I disagree with it legally and factually.
PINSKY: Give me another example. I just -- bizarre to me what people are considering or defining as news, that`s bizarre.
SCHLICHTER: Look, people aren`t doing it. Denton, the Gawker people and their lawyers are doing it. And six people in Florida said uh-uh, crazy
talk and it is.
PINSKY: Well they claimed -- Gawker claimed Hulk didn`t really sue them over the sex tape, he sued them because he knew there were other tapes and
one in which he was caught apparently using the N-word. But -- let me show you what Hulk said and he denied using the slur. Here`s what he told ABC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOGAN: Everybody who knows me knows I`m not racist, even the WWE knows I`m not a racist. They had to do what was best for business for their company.
But for me, everyone that knows me knows that`s not who I am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So why did you say that? Why did you use the N-word?
HOGAN: Because I was mad about the way my daughter was being treated. In my opinion, I thought she should get out of the relationship. I knew the
young man for six years. We got along great, but things started going array and I was very mad at Brooke for not taking my advice. She finally
did it eventually but, I said something horrible and I would live forever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: And we will again, we will be speaking to Hulk`s attorney in just a few minutes. But Anneelise, does it matter why he sued?
GOETZ: No, it doesn`t matter. Isn`t that what he was thinking when he filed that claim, what matters is, did he have a legitimate claim, was he
injured and were there damages as a result? And the jury said yes, he satisfied all of those elements.
PINSKY: And Kurt, you mentioned the depravity of the people involved with Gawker. I want to show you an example of this. They -- what story would
be off limited to Gawker was asked and this was what the founder told CNBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICK DENTON, GAWKER FOUNDER: I think when the Jennifer Lawrence photographs went online, pretty much everybody including us was like, you
know, there`s no real story here, like -- to cover this with great photographic detail would be absolutely purely prurient.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: So, you guys I`m so confused about what this guy`s logic is. So Jennifer Lawrence gets hacked, her pictures go out, but Gawker wouldn`t
report that, but Hulk Hogan is -- without his knowledge filmed, that gets out, that they would show.
SEDAGHATFAR: Inconsistent argument. And frankly the press release that Gawker put out today saying, well, Hulk Hogan`s real motivation in filing
this lawsuit ...
PINSKY: The N-word.
SEDAGHATFAR: Yes, had nothing to do with the sex tape, he was trying to prevent the use of the N-word. And that`s reprehensible to the max. I
admit that`s terrible ...
PINSKY: He said that right there, he talked about how reprehensible.
(CROSSTALK)
SEDAGHATFAR: He`s admitted it. But the fact that it`s irrelevant for purposes of appeal, it`s irrelevant in the court of law. It might be
relevant in the court of public opinion but I think the way this juror has sent this message, awarding him more than he even asked for. I mean,
that`s I think pretty ..
PINSKY: And when I hear them saying is, this must be stopped. The rapaciousness of the press to harm -- their willingness to harm people
without any regard is what the jury is after, I think. I have Hulk Hogan`s attorney here with me. I`ll ask him about that.
And later, police say a mother was smoking meth with her baby right next to her. Guess what? Drug addicts do drugs. They did something about it,
back after this.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m (inaudible) with the T-Mobile Daily Share at this hour. NASA has plans to set fire to its own spacecraft. This unmanned
rocket was launched last night.
It`s going to bring supplies into the International Space Station. But after that, NASA will intentionally start a large scale fire inside the
capsule.
Scientists want to see how fire behaves in a zero gravity environment. They hope to use the information to keep astronauts safe.
And a crash involving two trucks in Melbourne, Florida has snacks and beers spilling onto the highway. Police say a Frito-Lay truck stalled on the
side of the road and was hit by another truck hauling Busch beer.
Thankfully, nobody was hurt. The driver of the beer truck got a ticket for failing to maintain a single lane.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOGAN: I don`t agree with any of the stuff I did. Talking about it is a lot different than having somebody illegally post the tape when you`re seen
naked in front of 7 million people.
I will be naked forever, you know, until my children`s children`s children die because of the internet. Even if we would`ve lost, even if we would`ve
lost, it wouldn`t have been good because everybody would`ve known what Gawker was all about because I exposed them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: That is Hulk Hogan talking about, to ABC, about his huge win in court against the gossip site Gawker.
Back with Anneelise, Anahita and Kurt. And on the phone, I have David Houston. He is Hulk Hogan`s attorney. David, thank you so much for
joining us.
DAVID HOUSTON, HULK HOGAN`S ATTORNEY: Hello, Dr. Drew. Thank you for having me.
PINSKY: It`s a privilege to have you. All my attorneys here on the panel are very excited.
SCHLICHTER: Very jealous.
PINKSY: So, let`s start with some of Gawker`s claims. They claimed that evidence like text messages were kept from the jury. What about that?
HOUSTON: The text messages all support Terry Bollea that he knew nothing about it. Gawker is either delusional or they have a fundamental
misconception of this trial (inaudible).
The text messages absolutely show that he did not know. So does most of the 1,800 pages. I think there`s two or three paragraphs in what`s
referred to as an FBI-302 which is a police report where Bubba says Terry knew.
That was way back early on when there were certainly some very bad feelings between the two. Since then, he has apologized repeatedly, given sworn
testimony in a deposition as well as cooperated with the Tampa Police Department in their investigation. And in each in every occasion, said
that Terry Bollea didn`t know.
PINKSY: You`re talking about Bubba there. Because Gawker left court and made a big deal about how that Bubba the Love Sponge not having testified
(inaudible) when they used Bubba`s name.
But that`s his radio name. And when he was - He did not testify. They made a huge issue with that. But you`re saying, he has sworn under oath
that there`s really nothing there.
HOUSTON: Well, first of all, he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. And under Florida law, the only thing that would have come in, if anything,
would have been his deposition where he swore under oath Terry Bollea didn`t know. Gawker`s claim that Bubba, somehow, Bubba Clem, somehow, made
this void that they were unable to appeal, otherwise is just absurd. There`s no way they`re talking with any real lesson (ph).
PINSKY: Anneelise ...
(OFF-MIC)
GOETZ: Yeah, David, congratulations on the big judgment and the big win.
HOUSTON: Thank you.
GOETZ: I`m wondering, there`s been a lot of talk about the bond. In order to go to the appeal process, Gawker is supposed to post about worth of $15
million per bond. And I heard they`re going to potential argue not -- that they don`t have to post that. What`s the status on the bond? Are you
going to be fighting to get $15 million up for a bond?
HOUSTON: Absolutely. We want them to follow the law. They`re going to claim this as this compelling First Amendment issue and has a consequence,
the appeal (ph) court should waive the bond requirement.
All the appeal (ph) court has to do is do a cursory analysis of the facts in this case. Agent Delaria, on the witness stand, admitted that Hulk
Hogan naked in the video was not newsworthy.
Nick Denton, on his testimony, admitted that if it`s gratuitous, it`s not protected by the first amendment. And of course then, we liken back to
A.J.`s testimony where, of course, he assured us that it wasn`t newsworthy, it was gratuitous.
So, between the two of them, they gave us the greatest gift when they decided to take the witness stand in their own defense. Their bond should
be posted.
PINSKY: And David, I`m going to play for you some tape that we`re discussing, one of the comments that, I guess, it was the editor or founder
wrote. I think it was the actual journalist so-called that they wrote the article about this, and about asking about asking about, what would they
would they or not report. Play that (ph).
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?
DAULERIO: If they were a child. Under what age?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Four.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINKSY: Anneelise just threw up here on the middle of the set. That was almost bizarre, disgusting displays of immoral thinking I`ve ever seen.
But there was even more to this, I guess, David, right?
HOUSTON: Yeah. There`s much more to it. There`s two times that he actually said that during the course of the deposition. One time you just
played. But he reaffirmed it when there was a comment about Miley Cyrus and he responded, well, she`s over four, isn`t she?
And referenced to whether or not they publish the sex tape of Miley Cyrus. But - and this more - certainly something the attorneys would know. When
you take a deposition, there`s a piece of paper at the end of the deposition where the person has a chance for a 30-day time period to read
that deposition transcript.
If they want to fix anything, if they want to correct anything, they`re allowed and entitled to do that. A.J. Daulerio did in fact correct certain
things. But what he did not correct was his answer concerning the aspect of anybody over four years of age is essentially fair game.
And what you have to understand is according to Daulerio and Denton, anyone who has a Facebook page is conceivably a public figure and therefore fair
game.
PINKSY: It`s disgusting.
HOUSTON: It sucked the air out of that courtroom. You would`ve had to be present. I`ve done a lot of trials. I have never seen one comment have
that sort of an effect.
PINKSY: When I heard them reading, it wasn`t just the tape it was what they wrote under the tape describing what they saw. With each sentence, I
got angrier and angrier and angrier. I just imagine what went on that room.
SCHLICHTER: Well, look -- first of all, congratulations, David, on a really good verdict. I think it`s going to come down on appeal. But I
think, you know, you`re going to do very well here.
And, when I`m in a case and I`m doing a deposition and somebody on the other side makes a comment like that that I know is going to go on the
record, I start thinking about my new car.
HOUSTON: Exactly.
SEDAGHATFAR: I think it backfired on him.
(CROSSTALK)
HOUSTON: You have to think, where was his attorney?
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLICHTER: Who prepared this guy? What did they do, say, OK. Get in there, be the biggest jerk humanly possible and offend every sense of moral
decency on six people who get kick and put in a box.
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: Go ahead David.
HOUSTON: If you understand what goes on at Gawker, there is a level of arrogance that is unequaled. In other words, they sit in this $3 million
per year leased per cocoon, hide behind their computer screens, pat each other on the back for destroying somebody else`s life.
And then they have this philosophy. They tell people who complain, if you keep your mouth shut, it will pass quickly. If you make a big deal out of
it, then simply, you are prolonging it and it`s your fault.
And not on remarkably Nick Denton wrote a piece yesterday, where he literally said the same thing about Bollea and said essentially, it`s his
own fault her bringing it up. So, in other words, if you complain, if you file a lawsuit about the conduct, it`s your fault. It`s an amazing mindset
that exists there.
PINSKY: It`s unbelievable to me that it is a primitive intense to tear down somebody who dares to stand up. It`s a primitive human sacrifice
impulse.
These people should be punished roundly for this. And David, thank you, congratulation. I appreciate you being here.
HOUSTON: Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity. It`s been a long time coming.
PINSKY: OK. Am I wrong Anahita? I mean, I`m not wrong, am I? I don`t know what news is anymore. These people don`t know what they think. It`s
-- are they all British, all these guys? Is there a cultural thing here? I
SEDAGHATFAR: It`s about money. It`s about making money, Dr. Drew. And I think that`s the point here. They will do it at any price in order to get
the public ...
PINSKY: Primitive sacrificial impulse.
GOETZ: But there`s a shifting. There`s a shifting of the tides right now. Because you look at this verdict, you look at Aaron Andrews.
PINSKY: Yup.
GOETZ: And I think you have the juries, you have community saying, no ...
PINSKY: Americans get disgusted, we get disgusted and we make change.
Next up, a gun-loving mother accidentally shot by her own 4-year-old. She may have a bigger problem tonight. We`ll talk about what that is after
this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBIN MAEDE, NEWS ACHOR: It`s a case that`s made headlines across the country and across the world. A Putnam County mother with a strong pro-gun
stance accidentally shot by her 4-year-old son.
Today the Putnam County sheriff`s office gave an update in the case. And we finally learn how Jamie Gilt`s son got a hold on the weapon.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He saw the gun, picked it up and accidentally fired.
MAEDE: That bullet went through the seat, through his mother`s chest, then through the windshield.
Gilt went to the hospital and wasn`t able to speak with investigators until last Tuesday, a week after the shooting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: And investigators recommend that Jamie Gilt be charged with unsafe storage of a fire arm, she has not been arrested.
Here now is how the toddler got that gun. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The investigation revealed that Jamie placed the gun, which was not in a holster under the front seat of the truck.
Some time during her drive, the gun apparently slid back to the rear floor board below where her four-year-old son was seated in a booster seat.
According to family members, the child recently learned to unbuckle his seat belt. Investigators discovered the child removed himself from the
seat, presumably to grab a toy from the floor board, saw the gun, picked it up and accidentally fired.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: I am back with Anneelise, Anahita and Kurt. Anahita, this is a .45 caliber weapon, no holster, loaded and maybe cocked. Maybe they
cocking have happened as if ...
SCHLICHTER: No. There`s ...
PINSKY: Is it true?
SCHLICHTER: No. There`s no maybe. It had to be.
PINSKY: All right, party at the cocked under the front seat.
SEDAGHATFAR: OK. She should have known better. She owns a lot of guns, she`s a pro-gun advocate.
But this was just a terrible mistake, Dr. Drew. I don`t think it`s criminal. And I think she`s learned her lesson. She`s laying in a
hospital bed right now. She has a gunshot to her back.
And, you know, to torture criminally, I`m not sure that that`s what this law was intended for. Yeah, she should have known better.
DREW: At least, was her charge. But before you do, Kurt, I`m sort of still fascinated with this idea that you wish she`s sitting on a cocked
weapon?
SCHLICHTER: No. Apparently, it was under the seat, cocked, safety off. This is ...
DREW: Why would you ...
SCHLICHTER: Apparently, a 1911, which is kind of a heavy gun. It had to be ready to shoot.
DREW: Why would she cock a gun?
SCHLICHTER: Because she`s an idiot. She`s a fool, she`s a moron. And I`m torn here, because I understand, yeah, she suffered enough. We do
prosecute too many people.
But, you know our next segment, we`re going to have another negligent mother and I don`t think we`re going to hold off on her and potential
consequences.
So, I`m not sure why this nice lady who`s all pretty and who`s probably really sorry should be held to the same standard.
DREW: Yeah, the meth mom was allegedly doing meth.
SCHLICHTER: Well, allegedly.
DREW: But Anneelise, we have very strong.
GOETZ: The whole reason that we have this particular law is to keep our minors, to keep the community, the public community safe.
If you have a firearm, you have to be responsible, especially if you are in a car. If you have to take it to run errands and you`re going to put it in
the car and you have a 4-year-old that knows how to unbuckle themselves, and it`s fishing around.
This is why we have this law. She absolutely should be charged. And because we need to hold people that want to have the right to use their
firearms to at least, at the least follow the bare minimum law.
DREW: Now, this firearm, it`s according to Jamie Gilt, the woman herself, she said that she carries the gun in a holster on her body, but left it
under the seat that day because she was going to be in and out of the vehicle. It was a long drive.
But Kurt, you have always warn me and we`ve had long talks about concealed weapon and should you have a weapon at all and, you know.
Concealed weapon is a major, major, major undertaking, right?
SCHLICHTER:: It`s a major decision. You have to be trained. You have to be safe. It`s a responsibility.
Look, like millions of Americans, I believe that the second amendment gives us or memorialized us the God-given right to defend ourselves using
firearms.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLICHTER: That says nothing about responsibility, and responsibility is a key. I think you`re right, Anneelise, I think she does need to be
punished under the law. You can`t do this. We need to set one standard, whether it`s for this mom or another mom. She put her kid in danger, she
put herself in danger. What the proper sentence is, what the proper result is, that`s a different issue. And we can all talk about that. But here I
think we need to have one standard for everyone.
SEDAGHATFAR: How about some gun safety lessons? You know, take here guns away for a while until she proves that she took some classes (ph). But
criminal, Dr. Drew, if you use that logic then we would prosecute practically every parent. Because every parent, at one point or another,
makes a mistake that potentially harms their children. And then what would we do, run and prosecute?
SCHLICHTER: It`s a pretty big mistake.
SEDAGHATFAR: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLICHTER: That`s a 45 caliber.
SEDAGHATFAR: Our jails would be full.
PINSKY: Hang on, though. But there`re two very striking issues that jump out at me. One is that Kurt thinks we`re born with a God-given right for
guns. I think that loud and clear.
SCHLICHTER: No, no.
PINSKY: I head it, OK.
SCHLICHTER: We are.
PINSKY: All right, OK.
SCHLICHTER: The constitution doesn`t give us rights. It recognizes these existing rights.
PINSKY: God-given right for guns, OK.
SCHLICHTER: Yeah, so I`m just saying to use weapons necessary to indicate (ph).
SEDAGHATFAR: Don`t get him started.
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: But the other thing is this, so I want you to comment Anneelise, is that they make an interesting point, which is what about kids that run,
you know, you don`t have your right, you`re not supervising kid, who runs out in front of a car and maybe the car goes off and hurts somebody. Same
idea.
GOETZ: No, no, no. This is a firearm.
PINKSKY: That`s a God-given right.
GOETZ: This is not the same thing as you`re playing on a playground and your kid takes off running and were you watching carefully enough, because
we`re not even talking about child endangerment here. We are not even talking about child endangerment here.
PINSKY: But no, I understand that but I`m saying, what if the child runs out to cause coalition, you know, somebody else ...
(CROSSTALK)
GOETZ: Because (inaudible) the car accident. What if you caught? Does that mean your car gets taken away? It`s a negligent. I`m sorry. If the
conduct is not intentional, and that`s my problem with criminalizing this type of behavior, it sets a bad precedent. And I agree that she should be
held accountable, but I`m not sure putting her in jail and keeping her away from her child. It`s a misdemeanor.
(CROSSTALK)
GOETZ: It`s a misdemeanor. We`re talking about 180 days, so probably this 180 days os very, very slim. The fact is she should be charged. She broke
the law. It very clearly says if you are in the company of a minor and you can`t secure your firearm, then you`re guilty of this crime. That is what
she did. The spirit of the law is put the safety on.
SEDAGHATFAR: The spirit of the law, means don`t have your gun laying around on your coffee table when you have infants and children running
around. This was an accident. She put the gun in between her seat. This is what she claims. This is in the police report. And the gun slid back.
It wasn`t even her car. It was nothing intentional.
PINSKY: Of course it wasn`t intentional. It was gross negligence.
(CROSSTALK)
SEDAGHATFAR: I don`t even think it was gross negligence. I think terrible accidents happen. Thank god no one got killed and the damage wasn`t worse.
Taking her away from her child and putting her in jail even if it`s for a month ...
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: I`m super sympathetic in Anahita`s point of view. However, the one thing that bleeds all towards hurt (ph) is the gun was cocked. Who was
held?
SCHLICHTER: Yeah.
(CROSSTALK)
GOETZ: There`s so many place you can`t -- if you, for some reason, need to have a loaded cocked firearm when you`re out doing errands, at the very
least, put it in the glove compartment when you got a four-year-old in the back that you know can take off his seatbelt. This kind wasn`t even
wearing a seatbelt when this thing happened. This whole thing is, "Oh, well, I normally put it in the holster. Normally he`s wearing his seat
belt. Normally, normally, now that happened.
PINSKY: All right. Nothing all about this. We will continue. And later, a woman who appears to be smoking meth alongside her baby is exposed. We
will tell you who blew the whistle on her back after this.
(CROSSTALK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OFFICER: I`ve got a white female in a gray pickup truck that`s been signal 40. I`m sorry. She`s been shot by a handgun. I need rescue and supervisor
around.
DISPATHCER: You`re advising that the subject has injuries to the abdomen, is that correct?
OFFICER: 10-4. That is correct. She`s losing consciousness on me now.
DISPATHCER: 10-4. It`s going to be a 3-year-old that was signal zero (armed) with a gun.
PINSKY: Investigators say the toddler had unbuckled his booster seat, grabbed the gun from the floor. It slid down to the back seat and then he
fired a gun that it was already loaded and cocked. Family members are caring for the child as the state continuos to investigate. And we
speculate, we believe the mom is still recovering from some severe abdominal wounds.
Now, I want to show you the social media of this woman. Her name is Gilt and she have a facebook page, where she expressed enthusiastically her
second amendment right to bear arms, Mr. Schlichter, her God-given rights of bear arms.
And I`m making funny because it`s interesting that`s why. Earlier this year she wrote, "Even my 4-year-old gets jacked up to target shoot with the
.22." She also tweeted a photo of a costumed handgun with a comment, "Got to play with my new toy today. Time to clean it."
Now, I don`t think any of these matters. But people emotionally react, particularly that are sort of concerned about firearms.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right. And that took disturbing to me because I read some of the social media comments. Some people commenting to her pictures and post
and I`m concerned, actually disturbed that people are using their hate for guns or their opinions on gun control lost as a way to sort of lash out and
make judgments based on this incident.
PINSKY: Yes.
SEDAGHATFAR: It`s that mob mentality that disturbs me, Dr. Drew.
PINSKY: Let me read one for you. This is a facebook post, "She got what she deserved. You live by the gun, you will die by the gun. Too bad she
didn`t die. Maybe then she would have seen the truth."
(CROSSTALK)
SEDAGHATFAR: That`s the mob mentality.
GOETZ: This is horrible. And those are inexcusable. But I think what`s happening where it`s coming from is this idea of you are a gun rights
advocate and even you that has been trained so well can`t seem to keep to create a safe situation for you and your child. And, Dr. Drew, I was
wondering, this child, four years old just witnessed a pretty horrific event by their own hand.
PINSKY: Oh my God.
GOETZ: We talk about she`s the only victim. I think we have a victim with the child too. Isn`t that going to impact that child for years to come?
PINSKY: He shot his mom and the mom is being pulled out unconscious while the child is watching this. I mean, are you kidding me? That has have
impact to the child.
SCHLICHTER: I hope they take him to an ideologist too of firing a pistol in a close confined space like that could cause a lot of damage. Look .
PINSKY: How does he even not -- that was in the back?
SCHLICHTER: Well, look, there are lots of ways to get hurt with a gun including the slide going back. Look, I`m a gun advocate. I believe in
gun rights. I also believe in gun responsibilities and this is embarrassing to those of us who believe that the right to keep and bear
arms is critical to our essence as citizens. I mean is to give .
SEDAGHATFAR: Do we take her guns away? Do you think that she should have her guns taken away as a result of this?
SCHLICHTER: No. I think probation is probably appropriate here.
PINSKY: Is she a fit parent?
SCHLICHTER: You know, that`s a tougher question. I think she probably is. But we -- I`d like to see a bigger picture. Remember, she invited this by
not being safe with a firearm, by giving that a limit responsibility.
PINSKY: Let me argue on her behalf. She blinked. She was busy. She had a kid.
(CROSSTALK)
GOETZ: No. It was more than a blink, because she took these stuffs to find herself in a situation of a car with a little fire arm. She shouldn`t
put it underneath the seat. She should have had it, she should have to the safety on, she should have hid it when there`s a child in the car with her.
PINSKY: This doesn`t so much of the gun issues. This is where rubbery (ph) throughout for me. This isn`t so much of the gun issues boiled down
to the wrong people having guns?
And you know what I mean? Whether it`s the criminals or the crazy or the mom that isn`t responsible, whatever it is. Really the problem is us and
us not controlling a little bit about that God-given right in a different context, every context of God-given right is worthy of being advocated.
SCHLICHTER: No. It`s not us. It`s her. There are 300 million guns in America. We sell 30,000 guns a day to Americans.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHLICHTER: I feel great about it.
PINSKY: What about the people that get them that shouldn`t?
SCHLICHTER: We`re talking about the exception.
PINSKY: Yeah. But then that wouldn`t that be whorish for a focus?
SCHLICHTER: But we have to because normal people who keep in bear arms safely and wisely and use them to protect their families and their
communities are never going to be the story. It`s the moron, the criminal.
SEDAGHATFAR: She was the normal person.
SCHLICHTER: She was an idiot.
SEDAGHATFAR: She was a gun right advocate.
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: What`s time -- whoa. Anahita?
SEDAGHATFAR: You`re discounting the fact that accidents do happen. I`m not saying this was a good thing. But do we take her children away?
PINSKY: He`s calling it accident (ph).
SEDAGHATFAR: People are safe. People shouldn`t take her children away.
PINSKY: You`re calling it an accident.
SEDAGHATFAR: I`m calling it an accident.
PINSKY: Yeah. Anneelise?
SEDAGHATFAR: Yes. An accident.
GOETZ: I`m calling this stupid. I`m calling it you don`t need to have a gun when you`re running your errands with a 4-year-old in the back. The
whole thing is inexcusable to me. That 4-year-old is lucky to be alive.
PINSKY: Yeah.
GOETZ: She is lucky to be alive.
PINSKY: Lucky he didn`t kill somebody else.
SCHLICHTER: That`s true too. And we would be talking about a murder trial.
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: Yeah. All right next up. We`re going to stop talking about this. Thanks.
So we`re look at a mom who appears to be smoking meth in front of her baby. They found meth pipes in her house. Meth addicts smoke, meth. That`s what
they do, whether they have a baby or not.
So the question is what to do with her, help or jail? Back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PINSKY: Check it out. It is a photo of a young mother, who appears to be smoking methamphetamine next to her 6 month old child.
Police were alerted when someone had the brilliant idea of posting this on facebook. The caption read, "Please help my friend Ashley Lewis and I stop
-- wait -- I stop using meth -- what`s this -- We can`t stop with a baby around. We need help." Bottom line is they can`t stop smoking meth, which
is what happens when you get a meth problem.
Police confirmed the authenticity of that photo and then they arrested Ashley. I`m back with Anneelise, Anahita and Kurt. And on the phone I
have Detective Scott Bagley from the Richmond Police Department.
Detective, what did Ashley say about that picture when you confronted her?
SCOTT BAGLEY, DETECTIVE RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT: Well, actually shortly after her arrest, we were able to interview her in reference to that. And
she didn`t indicated it was her in that picture and it was in fact methamphetamine that she was smoking and it was a residence that had been
in Lafayette county, the city of Lexington.
PINSKY: And detective, did she assume then you`re going to arrest me or did she ask for help? What was her sort of attitude about this?
BAGLEY: Yeah. When we initially made contact with her at the residence she was staying at, which was a hotel there located in Richmond, she had
indicated that she knew the picture was viral and that she was expecting our arrival. She was pretty upset about it. Obviously there was quite a
bit of tears and stuff that was going on. But she indicated that she did have an addiction and that she would like to seek treatment for it.
PINSKY: OK and how do you -- to me, that`s a win story. That`s a good story. That`s not a bad story. This woman has a disease state and it
makes -- it`s a great example of what happens when somebody is sick with addiction. It doesn`t matter what the consequences are, that`s the nature
of addiction.
Do you have a question?
GOETZ: Look, I look at this and I think this it`s a great candidate for drug court, right? Because she is .
PINSKY: Well, that`s what I want to ask -- that`s what I want to ask the detective, is there such a thing for her? Could you mandate long term
treatment? Or, what was your approach?
GOETZ: Do you guys have drug court?
PINSKY: Oh, we lost him. Explain what drug court is.
GOETZ: So, drug court is for nonviolent drug related crimes.
PINSKY: Yup.
GOETZ: And the idea been, let`s rehabilitate, because as a society we`re safer to have these people tackle their underlying drug issues as opposed
to incarcerate them, they come out and then they relapse right away.
PINSKY: Yeah.
GOETZ: So, she could go into drug court and then work through the program. She gets the rehabilitation. She is serving time, in the sense that she`s
on probation the entire time, it create a safe environment for her, it create a safe environment for her child. And when she has graduated from
the program, they can evaluate whether charges will be dismissed or reduced.
PINSKY: Detective, I know we got your back, we were describing what drug court is, do you have any options like that there for this woman?
BAGLEY: Yes, we do. Our county actually does offer that as well as the other jurisdiction in Lafayette County.
PINSKY: Is she -- can you give us any update on how she`s doing?
BAGLEY: No. Right now, she`s obviously incarcerated this time. I haven`t spoken with her since that night of the arrest but, obviously, she appeared
that she was probably under influence that night as well given (inaudible).
PINSKY: Of course.
BAGLEY: You know (ph), the steps we had there but .
PINSKY: Yeah.
BAGLEY: She was in good spirit when she left. I tried to explain to her that, you know, this is not the end of the world and that there was life
after this.
PINSKY: Well, that could be -- it`s a flourishing life after this when she gets sober. How about the baby, what`s happening with baby now?
BAGLEY: Currently, the baby was obviously taken into custody by our DFS and was placed with a, at the time, a close family member. I`m not exactly
certain at this time where the baby is currently located. I believe it`s somewhere within that family realm, somewhere in Lafayette County.
PINSKY: Thank you detective. I want to go to Kurt and see what you think about all this? You`re sitting quietly, you OK with it?
SCHLICHTER: You know, I`m just sad. I think it`s good that she`d be held accountable. I like the drug court option. We just saw a very clean cut
affluent woman and we are talking about whether she should have to face the penalty of law for her actions. This woman`s doing that and I think they
both should. But that doesn`t mean that we have to bring the hammer down on them. And if drug court is a way to lead her to getting healthy again,
and moving on, then I think that`s a great resolve.
SEDAGHATFAR: I agree but I think there`s going to be some punishment involved as well.
PINSKY: Sure. Why not.
SEDAGHATFAR: Because she admitted, well, a jail time, not .
PINSKY: Well, she`s in jail now.
SEDAGHATFAR: . as a patient.
PINSKY: Yeah.
SEDAGHATFAR: . or that`s because she wasn`t able to post bail. But in terms of what the punishment will be .
PINSKY: Yeah.
SEDAGHATFAR: Because after this, she admitted it was her. She admitted that that was her child and she was smoking meth. So, I agree, she
definitely needs to get treatment. I love the fact that she accepted responsibility and that`s going to really help her defense attorney make
those arguments in mitigation of whatever sentence she may get.
PINSKY: Right. Because I`m an enthusiast for treatment, it doesn`t mean I`m saying people shouldn`t have consequences. There are a lot of people
that find sobriety when they lose their freedom magically. So you need to create the -- well, you need to create the consequence but you also have to
make available the possibility this person could return to health. And that`s for her benefit and the rest of us and that child. Back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PINSKY: We were talking about a 28-year-old woman, mom, mother, arrested after a photo was posted to Facebook. Police say it shows her smoking
methamphetamine while with her 6-month-old right there next to her.
Back with Anneelise, Annahita and Kurt.
Anneelise, what about the parenting part of this?
(CROSSTALK)
GOETZ: Well, obviously she`s a horrible parent. Come on. I mean .
PINSKY: This is a drug addict.
GOETZ: . she`s addict but it isn`t .
PINSKY: Well, there`s a big difference in a world of parent and drug addicts.
(CROSSTALK)
GOETZ: Because of the effect of drug that she is doing .
PINSKY: When they`re using this drug overlaps (ph).
GOETZ: She can`t put any focus on that child.
PINSKY: No, she`s a drug addict.
GOETZ: She can`t care. She can`t care for that child. But I think that you can love someone.
PINSKY: But hang on, she said she`s form of parent, right?
GOETZ: You can love a child ...
PINSKY: Yeah.
GOETZ: ... and be an addict. Those aren`t mutually exclusive.
PINSKY: Right.
GOETZ: But at this point in time, in her life, she cannot be a good mother.
PINSKY: 100 percent. Because what`s explained to you guys, I will explain that many, many, many family members, she loves all addicts. Love drugs
more than anything.
It`s hard for a mom to imagine this. She loves meth more than the baby, period. That`s in the biology of this.
And as such, makes for a bad parent when they`re using. But she`d a great parent in recovery. So, how long she should loss her kid?
GOETZ: That`s the key. She should not have that kid until she has completed her treatment process.
PINSKY: Which is what?
GOETZ: And she`s clean.
PINSKY: How long?
GOETZ: She`s clean. Until she can tell they are going to the drug testing.
SEDAGHATFAR: She has to prove it.
PINSKY: How long?
SEDAGHATFAR: And I think they should give her supervised visitation ...
PINSKY: How long?
SEDAGHATFAR: . until they see she`s ready.
PINSKY: How long?
GOETZ: You know. Dr. Drew, you know.
PINSKY: Well, you should be telling us.
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: Well, I would be happy too. I would say a year or two or maybe three or maybe five depending on how she doesn`t really (ph).
SEDAGHATFAR: But it`s an illness.
PINSKY: It takes time, it is.
SEDAGHATFAR: And you always say that, you know, drug addiction is so profound.
And when I saw that picture, I thought of you saying that because it`s like, it`s that deep, that profound that she`s smoking with her little
infant child next to her. That shows how ill she is.
PINSKY: No insight, but love the drugs more in that moment.
Now, what she sober, of course, the usual biology, (inaudible) recourse and she will love her child as much as any other mother, then she in fact does
love her child that much. It`s just suppressed by the drug addition.
Kurt, don`t look at me like that.
SCHLICHTER: Oh, I just say, you know, it`s just frightening that there`s substances out there that will turn the natural instinct of a mother for
her child, which is perhaps the greatest, strongest bond we know of.
PINSKY: Right.
SCHLICHTER: And she puts it aside for a little chemical compound she`s firing up.
PINSKY: That is a great example of how powerful this condition is. If you want to know what did does to this thing, this little thing that we rely on
every day, it takes it over, and the things that usually are motivated here become not so important.
Thank you all. Buy DVR of this program and you can watch us any time.
We want to thank you for watching. And let you know that Nancy Grace is next.
END
