Skip to main content

tv   Washington This Week  CSPAN  October 26, 2014 11:00am-12:01pm EDT

11:00 am
the marshall that spoke up, he lost his job. that is what they gave him in the squad bay. what i am saying to you is we have got these situations going on in ferguson and down in sanford, florida. mainly because it is an issue with cameras and so forth, but this death has been going on forever. it has been out there, trust me. a lot of questionable incidents and i had to tell officers then and there, you will not do that in front of me here. when i work with other departments, i would work with seattle, miami, lapd, and i saw some of the most egregious
11:01 am
violations of your rights. a young man says, -- his nickname, there are all kinds of ways to get through your fourth amendment rights. most african-americans know that and they do not want to challenge it at times. when you get pulled over on your way to work, you know the officer put you in a situation where he could either create a problem for you, so you just give him consent. you do not want to be held up for work. you give him consent and say, go ahead. it is easy to stand back and say, i do not want you to search my vehicle or all the other rights you have to or what i'm saying is until we start to address the issues, until we start to really say to people,
11:02 am
why are there these disparities when we look at the same drug, crack cocaine arrest, and we look at the same arrests, the same incident, but we see the numbers of african-americans arrested, charged, and doing time for the same drug, if the one drugs is equal opportunity, who would not be having the issue today because it would have been over the same way of alcohol prohibition. but because it is not equal, that man said to me, i said, look, we have got all of our drugs and gun task force in urban areas. they were urban areas we are focusing on. i said, don't they use drugs in potomac, maryland? don't they use them in silver spring or other affluent locations? he said yes.
11:03 am
as a matter of fact, they use them probably more. they have got the better stuff. if we go out there and start to lock those folks up throw flash bangs in their homes and run through the houses and do all those things we do in our enforcement operations, we will get a phone call and they will shut our operation down and there goes your overtime. there goes all your excitement, all your money. everything you're making. you know what he said? they are still using the drug, let's just go to the weakest link. i told him that is ethnic cleansing. we have to understand the whole process and how it is working. thank you very much. i appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you. from what all the panelists are saying here today, it sounds like cameras would be a part of the solution. are they viable part of the strategy? are they maybe not going to work?
11:04 am
>> certainly, as it was pointed out so well, you cannot count on cameras to cure the problem, but video brings us closer to the truth and the truth can bring us closer to justice and accountability. i like the fact that you have politicians like rand paul in the wake of ferguson, now talking about funding for cameras, body cameras, for the police. what we have seen in sort of small trials that have been done, where, i think it was california, the trial was funded and you have to take it with a
11:05 am
grain of salt. in that small study they found after a year, the incidence of police actually using force reduced by about 80%. a really striking reduction. the incident of police misconduct reports were is reduced by about 60%. what i hope to see more often is the police officer with the body camera facing off against a citizen with a body camera. what you have there is a pleasant and lawful encounter more times than not. that is a good thing. video brings us to truth, which brings us closer to justice. >> i agree with pretty much everything -- not pretty much, but everything. there are colts rural problems in police departments. the thin blue line, where costs will not testify against each other. really, when you read the stories, i mean, you think of corruption, and you think, ok, well, his life left him and he is making money on the side. it
11:06 am
it is not a big deal and no one is dying. the problem is, i've read cases where police officers are afraid to tell on child molesters. the intimidation could be so bad, they will protect whomever, just to keep the peace. that requires a considerable reorganization of accountability. a lot of people point at the policeman's union, as you see with the ferguson case. the pages that went up to fund raise the officer wilson, were run by the police union. i do not blame them as the only factor. there are plenty of just the incident -- the institutional problems completely divorced from the union that reinforce
11:07 am
the procedures. >> just to add a little bit to that, i think the body cameras is a good idea. as a law enforcement officer being on the street, everything i am doing been recorded, there is a certain invasion of your rights or just you being a normal person. but because there is so much balance when it comes down to the after american community, we are talking about two different policing aspects here. i tell people that all the time. the please get behind me -- i do not even have any. what i'm saying to you is because, unlike -- i am wondering, what are they going
11:08 am
to do? i know when i came out of the academy, i know i had my shoulder holster on. i am lining up and had a shirt and tie and everything. i was the police death in the police vicinity. the police came and surrounded my vehicle, jumped out with guns and everything that i freaked a little bit. i put my hands up and i just froze and once they came up, they said, we had a report of a black man with a gun. what i am saying to you exists. to tell somebody, an african-american, "you handle it this way, your cordial to the cox and everything else, if that cop wants to harass somebody and creative scene, he will look to do that. he is out there and he will say something. the body camera may help you there here and everything is recorded. we know it can turn wrong. we know there are all types of things they can do. we are talking about cost and
11:09 am
role america, i am just saying, there are a lot of things we need to address. we have got to address the system and say, race is still part of america. as much a part of america as apple pie. we need to address it. the last time we try to attend like a great thing. it is not. it is cut and dried. what is happening in that black community is a little different than the white community when it comes down to policing. i could tell most of the folks in this room, because i knew, and we knew, if i spot a vehicle with four whites in the car, i know, whatever those black folks did, the whole institution will back me up, prosecutor and all. those four white folks, somebody might say, what was your probable cause? they never asked me that before. it is the culture, the culture
11:10 am
that when the guy said, and i want to emphasize that, this is how we do it here. when he said that to me, he wanted me to understand. i know you know the rules because you went for the academy. you've got to shoot him and have a throwaway weapon there that was a part of the culture. make sure you have got an extra weapon on you, a knife or something, in case you get into an accident, where you know you were wrong. throw the knife on the ground. put that knife in the hand. whatever. this is real. i hope i'm not frightening anyone here, but this is real, what i'm talking about. things that are set on the inside and the culture that exists on the inside. >> so when we are thinking about these potential cultural problems inside the police department, will on body cameras actually have an effect or will
11:11 am
be run into the exact same issues we see with dashboard cameras, getting them turned off and similar issues? >> i think the technology is there where it is obvious, whether it is turned on or off or not. you can look at the metadata and you can tell whether a person turned off or not or whether it was a technical failure. a technical failure could include an officer snapping the camera, but that can be diagnosed afterwards. i am hopeful. i am optimistic. i believe -- i hope we will not say, or it will be few and far between, where we have an incident like what happened in ferguson, where someone dies as the result of a police officer, and we do not have video
11:12 am
evidence of it whatsoever. i think the technology is there. certainly, when ferguson happened, the thought i had and a lot of people had was, there is no dash cam footage? i have police in military equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, full camouflage, and infrared goggles, you are telling me they did not have the technology and means to install a dash cam in each car? moreover, i think if you have a situation where there were dash cam's installed, or even a body camera, and they give out for one reason or another before a terrible tragic incident, regardless of who is to blame, if the technology goes out, it will look a lot like obstruction
11:13 am
of justice. it will not be something that will be able to be looked at. rather, we would be investigating that in another else as a crime. i am hopeful of that. >> i was recently at an event at the urban institute with adc -- the washington, d.c. chief of police. we talked about ways we can start bringing police actions more in line with respect to our ranks. one of the programs she is thinking about is tracking basically who we pull over. it is not so much -- i mean we are dealing -- many times, an officer does not think he is racist and he does not think -- i am out there to try to mess up these people because i do not like them. it is implicit bias. they just happen to pull over an overwhelming amount of black people.
11:14 am
measuring this and reporting all of this, and being able to go back to the officer and say, hey, why are you only pulling over black people were mostly only black people, and having an accountability factor. i think this, along with the body cams and the profiling information within police departments is just part of a broader scheme of accountability. san diego has a bunch of body cam footage they will not release. it is not part of the public record. somehow, when you ask for the freedom of information act from them, they will not release it. you need a system that will become accountable for these people.
11:15 am
>> to add a little more to that, i go back to race because i say, when you talk about race, it is almost like germ warfare in the sense that, as soon as you come up with an anecdote, they come back with a worse strand. you try to figure out, every time you create a policy, a policy of accountability, it is all about accountability. that is the bottom line. i remember when there was on the radio and we talk about a road that was racial profiling. officers were stopping only the black people. a black man, he says, were they speeding and i said, if they were. he said, they were black? he said what is the problem? they were is eating? and i had to think about this. i said, the problem is we violated their civil rights
11:16 am
first. that was a violation of their civil rights because now we are stopping just them for that same crime. yes, on the job, a lot of officers might do things they do not necessarily see is racist, as biased, and they see it as going to the weakest link. that is what that particular manager told me repeatedly said look, if we go out and start arresting those folks, they will create a problem for us. let's go simply after the weakest link. he was a white person telling me this. it never dawned on him that the weakest link for me was the community i came from. he never thought about that. he said, they still violating the law and using illegal drugs and so forth. using the body cameras and going back to it was said about the body cameras, again, there are always ways you could mutate around what i did in my head, as
11:17 am
opposed to what i did physically. again, if i can convince a jury, and we find that juries do not want to convict cops, especially the prison happens to be african american, somebody most of the time the jury cannot even identify. the jury should look like the people they will lock up. the officers should look like the community they serve. that was not in ferguson, but again, i say to you, body cameras, these are all good things. we can put in policy of when to shoot and when not to shoot. ultimately, it is as -- it is on me. i have to articulate, i feel threatened for my life. i got into a shooting in miami. i am fighting this guy in the apartment.
11:18 am
he was an escaped felon. we physically fight and all over the department, i have got a nine millimeter on me. i am so tired, i felt like gumby when it was all over. there was no strength in my arms. but when it was all over, the guy still got out in the hallway. when my partner jason, a shotgun, boom. it did not kill him. ultimately, the u.s. attorney, he sat down with me and he said, i have got one question. when you're fighting this man, he said, why didn't you just pull your gun out and shoot him? and i stopped and i looked at him and i said, i guess i did not feel it my life is in danger. he said, good answer. i guess that really was it. i'm fighting him and i never thought -- they do not want us fighting people, not from me dizzy and hit me in the four
11:19 am
head. and then they say, why didn't the officer shoot him? it is a lot of discretion and that is the point i am making to you. a lot of these are taking place with the african-american community. that is what we're finding here there is a mindset out there, thank you. >> one more question. i will take the moderators on private before we go to our audience. you always run into issues of privacy with cameras. i have at least been seen two different facets of that argument. one of which comes from the police officers concerned about having their day to day on the job filmed, not because they're worried about being caught in police misconduct issues, because they worry they will be
11:20 am
film bad mouthing their boss or something similar, and then we'll get in trouble because of that. on the other hand, i am hearing from private citizens, who are concerned that police wearing on body cameras might can't -- might come into their homes for any number of reasons and that might turn their home into a potentially public domain. what normally would not be allowed to be flmed, would now be being filmed. they are worried there about fourth amendment issues. could you speak to that? >> before anybody had a smartphone, the big issue was, cameras placed in public. a lot of civil liberties variant, myself included, were concerned this smacks of george orwell 1984 surveillance tape stuff. but they got installed despite objections. just waiting for the other shoe to drop. the thing is, i think people
11:21 am
appreciate that when you are in public, you do not have an expectation of privacy. police are now learning they also do not have an expectation of privacy in public. the concern of police officers badmouthing cops, that is barely justifiable as a reason to get rid of a technology that gets rid of harmful incidents of police violence or police, we just covering it up. it is funny because it is almost always police departments in particular who use the argument of, we are concerned about people's privacy in their own homes. this is something that so easily protocols can be developed. if you leak a video inside of people's homes, to the public, you will be fired for that. this information would only ever be used if it is relevant as far as a criminal case is concerned there it same with the video of
11:22 am
police officers always having the camera on. the video, the procedure is the video would only be told if there were was a shooting or an accident. or even an arrest happening. we can craft policies and protocols that could easily address these sorts of policy -- privacy concerns. >> i agree with that, although i would prefer legislation over protocols. senator sam ervin stopped a bill that would have authorized no knock race from becoming federal policy. you cannot just bus down a door because you are serving a warrant. that legislation was locked but
11:23 am
we all know it was policy. there is no legislation preventing it. i would prefer, instead of leaving it up to police could develop the proper protocols of when it is no longer relevant, i think we need legislation to back this up. >> again, being in law-enforcement and having been out in all types of operations, having cameras on me, i would have to get a feel for it and get used to it, but the reason i is important it is there, how many people have seen the show. they video everything. they let these guys come in and video them, and then you enjoy it. if you can put it on cops, you can put it on your chest. my bottom line is, yes. once the police come to the
11:24 am
scene anyway, there is no more diverse and their it if i am there on the scene, something is going on that is a reason i am there and there must be something going on. i think the cameras are important. the body cameras need to be a recording of what is being said. it will make a lot of officers think twice about doing something that is not legally proper or right. again, we have said, we always have known people have rights and officers know that and we have always been trained that way and the academy. somebody says, they need more training. no, he doesn't. he needs to be fired. he does not need more training. we have more training -- the point is, we have got all this training. we need to realize that yes, the culture has gotten to such a way that america needs to see what you do. that is your job, to serve and
11:25 am
protect the public. the public should know exactly what you're doing. we can make a call. then we have got to start taking the accountability out of the policeman's hands and putting it into private organizations. something other than the police of germany, that they messed up in that. that is my view, thank you. >> with that, i would like to take it over to our audience with questions and a reminder that you can tweet in questions. >> the technology that will be coming down the line would be
11:26 am
for you to have a best camera for the average citizen. i am sure there are rules about that. let's say everyone is walking around with a that has a camera and audio and it is able to record every aspect of your life when you're out there in the real world, including interactions you may have with officers, what are the rules on that? as a lawyer, i think that is a great opportunity to talk about what we can and cannot record. secondly, if i have not had any problems with the poloce in my police in my entire life and i've never been incarcerated and never done drugs and i've never done anything that would because the egregious in terms of
11:27 am
breaking the law, am i still considered a black man? >> the main question there was, since technology is moving in a direction where private citizens have cameras and potentially were not everyone can see it, there will likely be rules and regulations around what constitutes invasions of privacy in a public space. a close in on body camera policies for police officers. five we have a framework for that already. reasonable expectations of privacy. the all party consent laws, they were essentially created for wiretapping, people recording, what should the financial and presumably confidential conversations for them being held, being put in public, or being used to blackmail the person. we have that framework. a lawyer and a client in an office, certainly if the lawyer or client is recording it, they should be obligated to tell the other person they are reporting it and get their consent.
11:28 am
>> a line where everyone will have the. i think that will be -- >> there will be a lot of awkwardness and it will not always be pretty. certainly, i can appreciate police officers right now are just getting used to the idea they are almost celebrities and everyone is a paparazzi following them around. a lot of are naturally not very comfortable with that skill there the words ultimately have come down on the side of the first amendment right to record so long as you're not pointing a camera at off-duty police officer's window. clearly, when they say, you have the right to openly record the police in public, that is the other more obvious operative
11:29 am
word. you cannot just be pointing at their bedrooms and bathrooms. >> i concur with what steve just said, but just the piece about being a black man and, i guess, never having any encounters with the police, would that change your race? absolutely not. we are just saying there is an overwhelming disparity in how police operate when it comes down to people of color. that is just enough statistics to show that you're not every person of color has had any type of encounter with the police, or a negative encounter with the police. >> i think some of us have been raised a certain way. it has benefited us. if you have good parents, you are fortunate enough to understand good principles.
11:30 am
there is a way to conduct yourself regardless of your skin color in public. if you do get pulled over for something. there is a way you talk to the police that is likely to garner respect. so far, it has worked for me and that is all i can say about it. >> i understand that. i know a lot of guys that are very respectful. everything you can think of to the police. but that officer wanted to make an arrest and was looking for a way. i have seen victims behind stuff like that, that he knew if he did that to you, he did get away. they sort of just go along with the program. some people you pull over, and you do the wrong thing, trust me, you will hear it on city hall. most of these folks, no. they know their rights. you say to the officer, "i don't have to tell you that."
11:31 am
i do not have to step out of the vehicle, end of the story. whether i had a reason to tell you to, you do not step out of that vehicle, do you know what will happen? you will probably get a taser on the side of your head. this is the real world. so even though you may know it is not right, you do with that officer tells you. >> i met a guy through a friend, police captain in a major u.s. city, retired. that is what i was working on, police misconduct, the rights of individuals, and he said -- i told him about refusing and that sort of thing, and i said, what would happen if someone did that to you? i swear, i just met him, and he looks around the room and says, "are there any african-americans around here?" dripped with every bit of condescension as if he was going to say something else.
11:32 am
my friend informed him that my father was black and he said, "oh, well anyway, what we would do is we shake him down anyway and tell him to go about his business and rough him up anyway." i just met this man. the fact he would be so open to me about that and obviously, you're talking to someone who has had guns pulled on him, they are not lies. it did not happen to you and that is great, but it does not mean it is not true for a lot of people. >> when you look at the traffic stop hit rate data, whether it is in the bureau of justice statistics, what you will see is the likelihood they will find contraband, significantly lower
11:33 am
sometimes, sometimes even half as much for blacks and latinos as they are for whites, have a high percentage of likelihood of finding contraband when they pull over a white person. so that is strange. if you look at the statistics and the people of color, latino, white, used illegal drugs and almost identical rates, they are more likely to find when they do a search, evidence of illegal activity in a white person's vehicle, because it seems to be that police will be more likely and only conduct searches if they actually have probable cause and if they actually has evidence. the threshold seems to be lower for people of color, which is why you have lower hit rates. to me, and i know it is hard for
11:34 am
a lot of people who want to believe that everybody depends on the actions, police will behave exactly depending on the behavior, i believe the evidence bears out something different and the hit rates are some of the strongest that bear out this level of his death disparity. >> on twitter, mark asks if police will be available on record. and if it will be admissible in court? >> i think if you're talking about body cameras, outside of that, one of the things i would think about that, when he was talking about going into the house, you do not want them to go into the house and say, someone rob your house.
11:35 am
police go back and look at the film and they see, is that a long? they will go back later and execute a warrant for something when they were originally in the house to help you but then come back to search you. >> sit at home and have a large screen that has a feed in your body camera, you can sit here and go like this and watch that and you can listen in. like a producer does. i do not know if we will see that in our lives.
11:36 am
i do not think we would need to have that level of access in order to ensure that we have accountability, but certainly, i think, being able to have an independent review board, with the ability to subpoena and easily obtain that timeline of events that are disputed, should be easily accessible, at a minimum. >> briefly, real quick, i would think any video being contested by the police or the public would be admissible. certainly, there might be things out of the vehicle for that video that would not necessarily be for trial, but i would think
11:37 am
any video that happens to become an incident that became controversial while that video was on, yes, it would be admissible. that is just my vote. >> i think i saw a question in the back? >> the thing i feel it we missed is the militarization of police. i think with all the legislation, it has put a lot of power in their hands. a lot of these police officers who had all of these power really do not know how to use these weapons and tools properly. i think that is evident with the incident in ferguson. it would be interesting to hear what you have to say with how we remedy that situation. >> the question was about police militarization and with the increasing militarization access to military equipment amongst police departments, many of whom
11:38 am
have officers who have not been properly trained in the usage of that equipment, what types of solutions can be looked at in terms of nullifying the issue there. >> in response to your question, i heard that on the news and i'm thinking to myself, we were trained how to use it. the swat team i was on, we have a lot of equipment, stuff we would necessarily need in a public forum, in a situation with civil unrest in ferguson, no. they know how to use equipment. the purpose of bringing it out was to intimidate the folks, that this is what we have, and we will use it on you if we have to.
11:39 am
but no, those officers behind, the gear that they were wearing, the weapons for use, all of those types of upgraded weapons were used, we are familiar with it. but again, when i need to use that weapon, i would not think so. we have a hostage situation, and assault weapons and they are in some location and now the swat team comes in, yes, i would want to come in with a tank if i could. what i'm saying to you is that situation is different. when somebody just throws something out, to be quite honest with you, i would venture
11:40 am
to say -- just toss that out. i don't know. when it comes down to that type of equipment, that is to scare the public and make them like, if they find that weapon, they will go through 10 people before it stops. that is the purpose, intimidation. i think the solution was -- i think the president gave comments, president obama did, about reviewing these problems to find out why the equipment, why they're putting it out there in the situation like that. >> one of the things we need to think about is how we fund police. this money comes free from the government, the dhs, the pentagon.
11:41 am
you will also have a problem with local budgets. they will say, we have a swat team and it is expensive to train the guys and maintain the women in all of this. -- equipment in all this. but we never use them. so why are we paying all this money for that? they get more money from the government and they're like, we will just put them out on more drug raids. that is how the system exploded. but it takes a full-scale reorganization of budget priorities because if the city budget will be paying for it, they will want to know how usable it will be. if it is sitting idle, they will say, disband it, which most of us would like them to do, when it is rarely needed, or, to use it more efficiently.
11:42 am
>> most cities have independent review boards for complaints. from what i understand, most of them require submissions that persuade a lot of people from actually submitting reports. i imagine if people were homeless, there is no way for them to submit a conduct report? >> i feel like you just threw me a softball. >> let me repeat the question. because of very many different police departments, they process for a -- filing a misconduct report, a lot of people are waiting to file those reports. is there any movement to reform? >> yes. i wanted to actually talk a little bit about filing a police misconduct report. first of all, if you feel like you are mistreated and police misconduct, i'm not talking about being shot in the back.
11:43 am
the more common kind, where you are the victim of an unreasonable -- police are rude to you and used profanity during the encounter, you want to report that. the challenge is how you do it, most police departments do not have a pretty website where you just do it right here. the metropolitan police department, d.c. police, they have a decent form system, but the thing is, one of the options, you create a complaint accommodation. i am sure they're getting a lot of accommodations. that is good if you have a good encounter. urging you to come down to the station for mediation. if you are a victim of serious police misconduct or abuse or that mentality, this is the
11:44 am
worst thing you can do here that is almost always the case. grabbing a gun, assaulting a police officer. you want to first deal with a criminal charge against you first before you consider -- you want to always do it with a lawyer. there are also situations you have seen in these undercover videos where reporters and others will send somebody in to file a complaint in person, and a police desk officer will often try to talk them out of it or interrogate them, asking them their name and their address, their birthday, and making this very intimidating. what is being done now, and developing, and independent, online police misconduct reporting service.
11:45 am
an independent, thorough police misconduct report. that is something we are currently developing. >> the cameras and everything are good for the front end, to talk about other proms that will happen, that is on the backend. there needs to be a bite, and accountability. some things i see are easier access to doing civil rights suits for the average person. the average person does not know how to pursue that. it should be almost automatic.
11:46 am
an attorney to do it on a contingent basis. that is number one. i think there needs to be more civilian boards for police activity. a lot of communities do not have the kind of thing and the police just police the police. some more bites. the last i think, and some of this is more controversial, i think the grand jury's need to become what they used to be and more independent and not be controlled by the attorney generals. >> the question was, is there room for more civilian oversight of police misconduct? >> actually, to follow up on what was said, the review boards have always been for that, because i do believe, and they have got to have teeth, and i've spoken on a few. one in pittsburgh, i have set that up. but again, it is getting where they can suggest -- not suggest,
11:47 am
but order certain things to take place. one of the biggest things, and i do not hear this too much, solutions, is number three. to add to the first one you said, civil rights attorneys. if you get into a situation and the courts will appoint you an attorney, i believe the courts should appoint, any time someone brings a viable or a complaint against the police department, there should be an appointee appointed to a person. number three would be very important. this is essential -- in the u.s. marshals service, you have a witness protection program. i'm telling you, that is set up for the very reason in order for government to be able to prosecute these organized cases and organized crime cases and so forth, you have to bring a lot of time the same people out there doing the dirt, you have
11:48 am
to bring them in and make them your witnesses so you can go out for the bigger fish. they need the same thing for police officers who will speak out. i am telling you here and now, you are dealing with people with badges and guns. it is like in the military, in friendly fire, you're out there in that field. you are really angry, your subordinate is behind you, you may wind up in what we call friendly fire. that is real in law enforcement. i experienced it. when my subordinates left me on a stakeout and we were taken out the heavily armed suspect in baltimore and these guys were armed, when i filed my discrimination, they left baltimore all the way through washington dc, telling them i
11:49 am
did not know what i was doing, and i am in charge, he did not ask them, does he know you're here? if he does, give me a memo if he does not know you are here as to why you're here. he entertained the things that were said and i got a phone call and the phone call was, he would pull the task force from me in a couple of days if i did not like -- lock the fugitives up soon. i locked him up within three hours. major arrests went out all over the united states because they were on our 15 most wanted list. i said, you charged those guys, and i said, you charged them with insubordination for leaving the scene. all of the violations they created when they left.
11:50 am
"just let bygones be bygones." if i know they beat the heck out of somebody and they should not have beat them that bad, they said the drugs had landed him a gun was on them when the gun was really not on them, they were going for the gun when they were not going for the gun, we could go on in a litany of things. most jurors will believe them. i'm just telling you, when other officers say no, no, this is what really happened, but do not leave me hanging out here, we need a protection, we need protection for law enforcement officers or people who blow the whistle. >> the challenge for following a lawsuit, a staffer from the
11:51 am
national capital aclu come a long time, he has been processing, i feel almost nauseous because he is trying to beat into my head the idea of a long road that exist for someone who is considering challenging and suing the police and not just filing a police misconduct complaint, but essentially how very few are able to climb up the top of the mountain. for one, the violation has to shock the conscience. there has to be clear intent by the police officer or the department to violate the law and often times, the only way you will get that information is through video or perhaps a whistleblower showing that perhaps this is actually a policy of racial profiling. they need to have that inside information. for the average person who does not face police misconduct, that does not lead to an arrest or physical beating, filing a police misconduct report is
11:52 am
probably going to be the most powerful thing they can do. now they say, they will not read those and it will not mean a thing, but the problem right now is certainly not that too many people are following please misconduct reports. the problem is exactly the opposite of that. >> i did read a blog called simple justice, highly recommended for policy from a practitioner's perspective. he suggested they start in civil suits, where the presumption starts going to the defendant --
11:53 am
excuse me, the complainant. so they say, this officer hit me upside the head. then the default would go to the complainant. i do not know how you go about instituting that. something like that within civil suits could at least make it easier for people. >> we have actually only got a couple of minutes left on the clock. i will take a clarification question from twitter. chris would like to expend a little bit on the employer -- foia process and ask if it is a public record, is it then bow -- does it then along to citizens like you? >> um, i am not a lawyer, but from what i understand, the foia request would be, it
11:54 am
depends on the jurisdiction, if it would be public, i think it would probably be to make it fully public against the citizen or the police officer. i guess that would be the question, but it is twitter. i think again, the police officer should be fully public but as a citizen, i think you need to show some sort of cause, but i really do not know. >> ok. with that, we are all out of time. [applause] i want to thank all of you here for coming out or tuning in online. i hope to see you all again on december 5, which will be our next lunch, and that is repeal day, the anniversary of alcohol prohibition. thank you.
11:55 am
>> good job. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> now a look at the kansas u.s. senate race. once considered to be a republican stronghold, kansas is about around here due to the departure of the democratic -- is now a battleground state due to the departure of the democratic candidate. during the second debate a and thed ebola, isis, president's foreign policy. here is a portion of that debate. >> how do you think the united states should deal with the ebola epidemic? ebola epidemic?
11:56 am
>> well, again, the ebola epidemic along with isis shows you how we should really secure the border. and not be granting amnesty. but i issued a statement just a couple of days ago. why can't we do now what we know we have to do down the road and that is to have a quarantine on west africa, stop the plane traffic, the air traffic from west africa to the united states? we also ought to get our best and brightest over to that country just as fast as we can. the world health organization just said that if we do not take action within the next 60 days we could lose 10,000 people a week. that's a humanitarian disaster. but again, this all goes back to isis, ebola, and the other problems that we see on the border. we must secure the border and secure the national security of our fellow americans. >> thank you, sir. mr. orman. >> ebola is obviously a serious issue and i think we need to have a serious coordinated public health response to it that does include sending the best and the brightest over to west africa to deal with that problem. i also believe that we should suspend air travel with west africa for the time being until
11:57 am
the crisis is contained. but this goes back to sort of a crisis in leadership. you know, senator roberts has come back and made some very strong statements about ebola when he's back in kansas but it just came out the other day that when he was in washington last month he skipped a hearing on the ebola virus. and so i think it's inappropriate to talk tough here and yet when you have an opportunity to do something about it, senator, you chose to skip the hearing. i think that's a real problem for kansans. >> rebuttal. >> the hearing was held out of session during september. it was held on the health education and pensions committee. nothing of substance came of it. we have a crisis of leadership all right. with regards to this whole situation. i think that the administration
11:58 am
and especially the president again has been two steps behind and asleep at the wheel. we ought to do now, he just said that he will have a much more aggressive program. we don't know what it is yet but we'll have a much more aggressive program. it is the president we have to look to for this kind of leadership and we're looking for his plan or strategy. we don't know it yet. we have to do this and we have to do it now. >> rebuttal. in washington is on both sides >> well, again, the crisis in leadership in washington is on both sides of the aisle and senator, while you didn't attend the hearing on ebola it's also come out that you didn't attend two out of three hearings in the agriculture committee that you want to lead some day. so i think that crisis of leadership is a crises of leadership that you share. >> next, the new hampshire u.s. senate debate. followed by the race for the house louisiana fifth district
11:59 am
seat in the florida governor's debate. will show you that debate for the u.s. senate seat in new hampshire in just a minute. first, a look at some of the campaign ads that are running in that state. >> i am jeanne shaheen and i approve this message. >> scott brown says -- >> i am pro-choice -- >> but way too often, that is not how he votes. he sponsored up bill so employers can deny women insurance coverage for birth control. >> i cannot believe he limits access to birth control. >> and brown pushed to force women considering abortion to look at color photographs of developing fetuses being a wonder anti-choice groups in massachusetts endorsed scott brown. >> i do not trust scott brown. >> you may have seen as senator shaheen is running an ad calling into question my support for women's health care. i want you to know the facts. i am pro-choice.
12:00 pm
i support continued funding for planned parenthood. i believe women should have access to contraception. after six years of voting with president obama, senator shaheen has resorted to a smear campaign to distract you. senator shaheen knows better. the people of new hampshire deserve better. i am scott brown, and i approve this message. >> i am jeanne shaheen and i approve this message. >> the big oil companies are the most profitable on the planet. but scott brown voted to give them one at 20 billion dollars in taxpayer subsidies. >> this guy is not for us. >> i do not trust scott brown for a minute. >> big oil gives scott brown thousands of dollars within days of his vote. >> scott brown doesn't care about new hampshire. >> now big oil is spending millions to get him back to washington. >> scott brown is here for scott brown, nobody else, and not new hampshire, no way. >> hey, i know you're thinking, another ad. but hear me out. senator jeanne shaheen says she would put you first, but she votes with obama 99% of the time. 99%.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on