So swiftly dividing both ....?

-Your Honor, Deputy Chief Johnson abandoned Turell Baylor in gang territory,
where his fellow Crips were massing to execute him.

-Excuse me, Your Honor.
Chief Johnson dropped Mr. Baylor off at his house, where he requested to go.
It's not the defendant's fault that Mr. Baylor lived in gang territory.

-Your Honor, everyone knows Turell Baylor was murdered by members of his own gang.

-Your Honor, if everyone knows this, why has counsel submitted no evidence substantiating this fact?
Instead, he asks the court to try his opinion --
an improper use of the justice system. Even if one were to accept that in this instance
the Warren rule did not apply.

-The Warren Rule would only apply if Chief Johnson had been negligent.
She wasn't negligent. She actively facilitated the murder of Turell Baylor.
This motion for summary judgment is a feeble excuse to get that charge to just go away.

-I congratulate counsel on so swiftly dividing both our objective and the definition
of a summary judgment, which is to immediately terminate these proceedings
in favor of the defendants and to make these "baseless charges," as he puts it, just go away.

what does it mean so swiftly dividing both our objective?