tv Brookings Institution Discussion on Police Shootings Unarmed Black Men CSPAN October 26, 2018 11:03am-12:46pm EDT
announcer: continuing our live coverage this friday morning, we take you to the brookings institution, where a discussion has just gotten underway on police using force against unarmed black man and whether extreme force -- unarmed black forced whether extreme falls under illegality. we together now. >> first, we can see all males constitute a majority of these fatalities across the country at about 91%. secondly, we can see that white males are the largest number of fatalities of all victims of fatal police shootings at 38%. however, we can see that black
males are the second smallest segment of all males in the country at 7%. they represent the second largest share of all victims of fatal police shootings at 21%. are killedack males by police officers at three times the relative share within the national population and are twice as likely to be killed by police officers as a white male. now let's turn our attention to look at fatal shooting's of unarmed victims across racial demographics. again, we have a share of males in the u.s. population on the left and a breakdown of all unarmed victims in the u.s. population on the right. here we can see that black males relative to the 21% share of all national fatal shootings in the country represents an even greater proportion of unarmed fatalities at about 34%, a little over 1/3.
more specifically, an unarmed black male is killed by a police officer at five times the relative share within the national population, and they are four times as likely to be killed by a police officer as an unarmed white male. this illustrates two key important points. clearly there is evidence of a racial disparity in the use of lethal force by law enforcement, even amidst a decline of fatal police shootings across the country. secondly, black males, in particular unarmed black males, are at a greater risk and have more vulnerability to being a victim of a fatal police shooting relative to their white male counterparts and all other individuals across the country. this leads us to look at 17 of some of the most prominent and well-known cases of black male civilians who were unarmed and
killed by law enforcement, including individuals such as freddie gray, tamir rice, michael brown, and many other individuals. when we take a look at the criminal case dispositions of these 17 black male victims who were unarmed, we can see some frightening results. the chart on the left shows the cases in which an officer was not criminally charged for murder or manslaughter. we can see indicated in green that one out of these eight cases is still pending, relatively new from 2018. the rest, seven out of eight, notes criminal charges were brought against -- no criminal charges were brought against the police officers. on the right we can see cases where officers were indicted or criminally charge. in two of those cases, the officer was charged in a case still pending. five have been criminally charged and not convicted indicated in black, and three have been criminally charged
leading to no conviction, as indicated in red. the cases in which an officer was not charged or not convicted far outweigh the cases in which an officer was criminally charged and convicted. only three out of these 17 cases led to a conviction. this rarity of of tribune crypt -- of which are beating kernel attributing of criminal liability to police officers is reflected across the national scale. 80 total to 2017, only officers were arrested for the murder and manslaughter of civilians in the country. only 28 of those 80 officers were actually convicted, about 35%. the rest were either not case is stillhe pending. it is clear the majority of
police shootings in the country are found to be justified. conclusion, all the dispositions of these cases across the country are based upon a police officer's perception of a reasonable threat. it may be a little bit difficult to read all the words here, but these are some of the accounts of the police officers who are responsible for the deaths of the 17 black unarmed male civilians we showed previously. what all these accounts illustrate is the fact that a police officer who engages in see this as ace perception of a reasonable threat and a fear for the safety of their allies. what, in fact, provokes them in the use of deadly force? in summation, there are a variety of legal standards that define lethal force, and we would like to discuss those standards in our panel today.
c'ed up here, i want to thank all of you at the brookings institution and to our online audience joining us remotely. before we head into our panel, i want to say a few words about why we are here and what we hope to a couple today. last year the brookings institution launched a new initiative, the race, prosperity and inclusion initiative. our initiative is focused on promoting equity and economic mobility for poor and low income americans and communities of color. as part of this initiative, we have a particular focus on young men of color and policies that can advance their prospects for success. the experience of being young, black, and mail is singular in the united states, and we are interested in promoting serious policy dialogue about that experience.
as indicated in the opening remarks, our purpose here today is to use the 17 very high profile cases of fatal police shootings of unarmed black males as a point of departure to understand the legal standards under which the use of lethal force by police is legal. we will be examining not only what the criteria are for the use of legal force by police, but also how those criteria have been implemented in police departments across the country. we will also discuss the implications of these cases for policy changes that have been contemplated at the state level. with that, it gives me great pleasure to introduce each of our distinguished panelists. sitting right next to me is the director of research and special projects for the death penalty information center. she joined the death penalty information staff as the director of research and special 2017.ts in december
she focuses on racial justice and the criminal legal system. after graduating from yale law a she clicked on the u.s. court of appeals for the sixth circuit and has litigated on behalf of death sentence individuals as a federal public defender in phoenix, arizona as a staff member of the ohio justice and policy center in cincinnati. before joining the death penalty information center, she served as senior director of criminal justice programs at the national naacp, where much of her work centered on providing unit training, strategic direction, and research and support in the naacp's criminal justice agenda. welcome. next to her is a senior staff attorney at the aclu of southern california and director of police practices for the aclu of california. he joined the aclu southern california staff as a staff
attorney in 2006. peter works on a wide range of police related issues, including race and bias in policing, gang injunctions, excessive force, search and seizure am a police interference of first amendment's right -- first amendment rights, national security, and surveillance. peter worked in private practice, specializing in civil rights and workers rights. peter clerked on the united states court of appeals for the second circuit and the united states district court for the northern district of california. he graduated from new york university school of law, where he was an editor in chief of the "nyu review of law and social change." next to peter is dr. ray shawn ray, associate professor of sociology for applied social science research at the university of maryland college park. he is also one of the coeditors sociologyt magazine: for the public."
formerly, dr. ray was a research scholar at the university of california berkeley. theray's research addresses mechanisms that manufacture and maintain racial and social inequality with a particular focus on police-civilian relations and men's treatment of women. his work also speaks to the way that inequality may be attenuated through racial activism and social policy. he has written for "the new york times," "the washington post," and nbc, and awarded the 2016 university of maryland research communicator award. dr. ray has appeared on headline news, algeria's era -- al nbc.ra, npr, and giving a very in warm welcome to all of our distinguished panelists. [applause]
the way we are going to work the way these panels are typically done, i am going to ask the panelists a range of questions. those.e going to answer once they get through those questions, we are going to open it up for audience questions, and we will take two or three at a time and then answer them up here. your opportunity to engage with our panelists will come in time, and we are very much looking forward to that discussion. i am going to start off by just setting the scene. the supreme court 1985 ruling in theessee v. gardner said constitutional floor for police use of deadly force. given that we are not all attorneys here, if you could just summarize that standard that was enshrined in that ruling. >> sure. dner, thesee v. gar
supreme court was dealing with a situation where somebody was actually fleeing from the police and was shot. it was clear that the person was not a danger to the police officers or the public. it was someone who is being pursued for a burglary offense. beene time, the rule had the law and tennessee had been interpreted as saying that any felony, if there is any felony you are fleeing from, the police could use deadly force against you. the united states supreme court decided that you could not just use deadly force whenever. [laughter] ngozi: you cannot just shoot a fleeing suspect if there was not lifel a real threat to the
or physical harm to the police officers and public. that really set the stage. at the time there were kind of a variety of legal standards in different states, different police departments had different standards around the use of force. but i think one thing that game, soy changed that saidssee v. garner just that trying to use deadly force to apprehend somebody is not enough of a justification. or, then in graham v. conn there was again this question of what does this mean and what is the legal standard.
so this is a fourth amendment seizure. connorv -- graham v. was stating that it is the actual standard that should be applied, objective reasonableness. has reallyonnor shaped the way that police departments have framed the way that their use of force policies read, have framed the way that people are trained around use of force. some of the things that graham v. connor synthesized was this is not about looking at 20/20 hindsight in the situation, that this is what a reasonable officer would have done in the circumstance. since that decision interpreting tennessee v. garner, the ideas about graham v. connor, when you
think about the awareness of supreme court precedent, you can think about the miranda decision. people have to give the miranda rights. everyone is aware of that. but i would say as a close second, even if they are not thinking this is about graham v. connor, in the way that police reports are written and people are being trained in police training of the use of force and when that use of force is justified is really heavily shaped by the way that graham v. connor really, with an much useds saying that of force and use of deadly force is reasonable, the way that graham v. connor really framed that discussion. camille: thank you very much for that. a littlewanted to chat bit about these two standards. tennessee v.e
garner said the constitutional standard. graham v. connor set standards that others have followed. have states fought to set higher standards than these two standards, or different standards that we have just discussed? peter: in a word, no. most states -- i mean, there are some exceptions. tennessee, for example, whose statute was at issue. most states have statutes that actually predate tennessee v. codify thebasically common-law rules about shooting by police. in california, where i am from,
it was written in 1872 win the state was literally the wild, wild west, and hasn't been updated since. most estate standards -- california is actually petrified, the old fleeing felon ruled that officers can shoot any fleeing suspect, so it does not need constitutional -- does not meet constitutional standards, and certainly doesn't meet modern policing practice. what i will say is that if you want to look for standards that are above the constitutional floor, the place you have to look is actually police agencies. especially in recent years, a number of police agencies have brought on more progressive policies through some on their oversight bysome the department of justice if you look at consent degrees put in place.
almost all of them heavy a use of force component that has higher standards. it includes a component that requires higher standards than graham, and even the police executive research forum, a kind of research group of police management, issued a set of recommendations around use of force policies. the second of which was that departments should enact policies that have higher standards than graham v. connor, higher than the constitutional floor. camille: thank you very much. that is very helpful. i want to get your thoughts as part of this discussion, and wanted to know, given the sort of changing landscape of standards, have we seen any relationship of those changes, which initially are cited in the implement itater in individual police departments, has that changed the volume or nature of fatal police shootings around the nation? dr. ray: yes.
since the mid-1980's, what we have seen was a decrease in officer-involved shooting's and killings. then all of a sudden in the mid- and late 1990's, we see a huge increase. that is what we have seen over the past 20 years or so. part of that is making sense of a conundrum that people try to focus on come up which is the fact that in the 1990's, we start to see record lows in terms of violent crimes. for the most part that has continued until relatively recently, so that is not necessarily corresponded. what the other panelists are highlighting is that since that tennessee v. garner decision -- i am actually from tennessee, so i think about living during that period of time in tennessee compared to other states -- we start to see a series of other cases that set a precedent. we can think about the act comes of -- the outcomes of these cases. stop and frisks, jump outs, where you have a group of
officers in plainclothes jumping out at individuals on the street. here is whether or not someone is suspected of engaging a felony. i think part of recognizing what that means is that it gives officers a lot of discretion to make a justification for who they perceive to be engaging in a felony, and what type of felony they perceive to be engaging in. at times they make decisions as they are going along. even though we are focusing on this set of cases as it relates to this particular stat, and i don't want people to forget this stat that african-american men compared to white men are about four times more likely to be killed by the police when they are not attacking, nor when they have a weapon. these are individuals who the police have said no, they weren't engaging in a crime, and no, they didn't have a weapon. yet still we see this outcome. beside that group, we have to look at what led up to that particular encounter. that is the fact that
minorities are more likely to be pulled over than whites, more likely to be searched than whites, more likely to have violent force used on them. the presidents is that that -- the precedence is that that is ok based on what an officer would do. what that is essentially means is that you ask other officers what they have engaged -- would they have engaged in the same type of behavior given the circumstances and what they know about the situation. of course, you have specific police departments, police unions who have decided to kind of double down on that and aim to rectify that and make it what they seem to be more objective. but mainly it is police officers with a outcome in a huge disparity that none of us should be covetable with. ngozi: if i could just pick up from that, that question about
objective reasonableness and what that means, it sounds very scientific, and of course you would like to see what an objectively reasonable officer would do in this situation. but i think we definitely have to put layers on top of this. it is interesting in tennessee v. garner and a lot of the seminal police use of force cases, there is no mention of race. right? it is just some suspect, some person by name, and we are not necessarily taking into account the effect that that had on the way that the interaction progressed. so we want to bring in some of what we know more now about the both explicit and implicit, is at play in so many of our discretionary decisions and the criminal legal system, including those decisions about who to arrest, who to stop and
frisk, who to search. so when we think about the science around implicit bias, this often unconscious kind of snap judgment reaction that we all have around a variety of issues and traits, but we think about what we know about implicit bias against african-americans, we know that a number of studies have shown there is a vast majority of white people that have implicit bias that is negative towards african-americans, and that in some studies there's about half to a majority of black people, so it is not just something that is only white people need to address. these implicit, under the surface biases that hope to
change the way we are perceiving the situation can have really negative effects in these interactions where we are having ambiguous situations where you have to make a snap judgment. well, we have studies showing that if you have an ambiguous situation and the person has dark skin as opposed to a person with light skin, we are seeing people making more negative assumptions about that, and we are seeing people make add toions that culpability. i think we are seeing really scary information about what that means when we are talking about children, and that we can all think to the khmer rouge and rice andh -- the tamir his death as a potential example of this. black boys and girls are seen as older, more culpable, and less human. when i say less human, i am
saying that in a literal way. brainsasier for people's -- it is easier for people brains to associate black boys with animal type figures as opposed to human beings. there is this dehumanization kind of bias. so what does that mean when we are talking about these very charged and very life-and-death interactions that can happen between black people and the police? when we were talking about this legal structure, these cases that don't necessarily take that into account, when you think both the prevalence of explicit and implicit bias in thatal society and bring into law enforcement and corrections, we have to think about what does that mean about the way juries are willing to i was afraid for my
life, when the idea of scary, big black man is something that is kind of hard coded into a lot of our subconscious. what does that mean for whether a jury is willing to accept that an officer had a fear, and that this fear was objectively reasonable? camille: singing their saying that these circumstances under which those decisions and very -- and the case law does not relate to that. my question is, is -- this will
be you give me your best answer. uniquely objective reasonable officer standard when we are talking about the use of lethal force? no.'m going to say of constable -- the concept reasonable, there is an officer standard. what a reasonable officer thinks of horse was reasonable under the circumstances. it is also problematic. there is no standard at all. does that seem like something that you would do? itselfandard in and of puts out very little guidance or
framework. loaded withon is all the inputs and explicit bias. does thestion is definition of what is reasonable because of who you are interacting with? >> that is true. graham outlines three factors, the severity of the crime, the immediacy of the threat, the amount of active in -- to evaluate what force is reasonable. these are subjective judgment and this will be evaluated in part on race. that is what research and experience shows us. things that we have
been working on in california is a way to change that standard so that it is a little more guided and constrained in ways that we moral concept. a >> given that this reasonable , a view of what he or she might do in a similar situation and on idea of a reasonable threat. is the standard of evidence around what constitutes a reasonable threat different in cases involving black males than it is for white males? >> yes. part of what happens with the break is fear. fear plays a role in the decision-making process area did
the officer fear for their lives and the lives of other people and if that fear reaches a threshold it justifies the action? toor to what people have realize about what brace in skin tongue does in america is black becomes weaponize. even when people don't have a weapon, not engaging in physical force their physical body becomes a weapon, it becomes criminalize in a way that justifies the action. studieshat in a host of . it's not just about being perceived as --. when you take white and black men who look the same, the individual still perceives the black men as the larger and stronger than the white man. the michael brown situation, regardless of what people think lead up to that.
what i remember reading from an officer is that he said that like a demon.look well halloween is coming up. what do you see one you see a demon? if you think a human looks like that, what do you do to stop this? he went on to say he looked like haul cogan and i felt like a four-year-old. both of these men are six foot four inches. they are both large, tall men. what we start to see is that it ends up justifying in many regards some of the outcomes that we see. questionour original was about do we see a difference, we do see a difference in the standard of evidence. the police officers say there is a difference. the part they don't get is all they have to do is convince a
few groups of people, the prosecutor's office that you were justified, the grand jury if it gets past that, and then the actual jury of people who hold the same bias. we had police officers take implicit association tests. they are based out of harvard. we did these with police officers. about these exercises was weapons. whether or not people exhibit preferential bias against black with weapons or white with i is. overwhelmingly, the police officers reported a bias towards blacks with weapons and none of
the officers reported bias towards whites in a strong or modern way. what is key here, this was not white officers or male officers, -- they arejust people who are socialized like that. we take officers with particular training when they are becoming officers to disrupt the race -- the way we are socialized they will keep seeing these reasonable outcomes justified and aim to objectively talk about an outcome that wasn't objective at all. we should take social science research and investigate it to figure out what's going on. we only have evidence from 16 states around the country. know how many people are shot and hurt by the police.
to me, as a taxpayer that is a problem. peter, thisto ask question about standard of evidence and whether it changes depending on the race of the victim. what i said before, that is right. the problem is compounded when you have these standards. be more likely it is to informed by bias and i agree that one of the things we need to do follow social science research and find ways to culturally, not just in law enforcement. i think there is work we can do towards refining the standards ,o try to focus on facts
officers focus, prosecutors and juries on more objective facts. one of the things we had done in california, sponsored legislation that would have changed the state authorization for police officers to use deadly force and changed it from a reasonable standard to a necessity standard. in some ways that echoes the standard that the supreme court garner.n the that -- itlly said was just graham and the necessity standard in the the justices say that to some extent. we try to bring it back under state law. that does a few things, requiring the cecily. , mostk most people
members of the public think the police should not be using force unless they have to. straightforward , moral place that we can agree. ont also focuses officers alternative tactics that they can use. one of the problems with the is it doesn'td leave room for police tactics. aree is no element they about what police could do other than using force. that is what we sought to bring back by emphasizing the cecily, because by -- necessity, because
what might you be able to do. the bill ran explicitly had a provision that required manipulation tactic whenever it was safe to do so. police departments have been in acting on a policy level where it is safe and reasonable to do so. the apartments have -- that have done that have seen reductions -- the departments that have done that have seen reductions. seattle, that is , aicy has been in place policy that requires the escalation and put in a necessity standard reduced uses of force by 60% over a three-year. . as a summary, yes, you can
have an evidentiary study that is on the surface the same for everybody but there is a lot going on underneath the surface. see how we are getting different results. i think that what peter just the actualtaking reality of police tactics is very much at the heart of tennessee the garner. that atr they recognize -- that people were -- police did not have guns. ago theof that, a while
argument that was raised in tennessee v garner back then youdid not have guns, didn't have a way to -- have anything that allowed you to control the situation, like a hand to hand tussle. recognizing that the reality of the police changes, the issues that are surrounding the understanding of what is necessary to ensure that police officer and the public is safe and we are not using more force than is necessary in a situation . it goes back to that fundamental idea of, this is what the fourth requiring,hould be
the seizure of a person. i think looking at the possibility, and the realities of the social science research that we have is very much in line with what the kind of forceal limit on deadly -- the use of deadly force. several branches and i will pursue them individually so our audience can follow. i want to talk about what is police departments across the country. we are not the first ones to identify implicit bias. there is a lot of case law and social science research. what is happening in police departments and other fraternal
used totions that is both acknowledge that bias and also police officers recognize that and utilize tools to overcome it when they are in these kinds of situations? beenthink there have changes in departments, officers in general approach to the issue of bias. we reported on. racial profiling in the lapd that was basically about implicit bias. and howd at outcomes much more likely african-americans were likely to be stopped and subjected to searches. tremendous reaction against bill
bratton saying this report is racist. bias, thef implicit idea that everybody is subject to bias because it is in the water in american culture. tohas enabled police recognize that is a problem that everybody has but that they have to deal with it more seriously because they arrest people. departments have started addressing the issue of implicit bias through stronger policies, through training that make officers aware of some of the issues that we have talked about. is there isroblems no evidence-taste training that
is out there that can say, you take this eight-hour course and no more bias. >> i don't think we can ever be there. -- this has to continue because of the social conditioning that helps to create that bias is continuing. it will never be let's figure it out and fix it and we are done. shows that a one-off only does so much. you want to plant ac the end allow that seed to grow. -- a seed and allow that to grow. one of the things we have been doing at the university of maryland is we develop a virtual reality simulation program for police officer this vision
making. to be able to train in a safe environment. part of this is not about people's conscious or unconscious attitude. have their heart rate and reaction times. this is what happens to officers in a second. regular civilians go through police simulation we fail miserably. police officers are much better than we are. we have to put that in context. i also think part of this is highlighting some of these broader patterns that we see. it is what happens when people are in close proximity. if i came in here with a snake and a spider,, some people just jumped. gun and you are
shooting at that snake like crazy. some people have the same physiological reason to a black man as i do to snakes and spiders. objectify andcan take it out into computer simulation and put people in a real-world simulation. -- situation. -- they run into something. how many people run into something on a regular racist. sometimes the link should they use our sanctioned. the policy is one way but the police associations and departments is another way and part of that is studying police it is about police accountability. some ways to do this with court
cases that were put up, there were large civil settlements, nguyen's of dollars of taxpayer money going out. we take ready graham in , that is coming out from the city of baltimore that does not have the money. that is coming from taxpayer money. if that was coming from police pensions, from police department , so part of it is making people accountable for themselves. the way we have it set up now when police officers in cajuns -- engage, we have to change that. about me ask the question
police officer training more generally, and the basis of the -- is a lot of police officers can be overwhelmed when they are put in stressful situations. we talk about utilizing tactics around the escalation whether or not that is a kind of perspective, instituting training around de-escalation, is it something that is gaining momentum? trials and spot solutions around that? officers arel trained in escalations. there is a question about where ,hat is put in the priority given other options or the
escalation is seen in some ways dangerous. why you are trying to de-escalate you might be harmed in some way. i see it in a number of policies that i work with. local branches were trying to work itcy changes, some was clear that the escalations were laughed off. the legal standard about why you can use force. waysnk that the de-escalation is framed can make a big impact on the way that people are acting on the streets every day. an issue that comes up with that, the way it is framed in the training, the way that your
policy is written. the way legal standards will , whether yourm feel like you are accountable, are you going to get in real trouble if you don't first try the situation. i would also say that any of these situations -- if you look force, if of deadly you look at the last seconds maybe they use the force, they didn't have many options. but if you backed it up a little bit, did you have some choices to make that might not have put you in that situation where there was this conflict. there are a lot of times where
you can back it up, maybe it could have been done differently a couple minutes before this would not have felt like a life or death situation. when we study police training and when they go through what they go through in cadet school, and they put in a lot of hours. if you want to know what your department are doing you can look at how many hours are spent on different things. tactics hours spent on but very little spent on social interactions. twoal interactions between people is what officers do all the time. it has always bothered me because some people are good at it and some people aren't. but you can train people to be better at social interaction.
it is oftentimes a conversation. what you don't realize is they have a string of things they are supposed to de-escalate with the four they use a weapon or a taser. certain to be in a close proximity to use a taser. if that doesn't work you instantly have to go to your next legal action, a gun. for the speed at which they rice., for example tamir -- they thought he was how the police officer should not have been a police officer. they were all part of the conviction of mcdonald not only factideo, but also the there were some of the officers
not engaging it was suggesting that the behavior was so unreasonable the evidence was overwhelming. laquan mcdonald might still be somebody might have had a taser. , firster quick thing officersthat police don't have good opportunities to do with mental health. they are overworked, overstress, underpaid. if you say something is wrong in my head, you will be put on desk duty and see you as a liability. if i have 17 years on the force and three years to retire i am being quiet. we had better set up a better mechanism for policemen to go
outside the department and get help. they will put them through a correction and the get behavior. you would get shot in the simulation. trainingimes the supervisors will sit in the dark and they will shoot the cadet going through the simulation, and it will hurt. they will make you wear that for days. what do you think you are going to do when you get on the streets? of -- countercted active. this leads to some of the outcomes that we see so fair --
fear, is how we deal with it. see areomes that we exactly the rep to see -- the recipe that we see. i will now shift to this question about necessary standard versus other standards. what thes don't know differences. you'd started to talk a little bit about that, either. can you tell us what the differences -- difference is? on some level it is not that different from the doctrine, the supreme court in garner talks about necessity. it is there in the context of is prevent escape
along with probable cause to believe there is a serious threat? in some ways it is not all that different but it is clear that it focuses on alternatives. i think that there are one of options.less lethal forcers have been trained decades and particularly older officers who may not want to get .nto fights officers know how to do that and they know things like using distance, time and cover to reduce the threat to themselves which allows them to give -- to toloy more options, communicate.
if you talk to officers about that, one of the things they say like jumping out of the car 10 --t away from tammy or rice tamir rice. if they had gotten over of the other seven car they could have .ommunicated wants -- once the necessary -- standard. about the officer's actions leading up to the use of force. it is not clear but there are a number of courts that have said when you fill your way using force under the constitution standard you only have to look at the moment that they pull the trigger. rice situation that falls short to understand whether that shooting to a
common understanding that was necessary -- if that was necessary. a case of l.a. where deputies were looking for a suspect and they kicked a door of a shack and without announcing they were police and there was a happened with a bby in there gun and they shot him many times. back a few moments to the fact that they were going around kicking in doors without announcing themselves, it seems less necessary. it was part of the legislation , can setting aon wider frame considering that officers frame -- what officers did lead up to the situation.
officerse things the did that led to the shooting when there did not have to be one. of thingthat sort willer or not body cams -- change the discussion around what isary standards, the timeframe we look at why we usingying to evaluate reasonable force in a particular case? >> we conducted a large study was civilians and the study with police officers. about their thoughts on body cameras. everyone supported body on campus.
are interesting because from an optics standpoint they matter because they are seen to provide more transparency, and people on both sides of the aisle are in favor of it. people who are supportive of the police say, people will see how police officers get treated. on the other hand, proponents of civilian up you turn to these to be freer say the same thing, that these cameras will show how badly they are being treated by police. when we look at the outcomes, it is a big for a couple of reasons. in way to think about it is the majority of the cases that were highlighted they had some type of video. that's not something we can just throw to the side. the documentation maven -- matters. he pointed out from the legal precedent is to expand a range
that the court can make a decision on it. the court is not making that same decision on that clip so there is a gap here. the second thing that is happening is that with body and cameras there are some places that use them more continuously. there are some places where they manually turn them on. we need more standardization there. longer, wetay on have more information there and from a police department standard, police -- people don't realize how much money it cost to activate -- provide police officers with the equipment and the training. at times what happens is the technology moves so fast on this side of things by the time the police officer gives the camera
they are already outdated. --re are certain brands that a sergeant or cap and can pull up on their phone and look at the body camera footage for their offices. i think a lot of that needs to be in the public record. police officers do fear walking someoneeone's home, and might be dealing with a serious incident, a hospital or a place of worship. police officers have real concerns but overall people support them and it matters because it provides more transparency. and we more consistency need the legal precedents to match. body on camera, a research
issue to mention the importance of the federal government in helping to set and support police standards. about 18,000t with law enforcement organizations around the country. there is no central management, no oversight of that. but the department of justice and the way that it deals with these issues can help set the tone and support change. is a task force on 21st-century policing that brought together experts that talks about they brought up and talk about some of the issues we talked about today, public trust and accountability and the need for mental health care for police officers. bonnie on cameras is -- body on
they have the support of the department of justice and we know the department of system -- systematic investigation of police department, the consent decrees has been to shape our knowledge about what has been going on, the search for best practices and figuring out where we can change the way that forces being used through a collaborative process. in ohio where there was a community engaged collaborative process around changing police practices. i don't think that even though we are talking about law enforcement across the country, talking about the work that
needs to be done on the state level. we cannot underestimate the helping resources, and establish and support those process around this. the way they are implemented, , r they protecting cap -- police officers allowed to watch the cameras before the police reports because that could be problematic. seconds where we see examples of people planting drugs, doing things you would otherwise not have evidence of. it is an important tool in so many areas of use of force. their complexities that communities will be dealing with and hopefully they will have support. >> i want to ask one more
question and then open it up to the audience. ad that is you talked about potential agenda it's more the federal government, we work at the state level and you work with police and communities. ones who arere the most impacted when we have a , and a lethal force young man died as a result. what is the role for communities in this conversation and how can those communities best and their voices, as we think about different kinds of standards around the use of lethal force? >> i love this question. been engagedhas
with communities that have been struggling with these issues, i think that what we look at the way communities are dealing with the use of lethal force, we can , but i thinkis that the experience of communities has to be essential to this conversation. we also know about the trauma that they are dealing with when there is a threat of legal force that is hovering over everybody's head. it is something that we have new, butd, that is not we are having a deeper conversation about what that means. , a study thatty was done in ohio about how people's -- and how they are
by police violence. experience, i think the ability of communities to help to shape the standard that our governing this is crucial. -- beingo shape having participating in hiring and planning decisions. the police officer is seen as a part of the community and part of what we are doing to keep people safe. what is being done in california, a ballot measure in washington state right now about
changing the use of force standards. tomunitiesa and being able build power and investment and keeping our community safe and record rising what does that mean. --doesn't necessarily mean it could mean more mental health advocates on the streets. i think that community involvement in all of these thegs is crucial to finding answer. >> i agree with that. i want to add one thing which is that the components of the administrative -- we have been talking about accountability or a lack there of. that is another component.
--many states, there is no that information is completely confidential. under the previous rule, not only did communities like the , if itn park shooting had passed communities would not know if the officer was fired because of that shooting. -- there is no way for a community to engage with the system that is most likely ifhold off accountability they don't know what's going on. i think that is a basic principle of democracy that people need to hold the government accountable for what they do.
if the important decisions about how departments address police .hootings are kept close off to follow up one way to address notches releasing the investigation or the results, it is collecting that data. data, wecollect that do in california, departments have to provide the information to the state department of justice every time there is a use of deadly force. there is no requirement for that. we have statistics on crime but not on homicide by police officers, and that should change. of pushing these kind of things through there is not know why we should
what the outcome is. locallythat starts with , and voting for local officials that would be willing to push some of these policies. the civilian oversight committee, the one that i am involved with, it's nice to have but the influence of a police department is limited to --. in terms of the transparency is also a big one. i would encourage people to go through their local police or civilian organizations, go through and see what police officers encounter. you don't necessarily have to agree all the time, but the importance is understand why they make the decisions. to get involved in
these organizations and figure out how you can make a difference about what is happening in your own back. >> on that note i will open it up for audience questions. we will take two or three at a time and then answer. here,e a number of hands let's start on this side. >> i got unlawfully detained, a
,ump of and a group of people 22 dark skinned gentleman -- that was an interesting experience. then recently a friend of mine , it me a video on you tube was a video in pennsylvania where a state troopers stopped a black man for speeding then proceeded to drive off and he direct him down and it escalated where they tased him multiple times. he fought the tasers, ran around the car, ran for his car pulled out a gun and popped him and shot the gun several times. what happened is that guy, the
black man who committed the crime got 55 years in prison. biasthat says to me is my as a black man towards police that you spoke of, it goes both ways. mind fromes on in the the de-escalation. it could have the escalated, he came back and it escalated further. ,hen the cop went into a coma he was clinically dead when he got to the hospital, came out of the coma and remembered the incident. theoes further in terms of way that the black man are sentenced disproportionately for
their white-collar parks -- counterparts. , ibe police are justified just wanted to see if you could add any opinion about that and i also thought about entertainment now,edia from 1991 until music like hip-hop, etc.. >> thank you. a gentleman right behind you. >> i'm a retired new york city police officer, consultant for the bureau of prisons. my question points to this objective of reasonableness that go wrong -- for graham. the dependence on how it is
interpreted in different jurisdictions. my question is focused on whether how can communities get a standard that is acceptable? olk let elected officials know what the standards are. and whether they adhere to community standards. in new york, we had back in the day a lot of corruption. one day they started locking up people in uniform on the streets. i was there. then the corruption slowed it down and it had a direct impact on people's lives. citizensvolvement by
in terms of holding their police chiefs and their mayors to this standard that the community decides is propria -- appropriate, who would have an effect on who was disciplined and who was fired, and you got to keep jobs and who didn't. the gentleman there, we will answer these question after this gentleman asked to come back for some more. >> i'm with the voice of democracy. a 10ps in the future minute question thing is a little imbalance. just a point of reference. , there isstanford still that system of who is this --son, why is this person
why is this person driving a car and in this neighborhood? chicago, and the tragedy going on in chicago, who will hold that black on black crane -- crime, who is accountable. you have jesse jackson and this is aobama, killing zone and the black committee is ignoring that reality. >> we have a question on chicago violence and accountability, a question about the direct involvement of citizens in creating and enforcing community standards around the use of lethal force, and we have a sentencingound
escalation and de-escalation. one thing i will say to our panelists so we can get more questions and is try to be brief . you don't have to answer every single one. in regard to chicago, people highlight lack on black crime forre seem reason we don't crime on crime. to ask us to respectfully listen to the panelists as they complete their answers. >> 94% of crime that black sit -- 86 is, 80's committed by whites.
part of the way the media frames things for us, one thing i know is whether this be st. louis or baltimore is that people are invested in their commuted tease -- communities. do we want to deal with crime questioner we have to deal with a lack of jobs and education. when we want analyses on this crime, that is what causes crime. engaging in certain types of actions and should be section for that. i think preemptory strikes matter alike -- a lot. that for african american men in particular, there is a legitimate fear of police officers that needs to be dealt with and part of that is a lot of african americans men
>> there is a kind of cliche in law enforcement, shootings that the use of force is lawful but awful. ,hat reflects a use of force officers agreed should not have happened but is not against the rules. andcommunity sets the rules we are supposed to set them in keeping with moral standard. if there is such a thing as lawful but awful, a whole
,ategory where we all agree then we need to change the rules . >> to follow up, the example of seattle having better use of force policies, you can have pushr policies, you can police officers to have better. the sentencing question, that ties into this, black on black crime, we need to address the racial legacy of the criminal justice system being played out in pieces, state sanctioned violence against black people, which has been about the justification of police shootings throughout from slavery starting, which ties into the way we decide who is worthy, who we can lock up and throw away or kill and throw away? lives, ilue of black
know we have been talking about that a little bit, plays itself out in many ways. thinking about crime and how black people are treated compared to others -- we need to, we have as a society a lot of work to do to have holistic jobs. the work we are doing his work in the courts, at the ballot box, that is happening in our communities, day-to-day interactions, we need to be creating and influencing structures helping to continue thatorced legacy of racism is part of what was at the founding of the nation but can be different in the future. >> thank you. we will take another three questions. let's start over here. we will work our way around.
i'm the host of freedom fighters at the dmv. gr networks. officers, we do not have , our societytabase is governed by licenses and my colleague, and my other are mandatory license person, including myself and as a nation, why can police officers make a decision to be everything else without a license, why is it that the fbi has no documentation for holding records on police behavior and conduct? we do not have a national database. why are those persons not
licensed and why are we not talking about that? >> thank you. him, ao directly behind young lady behind him. >> my question was basically the same. there areensed -- probably many in this room who have occupational licenses. licensedi go as a person throughout this country, they can pull it up and find out what i did and a police officer, that crazy person who killed in cleveland, had a community not been outraged and spoken up, he would have been on his way to try to kill someone in another department. what you recommend people in communities start a petition demanding from city councils or county governments that police, they need to start having licenses and say, pg county,
they are criminals? >> let's get two more questions. let's work this side of the room. a young lady in a red jacket, yes, you, yes. >> this is not so much a question as a comment to the chicago and the argument made about black on black crime and violent crime. my name is linda garcia, imb policing director for human rights, before that i was at doj where i did work on the investigation of chicago pd. the communities were not good policing -- they want good policing. toy do not want police oversaturated areas and shake people down wrongly and to use excessive force and those are different things. in changing the way policing is
done, you can answer the issues of violence, but that is not done through unconstitutional policing. >> this lady in the gray jacket and then we will take questions. ferriss,e is claudia ime neighborhood person in this context -- i am a neighborhood person in this context. i live in an area oversaturated by officers and i do not trust the police. i am privileged in terms of my access to society, my knowledge of how things function but those people are my neighbors. i live with them. it bothers me when they are harassed by the police. i do not know what to do about it. i walk around with an attitude. do, think about, react to, is helpful in that regard because i do not feel i have access to true letters of
effectiveness. just putting that out there. >> thank you very much. we have questions on community trust and community leverage, licensing of police and the openness of the administrative databases that deal with disposition of a police officer's case. feel free. >> i will start with the trust , connecting that the violence.that is important . leadership conference has a great body camera tool if fol want to los -- if folks want to use it to look at policies. the point about the tide in, if you are going to close cases, you need to talk to people who
are willing to talk to you. creatingng that, police departments that are actually able to build trust with individuals is important. police departments recognize this. 21st century report on policing raises, police leaders have said building trust is fundamental, we will not build the trust we need unless there is true when someone has done something wrong. that is crucial and is a part of addressing high rates of violence. it is not a coincidence many of the cities we're seeing with serious violence issues, we're also seeing serious police corruption issues and police violence as well. >> peter?
>> on that point, i completely agree with linda's point about oversaturation is not the same as good policing and many communities are hung twice by the police, once through the failure to police properly and provide safety and then again through the harmful policing techniques. good policing, stuff we are advocating for, will build trust that will make police able to do their jobs more easily and effectively. it is not just a cliche. i also wanted to address the point about licensing. there is a term in the police reform movement -- decertification. this,are states that do that require just like a contract or a lawyer or a barber has to maintain licenses -- in
california, barbershops are state inspected to make sure the combs are in the blue liquid. for stateo licensing licensing for police officers which allows officers who are -- who quit from a department when they are under investigation for misconduct and moved to another department, that problem is exacerbated when records are not public. it can be administratively difficult -- certainly in california up until this point, in states where there is a confidentiality for disciplinary department that is hiring a lateral officer cannot look up the discipline. they have to get a waiver signed by applicants and it does not always happen. is statewhere there
certifying licensing is something there has been a move towards. there are recommendations in the interim of the 21st century task force on policing. that would be important for accountability long-term. tamara ricen the situation and in pittsburgh, method, aers did this police department would want to get rid of them, so they might write them a recommendation to go somewhere else. i do not think there are more bad apples in policing than other professions but that process allows it to continue. community trust -- we have to push for policies that allow police officers to live near us. what i mean is, a recent study showed police officers and in 60 ofcannot live the major metropolitan areas in the united states. they do not know the people and
they do not have empathy. if you have a level of empathy and you are living by certain people you are policing, it is shown those relationships build. to as at leasds police officer viewing everyone has a person they could go to church with. instead they might see them as suspicious. that leads to the host of outcomes we're talking about today. >> i want to extend a deep and sincere thank you to the event staff. [applause] interns, the fabulous communications folks, facility colleagues, security colleagues, and our fabulous analysts. thank you. [applause]
>> developments to report in the case of the bombings or attempted bombings, the news ,rom the miami herald, page south florida man arrested in connection with expected explosive packages. floridar-old man from has been arrested at a plantation autozone in connection to the string of suspected explosive packages sent to prominent democrats and critics of donald trump. the justice department just -- justbriefing finished reading president trump at the white house, that is on c-span3.
the justice department will update at 2:30 p.m. eastern and we will have it live on c-span. jamesday on c-span q&a, talksuthor and resident, about his biography of president george w. bush. >> i do not worry about my legacy because i'm still studying theodore roosevelt or there will not be objective history done on this administration for a long time. >> it is not too soon to judge on some aspects of his legacy. it is not too soon to judge on the war in iraq. why? it did not accomplish what he thought it would accomplish before he started the war. the cost 4000 plus american lives, $2 trillion. and i do not book
think this judgment will change -- that it was one of the biggest strategic blunders in american history. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. ♪ >> the c-span bus is traveling the country on our 50 capitals tour, during our stop in boston we asked people which party should control congress and why? to, the house to remain republican because i like the way things are going, the way the economy is going. if it were to switch, it would create gridlock and not a lot would get done.i think the way things are going , it has been one of the best runs in recent history and i would like it to stay that way. >> i would like the house to flip in november. i want to see a democratic likeity because i do not
the way washington is going with this republican house. i feel like it would be changed for the better. >> i want the house to remain republican because i am tired of gridlock and things not getting done. if it flips i'm afraid it will be another session of no change. >> the issue most important to this campaign is for there to be balance in the house of representatives and the u.s. senate. i think it will offset and force the current administration to govern more from the center which i think is important. ien we govern from center, teach my students this as a history teacher, it is important because it teaches us to have empathy for the other side and to be able to recognize other people and the issues important to them. ♪ >> voices from the states, part of c-span's 50 capitals tour. elections until the
and debate coverage continues on c-span with a match between incumbent democratic senator claire mccaskill and missouri attorney general josh haw ley, this is the third and final debate, from yesterday. this runs about one hour. news, the final debate between claire mccaskill and josh hawley. >> good evening, welcome and thank you for joining us. the missouri u.s. senate seat. tonight, the leading candidates in the race. claire mccaskill and josh hawley . each campaign has agreed on the roles. ules. each candidate gets 90