i think that ultimately, what we have to do is realize in these situations where there is a video, when we do have situations that video is a big part of the prosecution's case, whether it's this, whether it's kyle rittenhouse, whether it's the prosecution of derek chauvin for the murder of george floyd, we do not want to get into a situation where we expect video as the standard. we don't need to have a standard that is set for juries that if there is no video, they can't convict. that is a concern that i have as a former prosecutor. oftentimes, there is no video. but that should not prevent prosecutors from going forward in terms of cases, and it should not prevent juries from being able to understand that testimony is evidence. and there are a number of different forms of evidence and the fact that you may not have ocular evidence that is supporting what actually happened should not impede your ability to seek a resolution that is fair and holds people accountable. >> it is so true, because so often, in a lot of these cases,