BONUS FREEBIE: Shooting at Dallas ICE facility, Trump's attempted assassin convicted

Summary

---

The David Pakman Show – Bonus Freebie Summary

Episode: Shooting at Dallas ICE facility, Trump's attempted assassin convicted
Date: September 27, 2025
Host: David Pakman
Guest/Co-host: Pat

Episode Overview

In this bonus episode, David Pakman and co-host Pat discuss two headline events: a deadly shooting at a Dallas ICE facility and the attempted assassination conviction of a man who plotted to kill Donald Trump. They examine the wider societal implications, double standards in political rhetoric, the futility of political violence, and touch on the legal profession's growing pains with AI (specifically ChatGPT) generating fake legal citations.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Shooting at Dallas ICE Facility

[00:00–07:19]

• Incident Breakdown:
  A shooting at a Dallas ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) facility resulted in two deaths (including the shooter via suicide). Three ICE detainees were shot; no ICE officers were harmed. The shooter left behind an anti-ICE message.
• Motivations and Futility:
  • The shooter was apparently an anti-ICE protester, but the victims were detainees, not ICE staff.
  • David connects this event to past instances of misguided politically motivated violence.

    “It doesn't make it any more or less tragic, but it does maybe just understate the futility of trying to achieve change in this way.” — David, [01:38]

  • Both hosts emphasize that this sort of violence fails to achieve justice or meaningful change.
• Media Narratives and Polarization:
  • Pat points out the complexity:

    “Could the takeaway be that political violence can affect all people? …maybe there was left wing motivations, but the people who were killed weren't left wing. They were migrants who obviously didn't deserve this.” — Pat, [02:23]

• Cultural Rot and Rhetoric:
  • David decries a broader “cultural rot” that transcends partisanship:

    “There is such cultural rot... a lot needs to happen to dig out of this mess.” — David, [03:19]

• Debate: Should Political Commentary ‘Tone Down’?
  • Pat questions whether commentators like themselves have a responsibility to "turn down the temperature."
  • David notes the asymmetry: calls to de-escalate often come from those who themselves stoke divisiveness, particularly on the right.

2. Double Standard in Political Rhetoric

[04:33–07:19]

• Selective Outrage:
  • David and Pat highlight hypocrisy:

    “There is this asymmetry in their demands.” — David, [05:22]

  • The right often demands liberals tone down criticism while ignoring inflammatory language from figures like Trump.
• Role of the President:
  • Emphasis that Trump, as President, has a uniquely powerful influence, more so than any commentator or congressperson.

    “What the President says is supposed to be reflective to some degree of what we as a country think.” — Pat, [06:52]

3. Trump's Attempted Assassin Conviction

[07:19–11:40]

• Case Summary:
  • Ryan Routh was convicted of attempted assassination after being caught with a rifle near Trump’s Florida golf course, though he didn’t fire any shots.
  • David questions legal thresholds:

    “Would your average person who is caught somewhere with a gun be charged in this way?” — David, [08:21]

• Severity and Context:
  • Pat acknowledges the unique seriousness of threats against the President:

    “If you are in the vicinity with a gun and you have plans to assassinate the president, they're going to throw the book at you.” — Pat, [08:33]

• Mental Health Angle:
  • After conviction, Routh attempted to stab himself, suggesting mental instability.
  • Reflection on systemic issues: recurring themes of violence, grievances, and lack of effective solutions.

4. Societal Stalemate on Violence Prevention

[11:04–11:40]

• No Clear Path Forward:
  • Both hosts express pessimism about the likelihood of meaningful change in addressing gun violence, mental health, and political extremism.

    “If we're not going to deal with the gun aspect, if we're not going to deal with the cultural rot… None of these things individually would prevent every shooting… is it a race to the bottom where it's just like the solution is get better security?” — David, [10:35]

  • Pat adds that improving culture or mental health support is also a “tremendously uphill battle.”

5. AI, 'ChatGPT', and Legal Profession Malpractice

[11:40–16:18]

• Fake Citations Case:
  • A California lawyer fined $10,000 for submitting an appeal with ChatGPT-generated fake citations; 21 out of 23 quotes were fabricated.

    “This is a warning that briefs...should contain citations that are real...if the lawyer submitted it and signed their name to it, that is their responsibility.” — David, [13:12]

• Growing Pains in Law and Academia:
  • Pat likens using ChatGPT to referencing Wikipedia — useful, but must always verify citations.

    “We can still take advantage of AI...but then you just have to take that extra step of verifying everything. And I don’t think that’s that hard.” — Pat, [14:42]

  • Discussion extends to academia, where professors struggle to detect AI-written assignments and even student emails.

    “They have come to believe that a lot of the emails they get from students are written by chat.” — David, [15:15]

• Balancing Tech and Integrity:
  • Both acknowledge the challenge: schools want to prepare students for real-world tech usage, but must also prevent cheating.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Political Violence’s Futility:

  “It does maybe just understate the futility of trying to achieve change in this way.”
  — David, [01:38]

• On Cultural Rot:

  “There is such cultural rot... a lot needs to happen to dig out of this mess.”
  — David, [03:19]

• On Asymmetry in Rhetoric:

  “There is this asymmetry in their demands.”
  — David, [05:22]

• On Mental Health and Violence:

  “If we're not going to deal with the gun aspect… None of these things individually would prevent every shooting… is it a race to the bottom where it's just like the solution is get better security?”
  — David, [10:35]

• On AI and Legal Responsibility:

  “If the lawyer submitted it and signed their name to it, then that is their responsibility.”
  — David, [13:12]

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• [00:00–03:45] — Dallas ICE Facility Shooting: Facts and initial analysis
• [03:45–07:19] — Media narratives, political rhetoric, role of leadership
• [07:19–11:40] — Trump's attempted assassination case and broader systemic concerns
• [11:40–14:42] — ChatGPT-generated legal malpractice and implications for lawyers
• [14:42–16:18] — AI's impact on academia, professional responsibility in a tech-driven era

---

Tone & Style

Genuine, thoughtful, and sharp-edged in analysis. The hosts move quickly from detailed news breakdowns to broad societal critiques, maintaining a conversational and candid tone throughout.

---

This summary captures the core news, analysis, and debates at the heart of the episode, with context for listeners unfamiliar with the original headlines or the podcast’s style.

Transcript

[David]

Hey everybody. David Here. What you're about to hear is an episode of the bonus show. We do a bonus show every day for our members and for a limited time, we will release one of the week's bonus shows on Saturdays exclusively for our audio podcast listeners. If you'd like to get access to all of the bonus shows, simply sign up@join pacman.com here is that bonus show episode. Welcome to the bonus show breaking. While I was recording today's show, we learned that there are two dead, including a suspect in a shooting at a Dallas ICE facility. Three people shot are ICE detainees. According to an ICE spokesperson, no ICE officers have been hurt. Now the shooter took his own life. Self inflicted gunshot wound is the cause of death. The round. Here we go again. You know, remember when the bullets were trans, Pat? The reporting right now from NBC is that the round found near the shooter had an anti ICE message. They didn't like ice. And of course it's like, here we go again. We know how the trans bullets with the Charlie Kirk killing turned out not to be accurate, but the reporting right now is that this was an anti ICE protester, which makes this, it's not that it's more tragic, but it makes it more futile in trying to, whatever, achieve change through violence, which is that there were detainees that were hurt and if indeed not like, either way, this is despicably wrong, Pat. But, but it sort of reminds me of, you remember that, that guy Glenn Miller I interviewed on the show a long, long time ago, who ended up trying to kill Jews in Kansas and he happened to kill Christians, of which he was one. And so like, it doesn't make it any more or less tragic, but it does maybe just understate the futility of trying to achieve change in this way. I don't know, it just kind of reminds me of that.

[Pat]

Definitely it's a tragedy. Regardless, if the reporting that we have now turns out to be true, which is that he was anti ICE even though it was migrants who he shot. Could the takeaway be that political violence can affect all people? And this could be the type of story where people could come together on. Because like with the Charlie Kirk shooting, for example, there were right wingers who said this is all the left that does this and one of our own was taken. Well, in a strange way, in this scenario, maybe there was left wing motivations, but the people who were killed weren't left wing. They were migrants who obviously didn't deserve this. No one would have deserved this. So could that be the type of thing that brings people together on this issue. I don't even know.

[David]

I don't know.

[Pat]

It's so. It's such a strange story at this point.

[David]

This is. You know, we'll get the exact details, but it's starting to. Let me see. How do I want to say this? Obviously, we don't just give up on trying to end political violence and gun violence. There is a feeling of there being such cultural rot in this country, and that's not even a partisan statement. I mean, you can interpret it in a partizan way. I'm not saying it's equal on both sides, but I'm just making it as a general statement. There is such cultural rot of various kinds of. That, like, a lot needs to happen to dig out of this mess.

[Pat]

What do you think about people who say we need to focus on turning down the temperature in this country? We have to tone down our political rhetoric. Because what seems to be lost on them is it really just takes one person to do one of these atrocious acts. Like with the Charlie Kirk assassination, for example. It's not the fault of the left or political people in general that he was shot. It's the fault of that one person who took it upon themselves to engage in the shoot. That shouldn't be reflective of what hundreds of thousands, millions of people think. I think it's absurd to draw such a conclusion. So is it incumbent on, like, you and me, for example, to supposedly turn. Tone down the rhetoric of our show as if we're encouraging violence? We're. We're not doing any of that stuff to begin with. So what exactly are we supposed to change here?

[David]

Yeah, you know, there's this thing where oftentimes the people calling for something are most guilty of it themselves. And so the problem is there's an asymmetry here, right? Charlie Kirk is killed, and they say, we got to turn down the temperature. What they mean is, stop criticizing Trump. Trump immediately goes out and goes, liberal scum is responsible for this. I hate my enemies and my opponent, my opponents. He said at the eulogy, which is such a crazy term to use. It was no eulogy. It was a political speech. And so they're turning up the temperature. But then if I just go like, hey, farmers are getting screwed by these tariffs. They go, oh, that's exactly the type of rhetoric that led to the shooting. And it's like, no, they have that sort of rhetoric everywhere. What they don't have everywhere are presidents inciting insurrections. Right. You know, and so. So there is this asymmetry in their demands.

[Pat]

But of course, any time you bring up Trump, they'll just claim that you have Trump derangement syndrome. They won't accept that there is a double standard here. And what they're asking for. They want left wingers to supposedly turn down the temperature, but they don't expect that from Trump, maybe because they know at this point that that's just not in his nature. He's not the type of person to do that. So he's. They've given up on that. Or they just view him differently. He gets a different set of rules than the rest of us. Because every time I see this double standard get pointed out to them, they always say, oh, all you can ever do is bring up Trump. And they don't address the actual issue here, which is that they're not being consistent.

[David]

Right. And of course, the reason we're bringing up Trump is Mitt Romney isn't out there saying this stuff. Right. Who's another nominal Republican, like even Rand Paul, who I find totally distasteful in terms of his views. He's not out there turning up the temperature. And, you know, maybe I'll end up having to eat my hat on that. I don't think Rand Paul is out there saying this sort of stuff. The reason the focus is on Trump is because Trump and the people he's chosen to have around him and Caroline Levitt, Stephen Miller and others, they are the ones that are primarily the purveyors of this. And so, again, it's just an attempt to defeat an argument without a real argument where. Oh, you're just talking about Trump. Well, he's the guy who said that we've got to stop this leftist scum. That's why.

[Pat]

And of course, and not only is he one of the only ones doing. And he's also the President of the United States. And that's still supposed to matter. Right? What the President says is supposed to be reflective to some degree of what we as a country think. And, and sure, that's eroding over time because people don't like or trust what Trump has to say. But, you know, it's still a much different standard than even a senator or congressperson saying some of these things, let alone one of these commentators that they tend to equate the president to, without a doubt.

[David]

So, listen, we're going to wait and get the full details here, but this is part of a much broader cultural rot, and that I think is much more difficult to fix. You may remember the other assassination attempt of Donald Trump this was Ryan Routh, who was caught in and around Donald Trump's South Florida golf course. He has now been convicted of attempted assassination. Now, I genuinely have some questions on this, Pat, and I want to get your take on it. You may recall that the rifle was not fired. Secret Service caught this guy, and the argument was he had the intent to. To assassinate Donald Trump, and that by being there with the rifle, that was a substantial step in his attempt to assassinate Trump. He faces life in prison. Now, I don't deny for a second that this is someone who was there with the goal of killing Trump. I just wonder, like, would your average person who is caught somewhere with a gun be charged in this way? I don't know. I'm just not sure. Without ever having even approached the potential victim or fired the gun. Maybe that's typical in terms of attempted assassination. I don't know.

[Pat]

Well, yeah, I mean, I'd have to imagine there's a different set of rules when it comes to a president. Right. So if you are in the vicinity with a gun and you have plans to assassinate the president, they're going to throw the book at you. And I'm not surprised, especially because this attempt took place, what, just weeks after the one that Trump got shot in, that Trump nearly died in. So, of course they're going to be serious about it. And I don't buy his defense that he didn't plan on shooting Trump. Why else would you be there with the weapon? He argues that he had an opportunity to shoot the president from a long distance away, but decided not to. So that goes to show that he didn't intend to kill the president. Well, no, that probably just shows that you're waiting until he got closer so you'd have an easier shot at him. Also, something strange that happened was that after this conviction, yeah, this man tried to stab himself with a pen, of course, you know, unsuccessfully. And I think it goes to show that this was probably just someone who was clearly not in the right state of mind and certainly deserves the penalty that he's facing.

[David]

Yeah, I. Every aspect of this just goes, again, to some of these bigger issues, like how many times are we going to have very similar sorts of analyses on the same situation? At some point, it's like, hey, until we change something, this stuff is going to continue happening. It is different, as Pat points out, because we are talking about a president here, but it's another young man, happens to be white, decided to try to take out whatever grievances he perceived against the president, whether even doing that Successfully would have satisfied whatever sick belief he had about how he would solve problems. Kind of doesn't even matter. So I think that we really need some kind of situation. By the way, this guy was not young. Right.

[Pat]

I was about to correct you on that. He was 58, 59 years old.

[David]

This was a 58 year old. It's another. Another white man. This one happens not to be a young guy, but. But often they are. I don't know. I'm kind of out of ideas, Pat. Like, if we're not going to deal with the gun aspect, if we're not going to deal with the cultural rot, if we're going to just talk about mental health without. Without actually encouraging and making it easier for people to access mental health services. None of these things individually would prevent every shooting, of course, but there are things that we talk about and we never do. I don't know, Pat. I mean, is it a race to the bottom where it's just like the solution is get better security?

[Pat]

Yeah, it may be. I mean, it's a terrible situation that we're in, even when we think about solutions that don't involve the guns. Because maybe we view the gun issue as futile in this country with the amount of weapons that we have. If we just want to approach this from trying to change our culture or change, like, mental health in this country or change how the media covers these shootings, all of those things aren't easy to do. All of those things would be tremendously uphill battles. So I don't see a solution in sight. And it's terrible, but I think events like this are going to continue for the foreseeable future.

[David]

Yeah, it's just like, what's going to stop these events? It's just nothing's happening that would stop the events. So it's unlikely that. That we would see them stop. Hey, I don't know if you remember a story we did a little while ago about legal briefs being filed which had references to cases that didn't exist, which led to the understanding that Chat GPT generated some of this stuff. Well, now a California lawyer has been assigned a. Has been levied a $10,000 fine for filing a state court appeal full of fake quotes generated by ChatGPT. And the verdict is that 21 of 23 quotes were made up by Chat GPT. And the court said that this ruling and $10,000 fine should be seen as a warning. This is a warning that briefs, pleadings, motions, or papers should contain citations that are real and that even if they are provided by Chat GPT, the attorney ultimately is responsible. You can't say, well, ChatGPT came up with it if the as an excuse. If the lawyer submitted it and signed their name to it, then that is their responsibility. This is going to become a bigger and bigger deal, Pat. And I know I have a lot of lawyer friends who have already acknowledged a bunch of the work I do is going to be taken over by AI eventually. How soon that is going to happen is sort of a question mark. But certainly like I have friends in real estate law, they're like, you know, first of all, a lot of countries don't even require lawyers necessarily for real estate transactions. Or there might just be a lawyer that's sort of like handling paperwork, but not that each party has a lawyer. Anyway, the point is a lot of my real estate lawyer friends are like, ChatGPT is going to get pretty good at handling a lot of this stuff. We're going to be more valuable for the advice and counsel around business issues or strategy. But especially given that even many lawyers believe this is inevitable, we still have to be clear on who's ultimately responsible for what's submitted. And right now it's still got to be the lawyer.

[Pat]

Yeah, absolutely. And this happened a while ago, back in July 2023, I think. ChatGPT got released and got popular at the very end of 2022. So people were still getting used to the technology. They didn't realize that sometimes ChatGPT will make stuff up even though 90% of the time, whatever, things are fine, sometimes it will hallucinate and you can't trust what it says. Yeah, of course, using just a made up number there, but that's in my experience about how it works. And it even says at the bottom, if you read the disclaimer that sometimes it makes mistakes. And to check important things, I think we should treat it largely like we do Wikipedia. Right? Which is you can go to Wikipedia and pretty much 90% trust what you read. But how you really verify it is to click on the links that it provides and see for yourself what the primary source information says. You can use ChatGPT in a very similar way, which is it can come up with the answers for you. Also include the citations, click on those citations and make sure what it's saying is actually backed up by the primary source material. So we can still take advantage of AI, lawyers can still use it for their research and I'm sure it helps a tremendous amount. Right. You don't have to seek out the information yourself. It can just assemble it for you, but then you just have to take that extra step of verifying everything. And I don't think that's. That's. That's that hard.

[David]

I have so many friends who teach college right now. They said a lot of their work is. Is now just trying to figure out how to get around students using chat. This includes even just for emails written to them, like, obviously for assignments, for tests, for work, no doubt, but even just, like, for emails. They have come to believe that a lot of the emails they get from students are written by chat. Cbt, certainly, like the blue notebook with a pen in class is one way to do it. It's not really applicable to every single class type necessarily, but they're beside themselves about what to do here.

[Pat]

Yeah. Because the notebook with the pen in class isn't really what we're doing in the world today. And in fact, in many areas, we are using ChatGPT for work. So we want to prepare students, but we also want to make sure that they're not cheating. So I don't envy their position. That seems like a really difficult place to be in.

[David]

Yeah, I would not want to be teaching college right now. That's. That's for sure. I'm glad my tenure, and I'm not using that term literally, I didn't have tenure, but I'm glad that my tenure teaching is not. Not active at this point in time. I guess I would say you just.

[Pat]

Wanted to be able to say that you were a former professor. Adjunct at that.

[David]

Exactly.

[Pat]

Former professor and former professor.

[David]

Bestselling author, former instructor. Exactly. All right, everybody, we'll be back tomorrow. New show and new bonus show if we're lucky.