tv Brookings Institution Discussion on Police Shootings Unarmed Black Men CSPAN November 26, 2018 12:14pm-1:57pm EST
watch live gavel-to-gavel coverage in the house on c-span. tonight on "the communicators," nyu professor scott galloway talks about the power in the u.s. with "the four: the hidden dna of amazon, apple, facebook, and google." >> when you think about who really knows you, your wife, your kids, your therapist, your friends, i would say the real entity is google. google knows if you're about to get engaged, if you're contemplating divorce. google knows what ailments you've had, what ailments you're about to expose yourself to. if there is a modern-made god, google is the one who sees your intentions and how those intentions will likely translate into actions. these organizations know who we are, know who we're connected with, know our feelings, know
our intentions so we have openly invited them into the brightest and darkest corners of our lives. >> watch "the communicator snooze "tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. the brookings institution host aid discussion on the use of excessive and deadly force by police against unarmed black men. over the next hour and a half, they discuss the legal framework that applies to the decision to use lethal force. good morning, everyone. a very warm welcome to all. we're extremely delighted you're able to join us for our event on the topic deadly force, the reason for unarmed shootings of black men in america, a very important subject today. my name is kwadwo frimpong,
analyst here today at brookings. our agenda this morning is first to walk us through some brief statistics of use of lethal force by law enforcement and how that's played out across the criminal justice system, and thereafter we'll break into our discussion panel with our distinguished panelists to discuss this topic here today. so to provide a brief overview of the topics we'll cover is, firstly, i'll go through some national statistics on the use of police officers, and secondly we'll look at how that relates to all victims across racial demographics, and thirdly we'll look at specifically how this relates to unarmed victims across race, and lastly we'll look at how this is played out in criminal case dispositions across the country. when we take the fatal outlook
of shootings by police officers, we can see from 2015 to 2018, the total number of civilians that were killed by police officers range from about 1,700 which peaked in 2017 to about 1,400 up to the present time. we can see that from 2017 onwaro onwards, there was a slight national decline in these shootings. this trend has been reflected across racial lines, so we can see how white males which constitute a majority of these fatalities have also been trending downwards followed by black males, hispanic males and native american males. it's important to note that for native american males there is relatively scarce information on this racial demographic. it's very likely there is an underreporting of fatalities as relates to this group. now, when we take a much closer look at fatal shootings of all victims by racial demographic, it reveals a slightly different
picture. on the left we can see the share of males across the u.s. population, across racial demographics. first we can see white males constitute a majority of all males within the country at 31% followed by hispanic males, black males and native american males. and the chart on the right we can see the composition of all victims of fatal police shootings across the country. two key important points to note. first, we can see that all males constitute a majority of all these fatalities across the country at about 91%. and 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%. however, they represent the second largest share of all victims of fatal police shootings at 21%.
in fact, black males are killed by police officers at three times their relative share within the national population and are twice as likely to be killed by a police officer as a white male. so now let's turn our attention to look at fatal shootings of unarmed victims across racial demographics. again, we have the share of males in the u.s. population on the left. we have the breakdown of all unarmed victims in the u.s. population on the right. here we can see that black males relative to their 21% share of all national fatal shootings in the country represent an even greater proportion of unarmed fatalities at about 34%, a little over a third. and more specifically, an unarmed black male is killed by a police officer at five times their 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. so this illustrates two key important points, is that clearly there is evidence of a racial disparity in the use of lethal force by law enforcement. even in this decline in police shootings across the country. secondly, black males, and 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 male individuals across the country. this leads us to look at 17 unarmed black male civilians who are 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 are unarmed, we can see some very startling results. i want to draw your attention to the chart on the left which shows the cases in which an officer was not criminally charn charged for murder or manslaughter. we can see in green that one out of these eight cases is still pending. it's relatively new from 2018. and the rest, seven out of eight, no criminal charges were brought against the police officers. and when you look at the chart on the right, we can see cases in which officers were indicted or criminally charged. and two of those cases, the officer was charged and the case is still pending. five have been criminally charged and not convicted, as indicated in black, and three have been criminally charged, leading to no conviction as indicated in the red. so we can see across the spectrum that the cases in which an officer was not charged or not convicted far outweighed the cases in which an officer was
criminally charged or convicted. in fact, only three out of these 17 cases led to a conviction. and this rarity of attributing criminal liability to police officers engaging the use of deadly force is something that is reflected across a national scale. we can see that from 2005 to 2017, only 80 total officers were arrested for the murder and manslaughter of civilians in the country. and only 28 out of those 80 officers were actually convicted, about 35%, and the rest were either not convicted or the krtrial is still pending. so it's clearly seen that the majority of police shootings of civilians within the country are found to be legally justified. and so in conclusion, all the dispositions of these cases across the country are based upon a police officer's perception of a reasonable
threat. and 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 that we showed previously. what all these accounts illustrate is the fact that a police officer who engages in the use of force sees this as a perception of a reasonable threat and a fear for the safety of their own lives, and what, in fact, provokes them to engage in the use of deadly force. so in summation, there are a variety of legal standards that govern the use of deadly force, and we would like to discuss those standards in our panel here today. so please join me in welcoming our moderator, camille busette along with our distinguished
participants 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 accomplish today. last year the brookings institution launched a new initiative, the race, prosperity and inclusion initiative. our initiative is focused on providing equity and mobility for poor americans and institutions of color. as part of this initiative, we have a particular focus on young men of color and on possibilities that can advance their prospects for success. the experience of being young, black and male is singular in the united states. and we are interested in promoting serious policy dialogue about that experience. as kwadwo indicated, the purpose here today is to outline the shooting of unarmed black males as a point of departure to understand the legal standards
wherein use of lethal force by police is legal. we are here to learn about the criteria of lethal force by police and how that criteria has been implemented in police departments across the country. we will also discuss the implications for these standards 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 ngozi ndulue, the head of the information center. she joined the staff as head of research projects in 2013. her career has focused on racial injustice and the criminal legal system. after graduating from law school, she clerked for judge clay on the sixth circuit and she's litigated on behalf of
death sentence individuals as an assistant federal public defender in phoenix, arizona and as a staffmember of the ohio justice and policy center in cincinnati, ohio. before coming -- before joining the death penalty information center, ngozi served as senior director of criminal justice programs at the national ncaap where much of her work centered on providing unit training, strategic direction and research to support the ncaap's criminal justice agenda. welcome. sitting next to her and peter bibring. he was a senior staff attorney at the aclu of southern california and is the 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, police interference with a first
amendments rights, national security and surveillance. prior to joining the aclu, peter worked in private practice specializing the 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 editor in chief of the review of law and social change and he also graduated from harvard university. next to peter is rashawn ray. dr. ray is a social director of lab for applied social science research at the university of maryland, college park. he is also one of the co-editors of context magazine, sociology for the public. formerly dr. ray was a health research scholar at the university of california-berkeley.
he studied racial equality with a focus of men's treatment of women. he also researched how inie -- inequality serves racism. he was awarded the 2016 university of maryland research communicator award. dr. ray has appeared on headline news, al jazeera, and fox on nbc. his research is cited by the associated press, msn, the root and the chronicle. please join me in giving a very warm welcome to all our distinguished panelists. [ applause ] >> so the way we're going to work this is we're going to ask -- these panels are typically done, i'm going to ask the panelists a range of
questions. they're going to answer those. then once we get through those questions, we're going to open it up for audience questions and we will take about two or three at a time and then answer them up here. so your opportunity to engage with our panelists will come in time, and we're very much looking forward to that discussion. i'm going to start off by just sort of setting the scene. the supreme court 1985 ruling in tennessee versus garner set the constitutional floor for police use of deadly force. so i'd like it if, given that we're not all attorneys here, ngozi, if you could just summarize that standard, the standard that was enshrined in that ruling. >> where somebody was actually fleeing from the police and was shot in flight, and it was clear that the person was not a danger
to the police officers or the public. it was someone who was being pursued for a burglary offense, so a felony offense. at the time, the rule had be been -- the law in tennessee had been interpreted saying if any felony, if there's 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 -- you could not just shoot someone if there was not a real threat to the li life, physical harm. >> to the police officer. >> yes, to the police officer. that really set the stage.
at that time there was 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 definitely changed that game -- so tennessee v. garner really said that just trying to use deadly force to apprehend somebody is not a justification. but then in granby-conner, there was this question about what does this mean and what is the legal standard? so this was a fourth amendment seizure. and the granby-conner was stating that the fourth amendment's reasonable standard is the actual standard that should be applied, this objective reasonableness.
and granby-conner has really 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 these reports. so one of the things that granby-conner emphasized was this is not about looking at 20/20 hindsight at the situation, this is about what an objectively reasonable officer would have done in the circumstance. and since that granby-conner decision interpreting tennessee versus garner, the ideas of granby-conner, if you think about when the awareness of just law enforcement officers about supreme court precedent, you could think about the miranda decision, right, people have to give the miranda rights.
i think everybody is aware of that. but even in a cool second, if they're not thinking this is about granby-conner in the way police reports are written, in the way people are trained in the police academy, the training of the use of force and when that use of force is justified is really heavily shaped by the way that granby-conner really, with an eye towards saying that much use of force and use of deadly force is reasonable, the way that granby-conner really framed that discussion. >> thank you very much for that. peter, i wanted to chat a little bit about these two standards. definitely the tennessee versus garner set the constitutional standard, the granby versus conner set other standards that other police departments have followed.
but have states sought to set higher standards than these two standards, or different standards than these two standards that we have just discussed? >> so in a word, no. most states -- i mean, there are some exceptions. tennessee, for example, whose statute was of issue in tennessee v. garner has modified their statute. but most states have statutes that actually predate tennessee v. garner and basically caudify the common law rules about shooting police. in california, the common law of our statute on basically the criminally affirmative defense for law enforcement officers was written in 1872 when the state was literally the wild, wild west and hasn't been updated since. so most state standards, california actually caudifies
the old fleeing felon rule that officers can shoot any fleeing suspect, so it does not meet constitutional standards. and certainly it doesn't meet modern policing practice. so i think 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 own, more through oversight by the federal department of justice. if you look at the consent decrees that have been put together by the department of justice, almost all of them have higher standards -- includes a component that has higher standards than graham. in fact, even the police executive research forum, kind
of a research forum for c executive management set out policies that have higher standards than the granby-conner, higher than the constitutional floor. >> thank you very much, that's very helpful. i wanted to get your thoughts and given the changing standards, have we seen any relationship of those changes which initially are decided in the courts and then later implemented in individual police departments. has that changed the volume or nature of fatal police shootings around the nation? >> yes. so kind of since the mid-1980s, what we've seen actually is a decrease in officer shootings and killings. then all of a sudden in the mid-'90s, the late '90s, we started seeing a huge increase. that's what we've seen over the
past, say, 20 years or so. part of that is making sense of a conundrum that people try to focus on which is in the '90s we started to see record lows in terms of violent crime. for the most part, that continued until relatively recently. so that hasn't necessarily corresponded. and i think what the other panelists are really highlighting is since that tennessee-garner decision -- i'm actually from tennessee so i think about how that meant from other states. we started to see a series of other precedents in other states. i think we can think about the outcome of those cases. stop and frisk, terry stops, jumping stops where you have a group of officers in plainclothes were jumping out at individuals standing on the street. of course, the precedence here is it's about whether or not someone is suspected of engaging in a felony. i think part of recognizing what that means is it gives officers a lot of discretion to make a
justification for who they perceive to be engaging if a felony and what type of felony they perceive them to be engaging in. so in many respects, they're actually at times able to make decisions as they go along. even though we're focusing on these cases as it relates to a certain stat, and i don't want people to forget the stat, that african-american men compared to white men are about four times more likely to be killed by police when they're not attacking nor when they have a weapon. in many respects, that's the group we're talking about. these are the individuals who police have said, no, they weren't engaging in a crime, and no, they didn't have a weapon. but we still see this outcome. but as far as that group, we have to look at what led up to that particular encounter. that's when the fact that minorities are more likely to be pulled over than whites, they're more likely to be searched than whites, they're more likely to have violent force used upon them. in all these different cases over the past 30 years or so have established a precedence that that's okay based on what a reasonable officer would do.
and i think it's difficult for people to really understand that. but what that presence denceden essentially means is you ask other officers would they have engaged in the same type of behavior given the circumstances and given what they know about the situation. of course, you ask specific police departments, police unions who have kind of decided to double down on that and rectify it and make it what they perceive to be more objective p. at the end of the day, it's still about police officers telling other police officers about these standards, and at the end of the day, there is a disparity in america that none of us should be comfortable with. >> just to pick up from that, and that question about objective reasonableness, right, and what that means, it sounds very scientific, and of course you would like to see what would an objectively reasonable officer do in this situation? but i think we have to
definitely put layers on top of this. so it's interesting and, you know, tennessee v. garner and a lot of the kind of police use of force cases, there is no mention of race. it's just some suspect, some person by name, and we're not necessarily taking into account the effect that that had on the way that the interaction progressed. so i want to bring in some of what we know more now about the way bias, both explicit and implicit, is at play in so many of our discretionary decisions in the criminal legal system, including those decisions about who to arrest, who to stop and frisk, who to search, right? so when we think about the science around implicit bias,
and implicit bias is often an unconscious, kind of snap judgment reaction that we all have around a variety of chosen trades, but what we know about implicit bias against african-americans, we know that a number of studies have shown that a vast majority of white people have implicit bias that's negative towards african-americans. and in some studies, there is kind of about half to a majority of black people, so this is not just something that is only -- that only white people need to address, right? i mplicit bias is under the surface, and to change wait you pursue a situation can have negative effects in these
interactions where we are having ambiguous situations where you have to make a snap judgment. we have studies that show if you have an ambiguous situation and the person has dark skin as opposed to a person with light skin that we're seeing people make more negative assumptions about that, and we're seeing people make assumptions that add to culpability. i think we have really scary information about what that means when we're talking about children. we can all think to the tamir rights and his death as a potential, you know, example of this where, when we think about black boys and girls are seen as older, more culpable and less human. and when i say less human, i'm actually saying that in a literal way, that it's easier for people's brains to associate black boys with animal type, ape type figures as opposed to human
beings, right? there is in dehumanization kind of bias. what does that mean when we're talking about these very charged and very life and death interactions that could happen between black people and the police? so when we're talking about this legal structure and we're talking about these cases that don't necessari don't necessarily take that into account, when you think about the prevalence of this both explicit and implicit bias in general society and we bring that into law enforcement interactions, we have to think about, what does that mean about the way that juries are willing to accept the "i was afraid for my life." like when the idea of a 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. >> let me kind of expand that a little bit. so what we're talking about a standard around reasonable officer standard, you're saying that the circumstances under which those decisions and actions were made, right, vary when you're talking about encounters with african-americans, in particular, african-american males and that the case law does not speak to that. so my question is, is there -- this is going to be give me your best answer, there is obviously no right answer to this -- but is there a uniquely objective, reasonable officer standard when we're talking about the use of
lethal force? >> i'm going to say no. i think the concept of reasonableness comes into the legal standards in a couple different ways. there is a reasonable officer standard and graham was asking the question of whether the officer would think the reaction was usable under those circumstances. for all the reasons that ngozi says, that's essentially no standard at all, right? does it seem reasonable? does it seem like something that you would do? there is no -- that standard in and of itself provides very little guidance or framework for somebody to evaluate whether force is reasonable, and so the evaluation is then loaded with all the implicit and explicit bias. >> my question is, does the definition of what's reasonable
change depending on who it is you're interacting with? >> yes. that is certainly true. and, actually, to go into graham a little bit more, graham does -- the court in graham outlined three factors, set vth severity of the crime at issue, the immediacy of a threat and the active positions that they were engaging in to figure out what force was reasonable. it's unquestionable that the threat and even the amount of active resistance is going to be -- that's a subjective judgment that's going to be evaluated in part by race. that's what research and daily experience shows us. and so i'm maybe jumping the gun a bit, but one of the things we have been working on in southern california is ways to change that standard so it is a little
more guided and sustained and in the way we think represents the moral conception. >> we'll come back to that, but given this reasonable standard both in terms of a reasonable officer's view of what he or she might do in a similar situation and the idea of a reasonable threat, so those two areas. is the standard of evidence around what constitutes a reasonable threat different in cases involving black males than it is for white males? >> yes. so part of what happens with a reasonable threat is fear. so fear plays a role in the decision-making process. did the officer fear or his or her life and the lives of other people around? and if that fear reaches a particular threshold that justifies the action, then we see the outcome and it's justified, because they were acting reasonably. part of what people have to
realize about what race and skin tone does in america, unfortunately, is that blackness ba becomes weaponized. so even when people don't have a weapon, when they're not engaging in any kind of physical force, their physical body becomes a weapon. it becomes criminalized in a way that justifies the actions of individuals engaging in things against their bodies. we've seen that in recent studies. it's not just about perceiving a certain act, but when you take a white and black man, they still perceived the black man as being stronger than the white man. i think regardless of what led up to the michael brown killing, officer darren wilson said michael brown looked like a demon.
there aren't enough bullets to stop a demon. if you really think a human looks like that on is an actual demon, what do you have to do to actually stop it? he then went on to say he looked like hulk hogan and i felt like what we start to see it is justified in many regards some of the outcomes we see as it relates to implicit bias, in particular. and part of your original question was about do we see a difference? yes, we see a difference. >> in the standard of evidence? >> yes. and police officers actually say there's indifference. i think the part people don't get is all they have to do especially with the fraternal order of police gets involved. you have to convince a few groups of people the grand jury, the prosecutor's office. and the actual jury of people who uphold the same biases that the officers do. i can speak directly to this.
some of the work we've been doing with police officers over the past few years. we have them take implicit association tests. they're based out of harvard. they show a host of biases about all sorts. we did these with police officers. one of the officers was about race and weapons. the test was whether or not people exhibit more preferences or bias toward blacks with weapons or whites with weapons. what we found even shocked me. that overwhelmingly the police officers reported a bias toward blacks with weapons and none of the officers reported bias toward whites. it was simply not existing. what is key here, it was not white officers. it was not male officers. this was just officers and it's not just officers it's humans. it's people. so part of it we have to realize
that officers when they're off duty or before they became police officers, they're people who socialized just like us. unless we take officers through a particular training when they're becoming officers to disrupt kind of the racialized way we're socialized and the gender way we're socialized, then we're going to keep seeing these outcomes. these reasonable outcomes that justify an aim to talk about an outcome that wasn't of course -- objective at all. unfortunately when police killings, for the most part, we have evidence about 16 states from around the country. we know how many people get the flu every year. we don't know how many people are shot by the police. to me, as a taxpayer, that's a problem. >> i want to ask peter. in this question about standard of evidence and whether it changes depending on the race of the victim. do you have any thoughts on
that? >> yeah, i mean, more or less along the lines behalf i said before. i think that's absolutely right. and the problem is come -- compounded the more you have a vague standard. i absolutely agree that one of the things we need to do is follow social science research and investigate ways to address and eliminate bias culturally not just in law enforcement. but i think there's also work we can do toward refining those standards to try to focus fact. focus prosecutors and juries on more objective facts. so one of the things we've done in california the aclu and a number of organizations 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 it echoes the standard the supreme court set forth in tennessee v garner. the court retreated from that first in graham and later basically said they reset it. tennessee v garner it was just graham and so even the necessity standard of the supreme court has really faded, to some extent. we try to basically bring it back under state law. and that does a few things. require, requiring necessity. first of all, i think most people, most members of the public white communities and most officers think that police should not be using force unless they have to. that's a pretty straightforward kind of moral place that we can
agree. but that also focuses officers on alternative tactics that they can use. i think one of the problems with the grand standard and much of the jurs prudence it kind of -- there's been writing about this from the professor of university of north carolina who is a former police officer and brandon garrett written on how the jurs prudence force doesn't leave room for police tactics. there's no element in the analysis what police could do other than using force. and that's what we sought to bring back by emphasizing necessity. necessity, by its nature, asks what else we might be able to do. and the bill that we ran explicitly had a provision that
required de-escalation tactics, whenever it was safe and reasonable to do so. that's something that police departments have been enacting upon a policy level. departments that have done that seen reduces in serious numbers of force. and a policy that required deescalation essentially put in place of the necessity standard reduced midlevel and serious uses of force by 60% over a three-year period. which is a striking reduction. >> great. yes. >> i think with a summary saying yes, you can have an evidence around on the surface is the same for everybody.
there's a lot more underneath the surface. you can have something that is partially neutral, but in practice we see how we're getting different results. i think what peter said about taking the actual reality is actually very much at the heart of tennessee v. garner. they recognize at the time of the founding and common law and things that there were less tools. people weren't -- police didn't have guns, right. and because of that, this whole, well, a while ago we could actually pursue fleeing felons and use deadly force was the argument that was raised in tennessee v. garner. they said, you know, back then you didn't have guns. you didn't have ways that
actually allowed you to actually control the situation in a different way from afar, not in, you know, like a hand-to-hand tussle where there might be more chance of deadly force. recognizing that the reality of policing changes, the issues that are surrounding our understanding of what is necessary to actually ensure that the public is safe, that police officers are safe, and that there were not actually using more force than is necessary in a situation change. that goes back to kind of that fundamental idea of this is what the fourth amendment should be requiring as far as this seizure of a person. i think looking at the actually the possibilities for police tactics, looking at the reality of the social science research
we have is very much in line with kind of what that kind of original limit on use of led i did force was. -- use of deadly force was. >> great. that's helpful. there's several strands here. i'm going to pursue each individually. so, you know, our audience can follow. now i want to talk about what is happening in police departments across the country? we're clearly not the first ones to identify implicit bias. there's certainly a lot of case law and social science and research, et. cetera. what is happening in police departments and police fraternal associations that is being -- that is used to both acknowledge that kind of implicit bias and also help police officers recognize it and utilize tools to overcome it when they are in the kinds of situations. >> well, i think there has been
likely african-americans, in particular, were going to be stopped and pulled out of their cars. there was a tremendous reaction against that. what happened in the decade since then, the idea of implicit bias, the idea that everybody is subject tobias, because it's in the water in american culture has enabled, i think, police to recognize that's a problem but it's a problem everybody has but they have to deal with more seriously because they carry guns and they arrest people. through trainings that at least make officers aware of some of the issues that dr. lang talked about. but ynl one -- i mean, one of the problems there's not a lot of evidence-based training out there. >> research shows that a oneoff only does so much. part of it is what you want to do is plant a seed and allowing that seed to grow in time. part of what we have to do, everyone in this room, is we essentially have to be resocialized with how we've been trained to think in america. one of the things we've been doing in the university of maryland is we developed the virtual reality simulation
second. it should be noted when reckless civilians like most of us in this room go through police simulations, we fail miserably. police officers are much better than we are. we have to put that in context, which is very, very important to do. i also think part of this is highlighting some of these broader patterns we see. one of the studies i note is what happens when people are in close proximity to certain people? people have a certain reaction. if i came in here with a snake and a spider. some people jumped. if i give you a gun and you're shooting a the snake like crazy. some people have the same physiological reaction to black men as they do to snakes and spiders. we wonder why we see the outcomes we do. so i think that's part of it.
we can objective fie what is happening. we can take it out of a computer based simulation and put people in a real world example. what is happening in police departments. i think we have to definitely mention that police officers get sanctioned internally a lot. these are things we never see. i think they're watered down. study police for the past few years. it's about police accountability. some of the ways to do this is like with these court cases we put up that were put up, it pretty much all of them there were large civil settlements, millions of dollars of taxpayer
money going out. so we take freddie ray in baltimore. imagine if the payment shifted from taxpayer money to police pensions, to fraternal order of police dues, to police department insurances. then all of a sudden when peter gets ready to do something, that's my pension on the line. part is making people accountable for themselves and the way that the policy, the way we have it set up now when police officers engage in decision making rarely are they held accountable to each other. and we have to change that. >> let me ask a question around training and police officer training more generally.
a lot of police officers can be very overwhelmed when they are constantly put in these stressful situations. i'm wondering when we talk about utilizing tactics around deescalation whether or not that is a kind of perspective that is instituting training around deescalation. something that is gaining momentum or is it something were you seeing trials of spot solutions around that. i think there's a question where it's put as a priority. you know, given other options or if deescalation is seen as, in some ways, dangerous. right. while you're trying to
de-escalate you might be, you know, harmed in some way. i think i've seen a number of policies. when i was at the naacp i would work with local branchs trying to get policy changes around use of force. there was some policies it was pretty clear that de-escalation was the last option. yeah, if you have to, you know, try not to. but really here is the legal standard you can use force. you know, the most force as possible. right. and i think that the ways that deescalation is framed can make a big impact on the way that people are actually acting on the streets every day. right. so i think there are a number of issues. i think we can think about the way it's framed in the training. the way that your policy is written. the way that your state legal standards will impact the norms
that -- whether you feel like you're accountable. are you going to get in real trouble if you don't first try to deescalate the situation. and i would also say that in many of the situations that if you look at with a use of deadly force or just a use of, you know, extreme force, if you look at the last second before the person used deadly force, there are a lot of times you're like at that stage maybe they didn't have many options. if you backed it up a little bit, right, which they were saying did you have some choices to make that might not have put you in that situation where there was a conflict. right. it's usually -- there's are a lot of times you can back up. like, okay, maybe if it was done differently a couple of minutes before this wouldn't have felt like the life or death situation it was. i think that's important. >> that's helpful.
they put a lot of hours and work. i think part is acknowledging it's hard work and most would never do it. if you want to know what your department and your local departments are doing, you can look at how many hours they're spending on a lot of things. there's a lot of hours spent on tactics and very little on social interactions. it's what police officers do all the time. it's something i've heard them say it's bothered me that they're like some people are good at it and some people aren't. that's not true. you can train people to be better at social interactions. the first step of deescalation is often times a conversation. the other part is what people don't realize. they have a string of things they're supposed to deescalate first with is the taser. one thing people don't realize
about the taser, you have to be in a certain close proximity to use the taser. if the taser doesn't work, you have to go to the next option which is the gun. at times, officers actually sanction internally for the speed in which they engage example. tamir rice, they rolled up on that 12-year-old so fast. but rolling up on him so fast, they couldn't use another option. they thought he was older. people can talk about the police officer and how he had been, you know, let go from other jobs. he resigned and probably shouldn't have been a police officer. and laquon mcdonald. that was another great situation. it was also the fact there was so many officers not engaging that they suggested that van dyke's behavior was so unreasonable that the evidence was overwhelming. part of the reason they had to gauge is all of it didn't have a taser. so laquon mcdonald might be alive if one of the officers had
atizer to use before van dyke got there. it has to do with funding and the fact that the police departments are growing. one other quick thing that is important for people to recognize this. first, i want to add that. police officers don't have good opportunities. they're overwhelmed, over stressed, underpaid. if you say something is wrong in my head, you'll be put on desk duty. they'll view you as a liability. if i have 17 years on the force and three years retired, we need to set up a better mechanism for police officers to go outside the apartments and get help. the second thing, when we were deserving what they were doing. that. would go put us through a simulation and say you didn't engage in the correct behavior or the correct state. you'll would essentially get shot in the simulation. sometimes the training officers
will sit in the dark with a pellet gun. some people know this. they will shoot the cadet going through the simulation. it will hurt. oftentimes it'll be with red paint. they'll make you wear that for days. so you are walking around everybody else with red paint on your shirt. what do you think you're going to think and do when you get on the street? that's the current stir owe. the counter active. the outcomes that we've seen are the recipe that have been brought up. i'll stop there. >> than -- that has been excellent. i'm shifting to the question
about the necessary standard versus other standards. so, you know, most of us don't know what the difference is. you started talking about that, peter. can you tell us what the difference is between the necessary standard and the other standards that exist. >> yep. well, i mean, as i said before, i don't think that on some level it's not actually all that different from the doctrine that the supreme court in garner talks about necessity. in the context of is it necessary to prevent escape along with probable cause. it there's a serious threat.
so i think it's in some ways not all that different. it's clearer in that it focuses on alternatives. as i said before, i think there are, like, one is deescalation and not just for us lethal options. but, i mean, you're right that officers have been train on deescalation even for datds. older officers who may not want to get into fights talk about talking people in instead of using force. and officers know how to do that. they know things like using distance, time, and cover to reduce the threat to themselves which allows them to give. -- to emily more options. to communicate. the tamir rice example is a great one.
win of the -- one of the big things officers say they were confronted with the threat they had no other options. if they had come in more slowly and gotten out on the other side of the car, used the entry block as cover, they could have communicated once and they could see it was a 12-year-old boy with a boy and the last point i want to make is those points about thinking about officers leading up to the use of force. it's also a doctrinal problem. it's not clear but a number of courts said when you evaluate use of force you only look at the moment they pull the trigger. so in the tamir rice situation, obviously, that falls far short what is necessary to understand whether that shooting to a common understanding whether it was necessary. there was a case at the supreme court last year it came out of l.a. deputies were longing for a suspect they it and they kick the the door of the house in. shot a guy sitting with bb gun.
they shot him many times. they were confronted in close quarters with a guy as a gun. it might look necessary. if you think back a few moments and going into houses without announcing themselves it seems less necessary. so another aspect, i think, of the necessity standard which is actually part of the legislation we worked on it's explicitly considering a wider temporal frame. and did, you know, they zig when they could have zagged? were there things the officer did not consistent with good tactics that foresee bably led a shooting?
>> let me ask you given that sort of argument whether or not body cameras will change the discussion around evidentiary standards, around what is the time frame we look at when we're trying to evaluate whether or not force was necessary or reasonable in a particular case? do you have any thoughts about that? >> yeah. we conducted a large study with civilians of a county and a large study with police officers. we interviewed about a hundred residents and about 120 police officers about their thoughts about body-worn cameras, transparency, privacy. overwhelmingly everyone supported body-worn cameras. they are perceived to provide more transparency. and people on both sides of the ail consider that to be aren't in favor of it. people who are big supporters of
police say people are going to see how the police officers get treated. it's going to justify police officers' actions. on the other hand, people who are big proponents of the civilian opportunities to be freer say the same thing. it -- these are going to show how bad people are being treated by the police. the key part is from the legal perspective is to expand the range by which courts make decisions. the public is making a decision on a three to five-minute clip. the court is not making that same decision is on the three to five-minute clip. it's a gap here.
the second thing that happens it may resolve how to implement. there are some places that leave them on continuously. some places they hit them on and it rolls back 30 seconds. sometimes they turn them on manually. we need more standardization there. when they stay on longer, of course we have more information there. from a police department standpoint, i think it's a resource issue. people don't realize when you have a large police department, it's a lot of money to outfit them with new equipment. it's another thing that police officers have to deal with and they have to write reports on. >> and training, i would imagine. >> and training. we're talking about a lot of money. the technology is moving so fast on this side of things that by the time a police department gets a body-worn camera, they're outdated. i think there are certain brands that allow you -- i mean, some of the new stuff, literally a sergeant or captain can pull up and look on their phone.
i think that's where things need to go. in many respects, i think a lot of that needs to be public record, but police officers do fear walking into someone's home and someone might not be completely clothed or someone might literally be dealing with a serious incident. those are the types of things you don't need to show. you go into a hospital or a place of worship. so police officers have real concerns. overall people support them and i think they matter. they provide more transparency in the way we can get that. we need more consistency and for the legal precedence to match the data we're able to get. resources are to mention the federal government is actually helping to set and support police standards. so as we started out about 18,000 law enforcement organizations across the country. there's no central management. there's no central oversight of
that, right. but the department of justice and the way it deals with these issues can really help set tones. we know -- this wasn't the department of justice, this was the president's task force on 21est century policing that brought together experts to talk about what are these issues and brought up and talked about the issues we've talked about today. public trust and accountability and implicit bias, need for mental health care, the need for police officers, body worn cameras, one of the ways many jurisdictions have been able to start pilot programs was through the support of the department of justice and making sure that's happened. we know that the department of justice in the investigation --
the systemic investigations of police departments, the pursuit of consent decrees, has really been helped to shape, one, our knowledge of some of what's going on within police departments, and two, that search for best practices and figuring out where we can change the way that force is being used through a collaborative process. i'm from cincinnati, ohio, where there was a very community engaged, collaborative process around changing police practices. i don't think that -- even though we are talking about law enforcement across the country, we're talking about the work that needs to be done on the state level. we cannot underestimate the power of federal government and federal resources in helping to kind of establish and support best practices around use of force and one is supporting body cameras. there are a lot to talk about, about body worn cameras, are
they protecting privacies and are police officers able to watch the cameras before they write a police report because that can be problematic. we have seen where that -- sometimes when the camera can look back 30 seconds where we've seen examples of people planting drugs in the 30 seconds, actually doing things that you would otherwise not have evidence of. i think they're a really important tool in so many areas of use of force, but they are complexities that communities will be dealing with and hopefully will have support federally around. >> great. i want to ask one more question and then open it up to the audience. that is, you talked about, you know, work -- a potential agenda in this area. you work at the state level and work with police and
communities. let me ask you all, communities are the ones who are -- and families are the ones most impacted when we have a case of lethal force and a young man dies, right, as a result of that. what is the role for communities in this conversation and how can those communities best add their voices as we think about different kinds of standards around the use of lethal force? >> i love this question. as a person who has really been engaged with communities that have been struggling with these issues, i think that when we look at the way ha communities are dealing with use of lethal force and we can talk about the death penalty if anyone wants to because we can bring out state sanctioned violence in many
ways, but i think that the lived experience of communities has to be central to this conversation, and we also know about the trauma and anxiety that communities are dealing with when there's that threat of lethal force that is kind of hovering over everybody's head. that's something that we have recognized and that is not something new, but i think we're having a deeper conversation about what that means. we're seeing studies of the trauma and anxiety. there's s.o.s. on the streets that was done in ohio. that was a study about how people's daily lives and the way that they operate their daily lives are affected by the way that their fears of potential police violence. given that information, given that lived experience, i think that the ability of communities to help shape the standards that are governing the use of force
in police departments is crucial. helping to shape their police departments generally is crucial. having community oversight such as civilian oversight boards. participating in making policies, participating in hiring and disciplinary decisions often. when we have the police department as actually seen as a part of our community and a part of the work that we're doing to keep each other safe, i think it's really important. i think we're seeing things like the work being done in california to pass that law. there's a ballot measure in washington state right now about changing the use of force standards. the voice of communities and that kind of being able to build power and investment in keeping our communities safe and recognizing what does that mean.
many times that doesn't necessarily mean more police on the streets. it can mean more mental health workers on the streets. one of the figures we haven't talked about is how about a fourth of those police shootings are for somebody who has exhibited symptoms of some type of mental illness or disturbance. i think that community involvement in all of these pieces is crucial to actually finding a step forward. >> peter? >> i agree completely with all of that. i want to add one piece, which is i think rashawn mentioned earlier that the component of administrative discipline, you know, that accountability. we've been talking about accountability or lack thereof through the criminal process. that's another component, right, officers getting disciplined or fired, but in many states there is no -- that information is completely confidential.
that was the case in california until a bill passed this year which will create some narrow exceptions for shootings and other serious uses of force and other categories. under the previous rule, not only did communities see like the stephon clark shooting that happened, if the bill hadn't passed, communities wouldn't know if the officer was fired as a result of that shooting and in most departments in california they wouldn't say whether the shooting was in or out of policy. there's no way for a community to engage with the system that's most likely to hold an officer accountable in some measure in the disciplinary system if they don't know what's going on. that's at odds with our basic principles of democracy that people need to hold the government accountable for what they're doing if the -- these important decisions about how departments address police shootings are kept completely closed off. just to follow up, one way to address transparency is not just
releasing the investigations and the disciplinary result, it's collecting that data. again, as rashawn said, we don't collect that data nationally. we do in california. there's a requirement. pretty straightforward requirement. departments have to provide information of fairly detailed report to the state department of justice every time there is a use of deadly force whether that results in a fatality or not. there's no requirement. we collect statistics on crime but none by homicide by police officers and that should change. >> rashawn? >> yes, and yes. there's no reason why as taxpayers we shouldn't know when an incident happened what the outcome is. i think it's our right to know that. part of that starts with us voting locally and particularly voting for local officials who will be willing to push some of these policies further.
in other words, i mean, like with the civilian oversight committees, the ones that i've been involved with and know about, it's nice to have them, but in terms of their influence and influencing what happens in a police department is limited. all of a sudden you elect a mayor who pushes for that change and now that establishes a precedence that can be implemented in other places, right. that's a big one. in terms of the transparency, it's another big one. i would also encourage people to go through their local police civilian organizations to actually go through and see what police officers encounter. you can have a better understanding of why they make the decisions they make. you don't necessarily have to agree all the time, but the importance is to understand why they're making those decisions. voting locally becomes very important. then volunteer. volunteer to get involved in these organizations and figure out how you can actually make a difference in what's happening in your own backyard. >> on that note, i am going to open it up for audience
questions. what we're going to do is take like two or three and then -- at a time and then answer. we have a number of hands here. whoever is running the mic, let's start on this side and move over there. >> good afternoon. you can hear me, right? all right. so my name is kenneth. i'm a graduate student getting my masters in intelligence. last year october i think the 7th, i got wrongfully detained in new york city. i got like -- it was like a jump out. a group of people like in the east village, it was like 22
dark-skinned gentlemen, myself and someone i didn't know, that was like an experience. then recently a friend of mine in brooklyn, he sent me a video on youtube, it was a video in pennsylvania where the state troopers they stopped a black man for speeding and then proceeded to drive off and he flagged them down and came back and then it escalated further where they tased him multiple times, fought him, he fought the tasers, fought them, ran around the car, ran into the -- his car, pulled out his gun and popped them, shot the cops several times, white cops. what happened as a result of that was that that guy who got -- the black man who committed those crimes, he got like 55 to
like 100 years in prison. what stands out to me is like also like my bias as a black man towards police, the implicit bias you spoke of, it goes both ways. to what goes on in a cop's mind in terms of deescalate and the second example i showed, it could have deescalated and it came back and escalated further. one of the cops fell into a coma. he was -- he was clinically dead when he got to the hospital in a coma, came out of the coma and didn't remember the incident. then it goes further in terms of the way that black men are sentenced disproportionately towards their white counterparts. in situations where maybe police are justified, then they throw the book at my brothers. i just wanted to see if you had
any opinions on that. then i also thought about like entertainment and media in terms of like from 1991 until now, like how, you know, music, particularly hip-hop, kind of like moves that forward too. >> okay. so we're going to take several questions. thank you. there's a gentleman behind him, right behind him, right there. >> hello. yeah. i'm alan davis, a retired new york city police officer, former federal officer with the bureau of prisons and international police department violence for many years. my question points to this objective reasonableness that graham offers us as law and how it seems that -- it's really dependent on how that's interpreted by every different officer and every different jurisdiction and how they seek to apply it. my question really is focused on what the doctor mentioned in terms of how can communities get a standard that you approve of.
i wonder from the panel, if folks let their elected leaders know what the standards were and voted them in or out depending on whether they adhered to those community standards -- because i remember in new york we had a lot of corruption and they gave all the classes and be nice to blacks and hispanics and nice to people and none of that worked. one day they start locking up people in uniform on the street. i was there. and then corruption slowed down because they had a direct impact on people's lives. my question is, do you think direct involvement by citizens in terms of holding their police chiefs and their mayors to this standard that community decides is appropriate would have an effect on who was disciplined, who was fired? regardless of whether they were
convicted in a court, but who got to keep their jobs and who didn't. >> absolutely. >> great. thanks very much. there's a gentleman with the red right here and then we're going to answer these questions after this gentleman asks and then we'll come back for more. okay. >> my name is gus. i'm with the voice of democracy for the united states [ inaudible ]. just as a friend suggestion perhaps in the future, for the ten-minute question thing i think is imbalanced. just a point of reference. i ran four olympics, went to stanford, did all the stuff -- lived a life that was honorable. you find in all that you're talking about, there's still that system of who is this person, why is this person driving this kind of car, why is this person in this neighborhood.
it gets to the point it's so exhausting. you get it from white police officers and also from black police officers. my question is with regard to chicago and the tragedy going on in chicago, who's going to hold that black on black crime statistic, who's going to hold those folks accountable? you have jesse jackson and president obama, you have that city is a killing zone and i find that the black community is ignoring that reality. >> thank you. we have a question on chicago violence and accountability there. we have a question about the direct involvement of citizens in creating and enforcing community standards around the use of lethal force. then we also have a question around sentencing and escalation/de-escalation. one thing i would say to the panelists is try to be brief. you don't have to answer every single one. just pick one and we can go from there. i'm going to start with rashawn.
>> i'll be quick. thank you for your questions. in regards to chicago, you know, people always highlight black on black crime, but for some reason, we don't frame crime as being white on white crime. crime is crime. >> no, no, no. >> let me finish. >> [ inaudible ] you're giving them an out, you know that. you're giving them an out. come on now. >> so i'm going to ask us to respectfully listen to the panelists as they complete their answers. go ahead. >> thank you. here's the stat for everybody who wants to know. 94% of crime that black people commit, violent crime and homicides, is committed by other blacks. 86% against whites is committed by other whites. we don't frame it the same way. when we talk about the media, part of the first gentleman's question, part of the way the media frames things it skews things for us. i know from being from these communities, whether st. louis, memphis, chicago, or baltimore, that people are invested in
their communities and they are actively doing something to deal with the crime that's happening in their communities. if we want to deal with crime, we have to deal with a lack of education and job opportunities. that is part of what people don't want to talk about. statistically, when we run analysis on what causes crime, those are the things that causes crime. people are engaging in certain types of actions and should be sanctioned for that. to the next part, i think preemptory strikes matter a lot. lawyers are able to preemptively strike people is part of the problem. then i think for african-american men in particular, there is a legit fear of police officers that really needs to be dealt with and part of that legitness is that a lot of african-american males have had bad interactions for police officers. that doesn't justify anyone doing something else to police officers at all. some of the incidents that we've seen over the past years need to be corrected and something that needs to be done and we're
starting to do some of this at the university of maryland to examine what happens when people interact with trustees of the institution. police officers are trustees of the criminal justice system. how do people respond to them. and does that lead to, say, a freddie gray running? that becomes a reasonable response when scared. you run. for some reason all of a sudden that running can lead to a negative outcome. >> i'm going to go down the line. peter? >> i'll address the second question about accountability and, graham, first of all i want to thank you. i think it's a very important point and i talked about transparency, we've talked about training. if there's not accountability to the training and not accountability after things are out in public, we're not going to see change. i think too often we see these kind of frightening examples where there is transparency, there's a video of what happened, and an officer is not held accountable and not fired, not charged, and if that happens nothing will change. thank you for sharing that.
in terms of communities holding officers accountable for or departments accountable for setting standards, i think that's hugely important. there's actually a kind of a cliche in law enforcement of shootings that were used in force that were lawful but awful. i don't know if you've heard this, right. that reflects a use of force that officers can agree is -- should not have happened, but is not against the rules. the fact that that's a cliche is very striking. we set these rules. the community sets the rules. we're supposed to set them in keeping with our moral standards. if there is such thing as lawful but awful, there's a cliche, there's a category of uses of force where we all agree that they're awful, but they're not against the rules. we need to change the rules. >> just to follow up on that,
for example, the example that many use is seattle about having better use of force policies, right. you can have better use of force policies than the constitutional floor, right. you can have -- push your community police officers to have better. the sentencing disparity question, the first one, that ties into this issue of black on black crime and implicit bias. we need to address the racial legacy of the criminal justice system that is being played out in all of these pieces. there are state sanctioned kind of violence against black people which has been about the justifications of police shootings throughout, from slavery starting, which does tie in to the way that we decide who is worthy of -- who we can lock up and throw away or kill and throw away, right. the value of black lives -- and i know that we have been talking about that a little bit -- plays itself out in many ways. think about if black victims of crime and how they are treated compared to others. we have as a society a lot of work to do to actually have a wholistic job. the work that we're doing around law enforcement accountability
is work that happens in the courts, that happens in the ballot box, that is happening in our communities and the day-to-day interactions. we need to be creating and influencing the structures that are helping to continue the reinforced kind of legacy of racism that is part of what was at the founding of the nation, but can be different in the future. >> great. thank you. we're going to take another three questions. let's start over here, please. then we'll kind of work our way around. >> how are you doing? i'm the host of freedom fighters of the dmv for wbgr networks. one of the things that i've been
working on for a long time is that police officers, we don't have a national database and that our society is basically governed by licenses and my colleague, she and my other colleague, they are -- they are a mandatory licensed person including myself. for the nation, why is it that police officers can make decisions to be lawyers, doctors, killers, everything else, but without a license? why is that the national, such as the fbi, has no documentation for holding records on police behavior and conduct and why is it that we don't have a national database? why are those persons not licensed and why are we not talking about that? >> thank you. >> let's go directly behind him. there's a young lady right
there. can you raise your hand again. >> my question was basically the same, we are licensed and probably many people in this room have occupational licenses, and wherever i go as a licensed person throughout this country, they can pull it up and find out what i did. a police officer, that crazy person who killed tamir rice in cleveland, had the community not been outraged and spoken up, he would have been on his way to try to kill somebody else in another department. would you recommend that people in communities start a petition demanding from their city council or county governments that police need to start having licenses in, say, pg county. they're criminals. >> thank you. let's get two more questions since i think we can probably cover those two. let's work this side of the room here. we've got a young lady in a red jacket there.
yes, you, yes. >> hi there. this is not so much a question as much a comment to the chicago and always the argument that's made about the black on black crime and violent crime. my name is linda garcia. i'm the director at the leadership conference for civil and human rights and before that i was at the department of justice where i did work on the investigation of the chicago police department and one thing that i can say is that the communities, they want good policing. what they don't want is police to oversaturate areas and shake people down wrongly and to use excessive force and those are two different things. just in changing the way that policing is done, you can answer the issues of violence, but that's not done through unconstitutional and biased policing. >> thank you. then we have this young lady here in the gray jacket and then we're going to take those questions and answer those. >> my name is claudia ferris.
i am just a neighborhood person in this context. i live in an area which is oversaturated by police coverage and i don't trust the police. i am a very privileged person in terms of my access to society, my knowledge about how things function, but those people are my neighbors. i live with them. it bothers me when they are harassed by the police. i don't know what to do about it. i just have -- like i walk around with an attitude. nothing that i do, think about, react to, is helpful in that regard because i don't feel that i have access to true levers of effectiveness. i just put that out there. >> okay. great. thank you very much. we have questions on community trust, right, and community
leverage, licensing of police, and then the openness of the data -- administrative databases that deal with the disposition of a police officer's case. feel free. >> i'll just start with the trust piece and connecting that to violence in communities. i think that's really important. also, leadership conference has a great body camera tool if folks want to use it to look at body camera policies. what i think that the point about the tie-in, right, because if you're actually going to close cases, you actually need to talk to people who will -- are willing to talk to you. so recognizing that the creating police departments that are actually able to build trust with individuals, is actually important.
police departments recognize. the 21st century task force report on the 21st century policing raises a -- a lot of police leaders have said building trust is fundamental. we're not going to build trust unless there's true accountability when someone has done something wrong. that piece is crucial and is a part of addressing high rates of violence. i don't think it's a coincidence that many of the cities that we're seeing some serious violence issues, that we are also seeing some serious police corruption issues and, you know, police violence as well. >> peter? >> on that point, i just, you know, completely agree and agree with linda's point about the oversaturation is not the same as good policing. there are ways that many communities are kind of harmed
twice by the police. once through the failure to police properly and provide safety and again through the actually harmful policing time, that good policing, a lot of the stuff that we are advocating for, will build trust that will make police able to do their jobs more easily and more effectively. and it is i think not just a cliche. i also wanted to address the point about licensing. so there is a term for this in the kind of police reform movement which is decertification. and it is, there are states that do this, that require, just like a contractor, a lawyer, even a barber has to maintain licenses. in california, i know, you know, barbershops are inspected, there are stit inspectors who come around and make sure the combs are really in the blue liquid and things like that but there is no licensing, there is no
licensing for state licensing for police officer, which allows officers who are to quit from a department, while they're under the cloud of investigation and misconduct and move to another department, that problem is exacerbated when records are not public. so it can actually, you know, be administratively difficult for, certainly in california, up until this point and in states where there is a look at discipline record, a department that is hiring a lateral officer can't just look at their discipline, they have to have a waiver signed by applicants and it doesn't always happen. and so a scheme where there is state certifying entity, or a licensing entity, is something that there has been a move toward. there are recommendations at least in the interim report of the 21st century task force on policing. and that would be an important
piece of accountability. long term. >> i think, and in the tamir rice swase and the situation in pittsburgh, both those officers did this memd, and the fraternal order of police would tell a police officer to resign and a police department would want to get rid of them and they would write a recommendation to go somewhere else and that's how bad apples spew. and i don't think there are more bad apples than other professions but at the same time it allows the process to continue. community trust, i think we have to push for policies that allow police officers to live near us. what i mean by this, it is a recent study that shows police officer, as well as teachers, actually can't live in 60 of the major metropolitan areas in the united states. they simply don't know the people. they have no empathy. of course, there are these other issues we're talking about, too. but if you have a level of empathy and you're living by certain people who you're policing, it is shown that if we go back in time, that those sort of relationships start to build. and then what that leads to is
police officers starting to view everyone as a person who their kids could go to school with, a person who they might go to church with. a person who they see mowing their grass. but instead, what happens, they might simply see them as a suspicious person and when they see them as such, it leads to the host of outcomes that we're talking about today. >> so i want to extend a very, very deep and sincere thank you to our event staff. my two interns are fabulous communications folks, our facilities colleagues, our security colleagues, of course, clay jo, and to our fabulous panelists as well. thank you all.
this afternoon, a look at the impact of populism and identity politics. with authors and political scholars hosted by the heritage foundation. live coverage starts at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and tonight, on the eve of mississippi senate runoff election, president trump holds a rally in biloxi for the republican senator cindy hyde smith. live coverage begins at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. what does it mean to be american? that's this year's c-span student cam video competition question. and students and their teachers from around the country are
posting on social media about it. heidi long, from j stream middle school in carol stream, illinois, tweeted what does it mean to an american, social studies students brain storming national rights and important characteristics and important people and events of the nation. and pasco county florida says chms civic students brain stormed ideas for c-span student camp. and gary hoskins has two students recognized for projects in recent years. i think he is going for a trifecta. indiana senator todd young, visited fishers high school today to speak with the government class and interviewed by students participating in the c-span student sclip program and we discussed freedom of speech and the first amendment. and ft. lauderdale florida, tweeted, student camp 2019. at c-span classroom, it is pbl, project-based learning, at its
findings. check out the post-its. and this year we are asking middle and high school students to produce a five to six minute documentary answering the question, what does it mean to be american? we're awarding 100,000 dollars in total cash prizes. including a grand prize of $5,000. the deadline for entries is january 20. for more information, go to student cam.org. . ahead of the holidays, toy safety experts talked about their annual report on toys that maybe toxic, have choking hazards, or strong magnets. as well as toys that can collect data on children. or make excessive noise. >> everybody ready here? here we are. all right. good morning, and thank you all for coming. my name