new york democratic congressman hakeem jeffries spoke today about race in the u.s. criminal justice system. following the congressman's remark a panel including legal analyst and a baltimore city councilman discussed the role of race in law enforcement. this is an hour and 40 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning everybody. if you could sit down and please take your seats. quiet down just a little bit. good morning. my name is mark colophon on i'm one of the newest board members.

i'm head of global litigation or american express and proud to be here this morning. you know i became involved in acs because when i was a law student in the 1980s the call that the legal dark ages. there were few student organizations. in fact the only one that existed that helped develop law students was the federalist society. we did not have in acs. for those of us who have progressive ideals and wanted to grow and develop our careers in a direction that could support communities and societies in that way. this has been a beacon of light for a lot of people and i think i watched this morning especially with the next generation of leaders people who carried this out their associations, the network, the people that they work with here out into their careers out into their communities across all forms of works work from public

defenders organizations to public service and community organizations to prosecutors to people who work in law forms and corporations. that's incredibly viable. you can't see it now but wait until you see what happens the next five, 1020 years. this is such an portnow organization for the lawyers of this country. today i have the pleasure of introducing our featured speaker this morning congressmen hakeem jeffries a fellow new yorker a proud graduate of nyu law school school. he has worked as many of the young lawyers here in firms that he is passion came to public service. he served in the new york state assembly for six years before being elected as united states representative of the eighth district of new york. his history with acs extends back to the time when he was an assemblyman. he has been a speaker to the new york chapter.

he has been active in advance that acs has had on immigration reform redistricting straight legislature reform and he has been one of congress is most outspoken voices on the subject of police fertility. in april in memory of eric gardner congressman jeffries and reduce the excessive use of force prevention act of 2015 which would make the deployment of -- unlawful under civil rights law. so what i would like to do now without any further ado as have congressman jeffries, then speak to us and then we will start the plenary panel on beyond ferguson ferguson initial -- a nation struggle with justice. [applause] >> good morning everyone and first let me thank mark for his

leadership and his tremendous involvement with acs and that very generous introduction. it's an honor and a privilege to be here at this wonderful conference this gathering of such brilliant and thoughtful and caring jurists and attorneys and law students and professors and people who are involved in the public square trying to make america the best that it can be. now it's my understanding that i'm here to give opening remarks in advance of what will be a phenomenal panel moderated by chris and so my job really is just to set the table i think and then get out of the way. and so i say to you but the iconic elizabeth taylor said to each of her eight husbands. i won't keep you long.

[laughter] but i did want to just share a few thoughts on the phenomenon of overly aggressive policing and our criminal justice system and how we might move forward. i have had the honor as mark mentioned observing united states congress for the last two years after spending six years in the new york state assembly. justice brandeis of coors described state governments as laboratories of democracy. i've been able to transition now from a laboratory of democracy to the house of representatives which i think is the lion's den of democracy. but there's a wonderful opportunity i still believe here in this institution notwithstanding the lineup in terms of who is the new majority to deal with these important issues in america. i was struck when i first got to

congress, sworn in january of 2013 and of course the same moment when barack obama was being sworn in that same month for the second time as president of the united states of america. as a new member of congress all of us have a robust freshman class. we were invited to be present on the capitol steps to participate in this wonderful american democratic moment but since we were all freshman of course we were there on the capitol steps that we were seated way up top grade i quickly realized the wonderful thing about sitting on top is that you can see everything that was happening in front of you. of course it was the president of the united states first family was right there with them out in front of us, more than a million americans of different

regions, different religions different races all they are participating in this democratic moment but what struck me the most was that in close proximity to barack obama keypad archconservative supreme court justice antonin scalia. right next to scalia's you had house speaker john boehner at right next to boehner you had former republican presidential vice presidential nominee and current ways and means committee chairman paul ryan. right next to those three jay-z and beyoncé. [laughter] only in america. but with that scene from a captured as we have this gorgeous mosaic all across this

country of diverse people coming together as part of the grand american experiment. abraham lincoln once publicly pondered the question a little more than 150 years ago. how do we create a more perfect union? the aspect question of course in the context of the civil war that was raging at the time, threatening to tear this country apart. and we know that year after year, decade after decade, century after century since that moment we have made tremendous progress in america. yet the death of michael brown in ferguson come the death of eric harner and statin island, the death of tamir rice in cleveland, the death of walter

scott in north charleston the death of freddie gray in baltimore should make clear for everyone that we still have got a long way to go. the principle that was unleashed on this country by the supreme court in plessy versus -- plessy versus ferguson of separately and optionally unequal has been abandoned as a result of the brown v. board of education decision yet we know from the department of justice's report ironically in ferguson missouri we still have a criminal justice system that for many people in america in many communities is separate and unequal. and i think there's no more of

an area where this is the case then in the context of how american communities are policed. and i would just suggest that there are three things that we have got to think about if we are going to strike the appropriate balance between effective law enforcement on the one hand and a healthy respect for the constitution for civil rights and for civil liberties on the other. the first is that we have to follow overly aggressive policing tactics like stop-and-frisk and broken windows that are unleashed in a disproportionately higher fashion on communities of color. for more than a decade in new york city we were saddled with a

stop-and-frisk program that was out of control. at its height more than 600 60050000 stop question and frisking counters in a given year the overwhelming majority of folks of course who were stopped, questioned frist embarrassed humiliated and in some cases physically roughed up where people of color. what should be equally troubling is the fact that according to the new york please department on statistics during that stop-and-frisk era approximately 90% of the people who were stopped, questioned and first did nothing wrong. no gun, no drugs, no weapon, no contraband, no offense nothing at all. clearly notwithstanding what

terry v. ohio said there was no reasonable suspicion. the overwhelming majority of these individuals had engaged in a criminal act or were about to do so. yet somehow in the great -- cosmopolitan city of new york there were many that.this was justified like some vague notion of criminality and communities of color but thankfully we have got a constitution and thankfully we have a brave federal court judge who believes in those principles. i'm proud of the fact that this judge is here today and she presided over the dismantling of the stop-and-frisk era in new york city ruling it to be unconstitutional and we are thankful. [applause]

we have a problem but we have a constitution and that of course is why we are all here but then if you take stop-and-frisk and is declared unconstitutional. it's dismantled at the direction of the federal court order and then we moved to its close cousin broken windows policing. the problem that i've got with broken windows that i think we should work through and again i grew up in new york city in the 1980s, came of age at a time when there were over 2000 homicides per year. i represent communities that want safety, that embrace safety but we also want constitutional policing. we also want to make sure that the principle of equal protection under the law applies to everybody. so the problem i have got with things like roque and windows

policing, there is really no law enforcement justification for many of the duties that are unleashed in communities of color like going after folks who are riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, taking up two seats in a subway car having an open container of alcohol on your front porch and we know of course things like open windows policing or what has been referred to in places like ferguson as taxation by citation citation disproportionately targets communities at color. many municipalities are balancing their budget on the backs of otherwise hard-working individuals who have been channeled into the criminal justice system and for many of them their life will spiral out of control unable to thereafter

robustly pursue the american dream. and of course it was broken windows policing that led to being counter ultimo a resulting in the death of eric garner. he was targeted for allegedly selling loose cigarettes. at worst that can in the strait of offense for which he received the death penalty. which brings me to my second which we have got to address which is the excessive use of force far too often directed at unarmed african-american man. now again police officers, the overwhelming majority of them i believe our hard-working individuals who are there to

protect and to serve but no one can reasonably look at the events of the last year which represents what has been taking place in many communities across america for decades that are brought to life in a vivid fashion now because of the miracle of modern technology. no one can look at the events of the last year and conclude that we don't have an issue with the excessive use of police force. as we saw in that videotape when eric garner cried out 11 different times i can't breathe, and on 11 different occasions a police officer failed to respond respond. the medical examiner says he died as a result of expatriation expatriation. a chokehold was applied that had

been administratively banned by the police department for more than 20 years. yet something led that police officer to conclude that eric garner was a threat to his life. no evidence on that videotape that he had resisted arrest. there something deeper that appears to be taking place as to why some police officers feel the need to use that level of force particularly when the subject is of a certain race and a certain gender. if we are going to try to solve this problem we have got to confront it in an open-ended evidence-based real way. the last thing that i would suggest we have got to deal with is the fact that when a police

officer crosses the line far too often the criminal justice system fails to hold them accountable. and we have got some actors in the criminal justice system perhaps because of the close relationship between the prosecutor and law enforcement who seem unable to fairly and comprehensively present a case before a grand jury that could allow justice to be done. we saw that down and ferguson where it appeared to be that the prosecutor acted more like a defense attorney for officer darren wilson. seemed uninterested in allowing the facts, whatever they may be, to come out. the same thing of course happened apparently in the grand

jury that presided over the officer penta léo killing of eric garner but this is nothing new. one of the solutions of course that has been presented is to figure out a way independently for prosecutors and the police involved killing particularly when there's an unarmed civilian to present a case either before a grand jury or a judge so that justice can be done. a close if there's no accountability the belief in the system breaks down. it's inherent credibility which is necessary to hold it together erodes and one of the great

pillars of our democracy is shaken. there are some who say well does america have the capacity to address these profound problems? 's and certainly there is reason for all of us to be skeptical in this climate, in the city where democrats and republicans progressives and conservatives seem so bitterly divided where people can see the same thing unfold on videotape and come to two different conclusions. they have obviously got some tough challenges that we have got to work out in america but i still think that we can make it to the other side. as i take my seat i'm reminded of the time when a few young men

were gathered in the state of one of the wealthiest people in the world. it would gather at this estate and they were on the side of the big lake and in this lake there were crocodiles and alligators and one small turtle. on the other side of the lake the estate owner shows up. he looks over at he sees these young men and he cries out to them and he says if any of you are willing to jump in this lake lake, rescued the turtle and make it to the other side we will give you anything that you want in this world. about five minutes went by and nobody responded. so the owner of the estate turned around and began to walk

away. then all of a sudden he heard a big splash turns back around and sees one young man frantically trying to make it to the other side. he gets to the middle of the lake, scoops up the turtle. he dodges the crocodile, dodges the alligator and somehow makes it to the other side, gets out dried himself off, hands over the turtle. the owner of the estate posits for a moment and says i don't know how you did it. but congratulations. somehow you made it to the other side. now you can have anything that you want in this world. the young man paused for a moment and said well, i just want to know who pushed me in the lake. [laughter]

what am i trying to say? sometimes you find yourself unexpectedly in a tough spot and when you are in that moment you have only got two options. you can either sink or you can swim. if you look at the history of this great country whenever we find ourselves in a tough spot in the aftermath of the civil war a nation divided but we came up with the 13th the 14th and the 15th amendment. whatever we found ourselves in the top spot plessy versus ferguson unleashes jim crow segregation on the deep south but we come up with the 64 civil rights act and the 65 voting rights act. whenever we find ourselves in a tough spot the presidency of george w. bush america comes together in a multiracial

coalition and sends barack obama right on the street shattering the racial black ceiling. whenever we find ourselves in a tough spot because of people like those in this room bankers, lawyers and jurists and activist we find a way to make it to the other side and continue our long necessary but majestic march toward a more perfect union. have a great conference. [applause] [applause]

>> thank you congressman for this beautiful remarks. everybody let's go swimming. i'm going to introduce to you the moderator for next panel. chris hayes, lot of you should know him. he hosts the "msnbc" all in with chris hayes and the editor-at-large for the nation to ladies and gentlemen chris hayes. [applause] >> let's all come up we'll do the introductions.

>> all right i'm going to introduce this incredible panel and get into it. i want to keep the introductions brief because you have -- you are distinguished individuals with long credentials which you can read about here. honorable judge shira scheindlin united states district judge for the southern district of new york since 1994 and is congressman jeffries noted she challenged the city's practice of stop-and-frisk and does tremendous opinions probably the single most important for my amateur perspective as a nonlawyer in this landscape in the last five or 10 years probably ever in terms of his era policing. nicholas mosby a city councilman from west baltimore represents the neighbor in which freddie gray lived and is married to marilyn mosby a woman you may

have heard up as a prosecutor for the city of baltimore. [applause] elise boddie is a professor rutgers law school sybarite state and local government law. previously a litigation at the naacp legal defense fund. sergeant delroy burton and the chairman the washington d.c. police union representing policemen and a distinguished member of that department for 21 years. and walter mack is a partner with six -- regulatory experience. he served as deputy police commissioner bernard said the internal affairs where he was in charge of investigation of an institute a policy to combat police corruption and brutality. nick i want to start with you, councilman. baltimore just had its most

violent month since 1972 if i'm not mistaken 42 homicides. there is also during that same period of time a massive plummeting -- i wish i had a graph appear but it's extremely striking if you look at the data. what is going on a baltimore right now? >> the city of baltimore the first thing i would say is when you look at a place like all to more we see a lot of urban decay and you know urban decay is as american as apple pie. we can continue to look at the criminality of the byproducts of that and we can continue to focus on the wet but we really need to talk about the why. and i say that because a decade

of social economic issues that played out in places like alt-a more and being a representative and a person that has grown up in baltimore knowing folks who understand the plight of urban america at the end of the day we see the spike of increase before every summer. memorial day weekend is issa start to a place where you see unfortunately a lot of violence. ..

the trop in arrest has been happening for quite some time. then you also bring in the morale of the police force. it's really hard to quanity quantify the specific variables to tie it into. however it's a major problem. one thing i'll say, also we saw the city go up in flames and saw the looting and rioting all the cameras and the coverage, right now we have in a major american city unprecedented amount of violence in 2015, yet we're not getting the same level of attention or curiosity associated with this area. and i think that is more the troubling aspect of it. tend of the day no matter if the individuals are part of an illegal element no matter if the individuals are putting themselves amongst harm's way

and doing murdered or being shot, at the end of the day a major american city, we need to understand and now it's critically important that we develop ways of getting to these folks, and i say all that to just wrap it up to say we can continue to talk about policing, wen continue to talk about -- we can continue to talk about community policing and interaction with communities but we have to start talking about the social economics divide and the root of the issue and that is developing a way where you provide opportunities for these young men prior to getting to the criminal justice statement. how to get to them before they get to the criminal justice system. >> elisa i want to ask you about jumping off that, historical trajectory here. there's two thing that strike me about this. if you go back and read the current information in '67. it lays out this very standard kind of view of a connection

between despair hopelessness, racial segregation the building of america's gets to post world war ii, and the fact that inedibly this will produce environments in which people have no opportunities and produces crime and unrest, et cetera. then there's an amazing thing happened. in which -- that's the basic standard of liberal lie. and that's what say. nothing got better and crime went down. crime goes up until 1939 and from 1993 to 2015 this absolutely historically unprecedented drop in crime happens but things don't get any better in west baltimore or the west side of chicago. they don't get any better in north st. louis what does change though, is the policing mechanism. right? and so my question is, how do you understand why now? why too we wake up in this world in which was happened to freddie gray can lead the nightly news, and if it happened in 2012 wouldn't not have, and if it

happened in 1998 it wouldn't have. >> cell phones. we have confirmation of the brutality of some police officers against marginalized black and brown people, and i'm glad you mentioned the concerner commission report. the concerner commission was convened by president johnson in 1968 to study the source of racial unrest during the summer of 1967. this is racial unrest across the country. one of the -- one over the findings of this kerner commission report was that the police abuse police brutality was the number one grievance among residents who were studied in these various communities. ahead of unemployment, ahead of inadequate housing. but what is important to understand in your question raises it -- is that there is a social contest that councilmen mosby has spoken to in which we

have profound segregation profound racialized disadvantage and these interactions between the police and the community become highly racialized, and the police become a symbol of white power white repreparation. what is interesting about the kerner commission report is that dr. kenneth clark, an esteemed social psychologist, testified before the kerner commission in the 1960s and said, you know, your findings remind me of the findings that were made after the chicago unrest in 1915. the harlem unrest in 1935. toe 1943. the point being that nothing is new and nose hag changed and here we are 2015, we know that in the last 16 years or so, we have seen over 70 unarmed men and women who have been killed by the police. so here we are again. it's deja vu all over again and to councilman's mosby's opinion we have these underlying social

issues the profound agony and misery in many of these urban communities. and just to add to this and maybe we he can get into this later, we have a constitutional infrastructure that is largely blind to the racialized conditions on the ground. but i'll leave it at that. >> it's absolutely off point actually nothing to do with policing but has to do with what you're talk about as the social environment. i've been a fer distribute judge for more than 20 years so i've done 2,000 sentences. let me tell you that every sentence report reads the same. the young man grew up without a father. the mother was a drug addict. the kid dropped out of school. in the ninth or tenth or 11th 11th grade. the kid began using drugs at 13 or 14. the kid has no employment hoyt. i have read 2,000 reports and i'm telling you 90% read the same.

so there's a huge problem. that's one judge, 2,000 sentences 10 years. of course in a major city, new york city, but something is wrong when so many people in the community have the exact same description. i know walter is a defense lawyer and knows what the reports read like, and then you send them to jail. and what does that do? gives them a felony con springs then the can't get employment. not to mention they can't vote but can't get employment and can't vote and we have a disenfranchised group of people without hope. so we need to talk about that and i'm glad you start evidence this. >> unfortunately the answer to that scenario has been more police. so you look at our major american cities, you continue to see increase of our police budgets. you see a continued increase in the emphasis and resources in place on policing in the community, yet you see the continued decline or drop or

stagnant approach associated with budgets around recs and parks, education getting our children before the get to at the rim justice system. >> you know how many of the budget goes for the criminal justice statement? there's no jobs. >> sergeant. >> there's a couple of things here that we're not talking about. i'm glad the professor talked about the historical perspective and the fact of the matter is what we're seeing now in terms of race and racial disparity is you're right it's not new because when the country was founded it was founded on racial disparity, the three-fifth's compromise. the pig issue i want to bring to everybody's attention that racism is an american problem. we act as if it's only the police with issues with race but racism is an american problem in terms of the unarmed people killed by the police or that were killed, we don't foe what the issues around the 70 you mentioned or that the significant period of time, but

the murders in baltimore in a month are extreme significant and we can't just make that a tributable to the fact that the weather is changing and crime spikes during a certain time of year. all the things the councilman talked about are reasons for it. in terms of how we got there in the last 19 years or so, in criminal justice let's go back to the late '8s '8s so, early '90's and what did our counsel true demand from the legislators governors and the president? we had crime problems and we demand something be done. what ways the solution? mandatory minimum sentences. we increased our police departments to deal with that violence. and as a result, we put a lot of people in prison, based on what was requested from the community through legislation, through our elected officials and that is what we're seeing now. in terms of the history in baltimore and the things the judge and the counsel member talked about those

socioeconomic issues are not the police -- that's not something the police can solve. that is outside of our area of expertise, and until we deal with those issues, the old adage is true, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. what we spend to-e incarcerate someone is better spent to make sure they get through school before they get in the system. that's absolutely right. >> let me follow up on one thing. there's a young man who was shot and killed in atlanta. he was a veteran and he was struggling with mental illness. he was running around a housing complex naked and he was clearly acting out of control. and it's a horrible tragedy. and the thing i kept thinking about was someone call the police to deal with this individual. we sent the employs. we america the citizens of atlanta, the citizens of america sented the police to deal with this individual.

and, god if i mutt myself in the shoes of some 28-year-old who shows up, he's not trained to deal with someone who is schizophrenic and having -- it seems to me we ask the police to essentially interact or maintain order in situations that run the gamut from outright criminality to profound mental illness to -- >> chris it's budgetary priorities inch washington dc, for example we have a department of mental health and we deal with individuals that have mental illnesses all the time. the department of mental health does not have transport capables so the call the police to deal with transports when they want to move someone from, let's say a community mental health facility to inpatient -- >> don't have their own voc vehicle? >> no, so they call the police. we had a tragic incident. someone with mental illness stabbed the police officer. the crisis team was on the scene

and could not assist the person. when you put a police officer in the situation to deal with someone that is going through essentially what is an emotional break, and particularly if the person has no clothes on you can't control them. i wish they had a taser or something else they could use to incastrated that person. i don't know the facts of the -- incapacitate the person. >> i think it's tremendously important to acknowledge that policing is a really, really difficult and challenging job and i completely understand that. and we also have to understand the social context the difficult environment in which policing takes place. it's also very important to make sure that we talk about accountability of the police. the police are vested with authority by the state to coerce people to arrest people, in some instances to use deadly force and so i want to make sure that's front and center in the conversation because it's not to discount the difficulty of

the job. but at the same time we have to talk about -- we have a problem. the congressman just discussed it at length. we have the statistics, we have the individual stories. we have a profound, profound problem so we have to -- the approach we take has to be about institutional reform and has to be about working within the culture of the police department to institute mechanisms of accountability, change our law probably and constitutional doctrine but i want to make sure we -- >> well, let me -- i'd like to hear your thoughts on conditionability. >> i just want to jump in and say that all problems cannot be solved by the police department. there were other providers that were not available. but a young 28-year-old police officer arriving on the scene should not be the first time

that the issue at least has been brought to his attention what do i do under those circumstances in? this day and aim there are tremendous providers of that policing practice -- best policing practices available for training and in many times -- many of those trainers, many of whom i know, their first reaction is, force is your last resort. if you arrive on a scene where there is a naked person and who is -- obviously you have to see there's nobody about to be harmed but the first thing you do in unless you're qualified is ask for help, is ask for a response from within the department. because no police officer certainly in new york, do not feel they're going to get support from anybody in the civilian population, that they're isolated and that the only folks who are going to respond to help them under those circumstances are fellow officers and therefore a lot of this is training. the solution is not soley within

the department, but there are best practices that are available. there's a learning curve and basically a force solution should be the last solution an officer goes to. >> i don't disagree but we go back to budgetary priorities. when are whenever the budget that is tight the first thing cut is training budget in 2010 the metropolitan training department cut the academy staff by a third when the economic downturn. we stopped hiring and we stopped training and that is bad for a police agency because you're not only training your new people. you have ongoing training. another example. hand to hand defensive tactics training. all police officers leave the police academy and they are proficient at that training. it is a perishable skill that if you do not practice, you will lose it. don't know any police department that hat ongoing in service hand-to-hand defensive tactics training. we do firearms training, derefresherrers on the law but

this is a fungs of the training -- a function of the training budget and is a political question. are you going to put the resources to have the kind of training everybody believes police officer should have, the people with the decisionmaking. >> when you look at the budgets of police department us through the entire country over the past couple of decade, they are exponentially have green. when you see other types 0 city softs cut or kind of just flatlined out for two or three decades. you're right when you talk about budgetary priorities but it's budgetary priorities inside of the police department. this year alone baltimore city's police department, got $22 million more than they had last year, and last fiscal budget. but where is the money going? going to the training? is that the core competency of where we're trying to drive the experience and the know how in forces or going to other equipment and other intelligence

and other technology to kind of overpolice the community. >> money in our police department -- the same for most government agencies and most businesses -- are personnel cost. the personnel cost drives our bug that i'm aware of and what is left over after the personnel cost is for discretionary expenditures. >> i want to bring in judge shindlin. there's two things here. there's a sort of set of layers in the problem if we call it's problem. there's how police act in a situation, right? there's weather people should call the police in certain situations right? that's an interesting question. think there's a question surrounding the mckinney pool party, should anyone have called the cops on a bunch over teenagers acting -- in a pool party. there's what the police do there how the police are trained. there's what we as a society want the police to do. right? and then there's the law. there's the constitution.

which is ultimately the binding constraint we think on howl the police can act. now, functionally, it occurs to me that most of the time the constitution is essentially irrelevant in street interactions. like sure, police are trained in and it everybody knows they get their probable cause and fourth and fifth amendment and miranda, et cetera but the law in a street interaction between a police officer and someone it might exist later might exist in your courtroom when it gets dragged before it, but does it actually exist? does the constitution in any real meaningful way exist in that moment between a police officer on the street and a citizen? >> that was a short question. how to begin to answer that. i can only answer any the context of the stop and frisk case which the congressman so carefully described. the problem with stop and frisk

as it became developed in new york you know it was 4 million stops, and half of those were of african-americans. so that means 2.2 million people were stopped. now, they're suppose told be stopped on reasonable suspicion. but you're right nobody was interested in that because the policy was -- there was evidence here -- the mayor said, the purpose of this is to instill fear instill fear in everybody and if they good out carrying a gun they will be stopped. so it's going to be a deterrent. but the constitution says we don't have things like preventive detension weapon can't lock up everybody we think might commit a crime elm can't go into homes because there might be guns in those homes. they might be effect enough stopping crime but that's not the standard. the notion you can step2.2 million people to instill fear was one of the big problems. the other one was this message went out. we need target the right people.

this is said, quote. we got to target young black males between 14 to 21, because they're committing the crimes. the problem was all those 2's 2 million people stopped 90% absolutely innocent, even of the six percent that were summonsed and arrested, those were all dismissed. so you have all those people wrongfully stopped. again, i'm not against good police work. i want good pro-active police work, but it's got to be within suspensional limits. we you talk about reasonable suspicion you have to talk about what is reasonable to stop somebody. here's the funny stuff that couple out. stop dismiss that's walk too fast walk to slow, if they're looking around,ston them if they're looking down. what is a furtive move? this is true. this is what they would write up. this person made a furtive gesture. i suspect my furtive gesture is different from your furtive jess

tour and it's in perception of the person decides that you made a furtive move. how is a cop supposed to discern and again the answer is training. i -- walter said, i totally agree with. training training, training. >> in the context of discussing policing we have to remember american policing is not homogenous. we do not have a national police force so you don't have a standard across the 18,000 police departments we have in this country. most of which are less than 50 police officers. one of the things eye troubled by is out of the stop and frisk case the term has become demonized and it's not supposed to be demonized. the way it was employed in the new york police adapt pay may have been incorrect but stop and frisk is a legitimate tool when done properly and when you have rome suspicion. i suspect if you look at all the other police departments and all of them are getting additional scrutiny -- you won't find

another one that employed stop and frisk the way nypd had. my experience is washington dc and i consider is a progressive police department because we did things, for example, stop and frisk, we had a written directive in 1972 on stop and frisk. and essentially that has not changed because the guiding principle that governs it has not changed. >> i don't want to lose the point that judge is making, which is that the standard of reasonableness -- we have the stop and frisk context the context of excessive use of force. the question of what constitutes a reasonable seizure under the fourth amendment is essentially toothless. it's -- the court said it's a very fact, bound inquiry and so when you have -- >> stop anyone for anything. >> for walking fast, for walking slow for looking furtive and in newark we have a wandering you can stop people for

wandering, so right in the hands of a responsible judge with integrity, who wants to be fair, fine but in the hands of a judge that may not have the same standard of integrity that's a problem if we respect to training, that means is that the police don't really have guidance about what reasonableness is. so, as i understand it, maybe the d.c. police experience is different -- but they're trained just to use reasonable use of force. what dot that mean? we have to -- what does that mean? we have to talk about bringing robustness to the question of what constitutes a reasonable -- >> let me respond to that. a lot -- i've always of the view that leadership within the department is really the most important ingredient in delivering services to the streets is what it boils down to and there are different forms of leadership and the department can go a long way in accessing

all the information available most times when there is a criticism of a police department one of the thing is always do is take a look at the internal affairs or inspectional function within that department. almost universally it is weak, and inappropriate it's light and has the disrespect not only in the tv programs but disrespect within the department. so basically the best training is it really is a seamless collection of data not only from the courtroom but also, hey what is reasonable suspicion? i've sat in on reasonable suspicion classes taught by very accomplished people, and they -- it's not just a question, reasonable suspicion go out there and do it. it's let's analyze look at these cases see how the judge analyzed the situation. let's apply it to what is going to happen on the streets of new york or the streets of baltimore

and what what it means to do. when you act like a cowboy, you're going to be sanctioned quickly, and you're no longer going to be in the department. >> right, there's also this issue. which is that i ride my bike often to work in new york system when i ride my bike to work i break the law rue routinely. i stop at red lights, don't run red light. i used to do that but that's crazy and reckless. but there are a whole bunch of laws guiding how bikes can operate in an urban environment and i cut a lot of corners. okay? now, i could be stopped by a police officer but i'm not. i suspect if i looked different and if i was in another neighborhood i would be. walter scott let's remember, what was walter scott's infraction and he had a car. it had three brakelights two of which were working. one of which was out okay?

so by the letter of the law -- i spent time in the south carolina brakelight statute. by the letter of the law it was a legitimate stop because if you have a brakelight, you're supposed to have at least two -- one but if you have one and it's out, then that's a violation. the point is if there's a entire category of stops of policing, of contact between police, that might be legitimate, might be justifiable on the law but folks suspect and are probably right, are being driven by essentially a kind of cloud and racialized suspicion. >> most police officers don't dig into the minutiae of the law. the really good ones do. i used to do that. for example in dak it's illegal to play ball in an alley or street. play any game in the street with a ball or in an alley it's illegal, five dollar fine. tight 282 of the d.c. code. and i was working in an early and this was in 1998 that had

aislingant amount of violence -- a significant amount of violence and the people i had to work with and were the perpetrators of the violence-ended up going to jail on federal inindictments but in order to deal with the element and the things they did every day, they were in the alley one day, set the basketball hoop up, playing basketball. the guy's got to take that down. it's against the law. whatever. yes, it is against the law bleach it or not it is. you can't play the game this way. and they that helpinged me, and i went to take the ball. the guy took the ball. he started saying, listen, you're under arrest, mike, whatever. and i ended up arresting him. went to court in front of the honorable judge. he said it's illegal for this guy to play basketball in an alley? yes, sir it's on the books. and i cited the title. he said, okay, let's proceed. the issue here pipes can get frustrate elfed what is on the books. the police officer didn't write

it. >> come on, that's a copout. >> it is not a copout. >> sleektively -- >> it's not a copout. if you live -- >> playing basketball -- >> that's a perfect example. why someone is playing basketball. >> those visits were -- and we did a long-term investigation on them -- wait a minute -- those individuals were indicted on a 310 count rico inindictment, the large ed in d.c. tom. one of the largest groups to narcotic distributors and involved in all kinds of violence -- >> but they were playing basketball at the time. >> yes they were. that's a police department tool that is in my toolbox. >> we're saying the same thing. you've did not actually arrest them because they were playing basketball. you arrested them because -- these were guys you wanted to bust. >> no. had he picked up his ball and walked away i wont have arrested him. it's when he refused. >> you didn't have suspicion at the time that they were involved in this rico -- >> yes we did. >> you did. >> but it wasn't -- you arrested them -- >> i arrested them for playing

ball in thele alley. i didn't get on the investigation later in the year. when i arrested them for playing ball in the alley i was patrolman, they were playing ball in the to alley. i asked them to stop. he picked up the ball and continued play and i arrested them. >> i want to weigh in here. there's nothing wrong with targeting police resources to where they should be targeted. if you knew that this is a dangerous and high crime area, and you had a basis to make that stop good. and it did in fact in this case result in a prosecution and all the rest that followed. but hearings what i found a lot. one of the common things written down in the forums was high crime area, high crime area, plus furtive movement. this means i had no suspicion before as you did in your case, before the stop. that these people had done anything. then what happened in the stop is that it escalated. there's the danger, chris. the danger. it's company to target the

resources, maybe even okay to make the stop when you have at the technical basis but use common sense and judgment to and that seems to before gottennen lost in the eric garner case, this ised a an mr.tive violation. they've say he was resisting arrest. apparently the video shows the man walking backwardses hands up saying, don't arrest me. don't arrest me. if that's called resisting that's a strange idea. then from -- to go from therefrom to a chokehold and a takedown and all that followed, that is the problem. the lack of common sense of how to follow up. so in the statistics, which i could go back to, when a black person was stopped was twice as likely to be frisks than the white. >> they were effective with their perception of cause with white people because they were not being -- >> wouldn't have stepped them so lightly. with a black guy they stopped

them more lightly so they got less contra band, less guns, more dismissals and more force and more frisks, all less on the white population. >> this discussion we look at the community and we look at the police it's like x and os and we are not bringing in the human element. unfortunately in a lot of these communities a lot of the police don't come from the communities do not have any interactions with these communities other than policing in the communities and there is a huge cassism between the cultural died of what is reasonable activity and culture you. take myself and maybe place me somewhere in asia, naturally i don't really understand and know how they interact and how the culture is and what should be perceived as some strange activity and i think that is a problem that we don't really address, that unfortunately a lot of the police officers that are policing these urban environments that we feel are

below overpoliced aren't naturally from the communities and don't naturally have the connectivity. >> we have to put into the fold of the conversation the deep racialized suspicion and fear, and fear of the police, racialized suspicion by the police. all of that is part of the element of the encounter between the police and the community and that informs -- there's research on implicit bias, why we think people who are walking down the street might be suspicious of a crime. want to go back to walter's point about accountability and the culture of the police department and there's an elephant in the room frankly which is about the role of the police unions in this conversation. from at least where i sit all i see from the police unions is sort of a defensive approach to this problem.

right? and is there room for police unions to say look, we have very good officers in our midst. 're responsible officers, officers of integrity but we also have some bad apples. right in and can we help the police department, the chief within the police department, create systems of accountability so we're not all demonized and brushed with this broad stroke? >> yes there's a role for the police unions to do that. if you go back and look at the history of the d.c. police union, can't speak to the activity of any other police union but we have been up front and progressive in demanding accountability top quality internal affairs very, very good review. we want more robust reviewing. just recently there was huge debate in washington about our body camera program. way there is with the chief when we rolled it out but the new mayor doesn't want 80 and wants to make access through foia not permitted. what is the purpose of spending

$5.5 million to buy body worn cameras put them on my members record all of their interactions with the public because this is for accountability and then turn around and not let anybody access the film. it would defeat the purpose because it's the members of the union i represent and other police officers around the country have gone vilified right now and it's absolutely incomprehend able that -- incomprehensiblible our mayor would do that. good unions understand we're partners with the manager of the police department. one thing i want ills always to have the betts. not just the best candidates, the best officers, the best leadship, the best equipment and in order to do that we have to cooperate. always interact there try to make the police department -- because aim a policeman. identity knock just union lead lead are. i'm a policeman. >> let me comment because at least in my experience the police unions were an

impediments to finding out what happened on the street. there were cases being made of what what called obstruction of justice in which police union representatives were encouraging officers to get together with a story and explain what was there, to give them something that would stand internal affairs scrutiny so it does vary from department to department. but clearly any system that results in a failed or inaccurate investigative result needs to be changed. >> but there's -- there's this deep perceptual problem. the institutional issue of police unions and i understand you don't want to speak to other ones. i've been covering this. they're 100% an obstacle in other places -- >> no 100% of anything there may be some police departments -- excuse me -- some police unions they may be obstructionist in their view, but this is what happens.

you either grow and move with the paradigm shift or you'll get overrun. laboring this done temperature few 0 lang time was a big part of the private sector. they didn't adapt and change as things in the country changed. progressive police unions do. and i think what is disenginous -- let me finish this point -- with when we characterize all unions and public sector unions as obstructionists to the process when hi my job just like walters job when he defends someone is to ensure their due process rights are not violated indiana mr.tive contention that's the role of the union so to, whichize them as obstructionis that's a disservice when we're here at the american suspensional sew identity convention to talk about people's rights. please. >> let me say this. the tone of statements that havecome from police unions have been remarkable to me. >> we're talking about new york. >> no.

>> i think he is talking about the nypd. >> no. time actually talking bat statement that was released by the police benevolence associate two days ago in cleveland that said -- that referred to the eight people whoa filed an affidavit to bring the case before the judge there to find a probable cause in the shooting death of 12-year-old tamir rice, state built the police association that referred to the people who did that as having miserable lives. the statement -- >> i can't support that statement. >> i'm not asking you. to let me finish my point please. the unions, it strikes me, are an emnation of the way that a lot of police officers feel, which is a lot of police officers feel at this moment embattled. they feel picked upon. they feel vilified and second-guessed. they feel like every single thing they do is now going to be subject to criticism by people

watching a 30 second videotape who have no idea what happened before hand, they feel like they don't have political -- i even talking to police officers for nine months off the record and on the record and they have been telling me over and over again they feel like they're on the wrong -- they feel persecuted. right? and so the point is that there is a perceptual gap right now profound one. people may watch the video and say we have a problem. police feel like we have a problem which is that we're being picked on, like there's not an agreement. we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking there is an agreement between these two. >> i want to join the conversation by saying they may embattledded from won't ends because in my case would one that thing was that was a problem for though police they would be brothered for hitting a certain number of stops. there were quota goals and they did not like that and forcing them into bad police work and they opposed those average but to return to an earlier topic

racial balance of the police force and how the police force should reflect in fact the community that they police, in our cities, the police force is becoming more and more minority in percentage. ours is getting toward 50% and doesn't do air with the problem if say what about the surveysry levels to policy setters. while the bottom line living racial makeup is changing those setting policy may not a be changing and that's still a problem. very important -- >> policing isn't always about race. >> that's right. >> just because i'm a black man policing west baltimore done necessarily mean that i connect with the community of west baltimore. african-americans and minorities aren't monolithic folks like any other demographic. right? i think it's critically important because when we look at the police force remember all the national news in freddie gray kept saying what's the makeup of the officers.

race is always the underlying driver of how we look at a situation. right? but at the end of the day the institutionalized type of view and the normalization that has been generated in these bodies has absolutely nothing do with race but to do with that particular individual. that's what i mean about having visiteds who directly connect with the comment. you could have a white over who knows west baltimore and is a great community police officer in his post in west baltimore and do a very effective job as opposed to someone who is african-american from idaho who just cannot connect with that community. >> let that white officer have one controversial issue and becomes a totally racial divide. he notice being evaluated based on the good work he did in west baltimore, and to back to the behavior the judge was referring to the unsuspensional pressure that the leadership placed on the members of the nypd to get these numbers. in washington, dc, i don't know if you remember, we had the trinidad checkpoints.

the people that objected to it the most and screamed the loudest were our members can union was screaming you can that do this, inle the federal court in d.c. told the police department and the chief that this was illegal. so going back to the fact that unions are obstructionists to the point of getting to constitutional policing is just inaccurate and we should be very very careful how we use language and characterize one group of people just like the council member said as being monolithic police departments in specifically 18,000 different iterations of the police departments in the united states. >> think we can own this -- i'm happy to acknowledge there are some progressive police unions, sounds like your union may be month them. but councilman mosby might be able to speak to this better than itening but in the state of maryland theirs a certain bill of rights the police have? >> law enforcement -- >> so there are institutional

mechanisms built into the law which protect the police at the behest of the police union. if there is a excessive use of force, the police don't have to speak to investigators right away. there's a win dove of time in which -- >> what about a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. that is a criminal offense and that life doesn't have to say a thing. the law enforcement bill of rights does not come in at all. >> that's fair. but say if i was just a cash year at a local convenience store hi and boss came to me and said hey nick, did you take money out our of the cash register and i say i don't have to tell you've because i don't want to dish just say i'm not going to talk to you until i get a lawyer. there's a good chance i'm going to be fired. so we can't talk about -- [applause] >> go ahead. >> but it's a police came to him and asked him that same question what right does he have not say anything in the same one the police does. apples to cherries comparison. >> i'm saying my boss and my boss being either the mayor or

the -- >> the point is we're talking about constitutional rights, not where you work. i don't check my constitutional rights at the door when i been a policeman. it's not about the constitution. it's about the -- >> wait. wait. >> you do with a some rights in the police department for internal investigations. you can refuse to answer and also be let go. wow wave waived the right agreed you will cooperate in an investigation as part of the job so you can waive -- >> i can waive -- if we're talking about something with criminal overtones or potential christian charges if the police department wants to compel know answer the question they give me a guarantee garretty warning i must answer the question and i'm kole of compelled. until they do it i could face calendar i criminal charges, my constitutional rights attach and there's nothing you can do to make me answer that question. >> they cannot then use that -- >> correct. >> i want to return to body

cameras. somebody findly raised this -- >> i want to turn to body cameras and then take questions. >> a big topic of body cameras. some police departments supports the idea because actually it's kind of protective of the police officer. there is a contemporaneous recording. this helps the he said-she said world that the judge live inside. we weren't there, we don't have a video. one side says this happened, one side said it didn't. other police departments are completely opposed and won't listen to reason. they think it's another way to spy on the police officer. so the whole issue where we're heading with today's technology, going to be there anyway. the citizens are all talking the have had yous so the malmight as well get on board so there's videos from both directions. the citizens focusing on the cop. the cops could focus on the so-called perpetrator. i don't see why the police department doesn't see it in their interests to be wearing

them. now, that said, there are lot of issues. a great article in your materials i read this morning about what we are going to do other with the videos, how we store them, who gets access to them. when can the police officer turn it on and off. used in a home? there's private issues so it's not easy. not a panacea like everybody puts on body cams and then there will be no more actions. won't bet that simple but we need to talk about why police departments are opposed. >> they've haven't recognize the paradigm shift if they don't sit down and be part have the solution, the decisions will be made and they'll be slide emfrom -- and forced, whether they like it or not to use those systems. so my advice to them, if any are watching is to be at the table and city discussions and inform e forming the policy so you can protect your members. it's happening anyway. we went to pear dime shifts in

policing, we written from revolve erred to semi automatic pistols to wearing body arm you're radios ins in the car computers in the cars, dash movement cams. all those oppose evidence dash minuted cam rad make the similar, aments behalf body worn cameras. the big issue we have to worry about is storage access, foia, and other than that, you can work out the policy in your agency. >> let me state that it enlightened department will take the view that there is no data they don't want in terms of assessing what is the right investigative result. they religion take it from anywhere any source, they'll analyze it, determine. so basically if what your goal is evaluating police performance, you want all data that is available and sently data that the police officer himself can control in terms of proper training. >> the goal no, sir. just to protect the police. it's to protect the public. >> correct.

>> protect to public. >> protecting the public is the department coming out correctly on an investigative issue even if that is -- >> appropriate both sileds. it's a win-win. protect both sides because you have a real record that you wouldn't otherwise have. >> i understand that but i guess -- i was responding to sergeant burton's point that body cameras protect the police but i -- the orientation we should -- it's obviously your job to protect your members but also about protecting the peace and safety of the public, on the public reside behalf. >> what we found in our excursioned about cameras the original proposal or premise was police accountability so once we said yes we'll have body worn cameras, then the law of unintended consequences kicks in. wait a minute, we have advocacy groups saying should police officers that encounter sexual assault victims turn the camera on and off in maybe the that victim doesn't wasn't they're face on the camera. should domestic violence victims be interviewed or talked to

while the camera is rolling. our position is of course they've should in the initial contact. when the long-term interviews with the detective and the sexual assault activists -- the at slow cats and the victim advocates, of course not. we than at that time part to at the private but the initial encounter with a patrolman contacting the victim should be recorded. >> i'll take few questions here and maybe you've can talk about this. what are your thoughtle hope to role of implies sis vie bass in policing -- implicit bias in training? >> there's a tremendous amount of research that is coming out phillip goss as harvard did a lot of research below implicit bias in policing and we know that implicit bias is a real problem. we all have and it in the context over policing it becomes a real problem because it informs again who is perceived as a suspect who is perceived to be suspicion. i know there are training

mechanisms that are available. i can't speak to them specifically but it's an issue we have to address. >> sergeant burton, how about this one. can you address police adopting disproportional military equipment and tactics such toes the overreliance on s.w.a.t. has gotten a lot of attention recently particularly coming out of ferguson. >> you know, we have hat riots for a whole -- for decades and i've heard some people say that the rites started because of the military equipment. i think militarized equipment for example armored personnel carriers -- we use them in washington, dc, the s.w.a.t. team in certain circumstances that can -- like in baltimore the only vehicle that could go into certain places while the riot was going on and safely distract someone was some of those armored personnel vehicles because the would withstrand the bricks and other things being thrown. the idea that police departments have been militarized i

disagree with the characterization some of the uniforms we wear and -- may look military but the police department themselves have not become militarized because the mission of the military and the mission of the police department is complete live different. i have spent time in the marine corps and our mission to close with that is seek out close and destroy the enemy. my community is not my enemy. in policing my job is to help people my job is to arrest violators of the law protect property and do it in a way that i don't treat people disrespectfully. it's not always easy and i'm not here to tell you that police officers don't make mistakes mistakes and don't screw it up royally sometimes but the characterizeddation that our employs forces have become like the military is just a mischaracterization. >> there is a detail that i always think about in the cleveland -- the department of

justice patterns and practices investigation of the cleveland police department which couple out, which is 2009 things noted by investigators in the vehicle bay in a particularly. ponchished enable in cleveland in the police department vehicle bay there was a sign up that called it forward operating base like -- which is of course a term taken straight from the military. forward operating base busy being lightly protected bases in the middle of enemy territory and it always stuck with me. this is pointed out as exactly what the sergeant its saying, the wrong thinking -- >> a sign like that sends a message. moisture -- one of my biggs struggles facebook social media. they have a tendency to post things that if one of -- the brilliant attorneys in the room was defending someone could use to just hang them out to dry on the stand. i'll give you an example. when the shooting in aurora,

colorado happened, i had a member post on their facebook page i don't know what i wrong with you white boys always shooting up the place. most of his friends are white. he its black got on to phoned, have you lost your mind in take it down now because five years from now you won't remember that you posted that. and someone that is brilliant doing research ill find it. you'll be testifying and you will get asked the question of question if you have biased against whites and you say no, boom and there it, you posted itful. we're trying to get people to understand that imagery and words are very important the way you use them. >> judge will courts be more will tolling revisit the constitutionality of pretextual stops in light of recent police brutality and unrenal cease sure cases? -- unreasonable cease cure cases. >> i don't how to answer that to speak for all courts across at the country federal and state. a lot of courts. some courts will. we just government the inaccommodate from the judge based upon the citizens

complaint nat bipassed the prosecutor. some judges would have ruled also i did some judges wouldn't. we have suppression issues all the time. we know the suppression rate is low. some judges are well toiling suppress, some aren't. i don't think it's a question that can be answered itch think everybody's sensitivities are heightened but i want to take a minute on the last question about the military equipment. my view is if you arm people to the teeth they will use the arms. i think as it is they're carrying too many arms. if you have a tailser and a gun and you have it available the tendency is to pull it out and use it in. new york we had a stairwell inspection gurley case, these cops new cops, brand new no supervisors, kids, essentially are doing a stairwell principal but with their hands on the gun and i they bump into a couple and they're show nervous they tike houston the gun and shoot the couple. didn't make built of sense the

couple did nothing deserve being shot but you're carrying it, it's there it's available you're nervous you're scared. you pull it out and use it. i thought every read that you decent even need to have the gun in a vertical patrol. just go up do and down with the baton and do your patrol. there shouldn't be violence. i do think if you're armed the danger of overuse of those weapons is there. [applause] >> i don't knoll how we get past the second amendment and i don't know -- number one i don't know how we get past the second amendment. number two i don't know how you ask police officers to go out and police when the second amendment exists of without being armed. number three the -- the use of the equipment like taser is a response and a request from the community to use less than lethal force so we have police officers carrying a lot of things and having to make decisions which leslie that option to use. the gurley case is tragic. absolutely tragic. >> i have a quit comment. as i think i answer almost all

questions, it's a leadership issue there are times when al qaeda is backed into a building where v in new york city where you want to have military equipment. how often? we see roving patrols of -- all over new york city but 59% 896% of your police into should have nothing do with that gear and tis training you've do not take your weapon out of the holster. proper firearms training, unless you intend to use the weapon. so that young probeie no longer with the department, was act inconsistently with his firearms training. >> maybe not. maybe he thought he was in fear hoff his life. but why did he feel that? because he bumped into automatic in a stairway. that is the racial aspect of the thing. what made him so scared? basically who he bumped into. >> the light was out in the stairwell. he had his weapon out. >> that's right. >> again disregarding his training had his finger on the trigger, had a negligent discharge.

it's not accidental. the bullet ricocheted off the wall ask struck the young man. that's is actually what happened. tragic set of events because he did not follow the training in terms of coop your finger out of the trigger well unless you intend to shoot something. >> it's a tragedy that a man lost his life and i hear you acknowledge that but i also think that the judge's point is that let's look at the set of rules, the weapons that we allow the police to carry under circumstances where they may not be needed that lead to those kinds of incidents happening and candidly, it disturbs in the a little bit to hear 'invocation of second amendment arounds. what about at the due process rights of the man gunned down in the stairwell. [applause] >> my point was in answer to the question -- my point about the second amendment is zepp sending

the police officers in the stairwell without a weapon. america is armed to the team. it's impossible to send police officers out to face threats ton the streets and kinds kinds of weaponed people can legally carry without the police officer being armed. >> we need a plot more gun control in this country. we really do. [applause] >> council, i'm interested to hear the penalize moment on the role of fear in causing encounters to escalate both minority fear of police and police in the communes. >> it's just a natural disconnect of the individuals who are called to police these communities. and when you have unfortunately incident that's we have seen played out in north america because of social immediatey and access to could mad ya, that

games developing. we have to ensure that we are providing opportunities for folks in the communities to eventually patrol those communities. and i think that is one of the biggest disconnects. look at a mace -- place like baltimore city. we have officers from pennsylvania or west virginia to work every day. not to say you can't be in pennsylvania or west virginia and work in baltimore city but you look at it and you have close to 30% of the officers living in baltimore city and the other 70 or 60 plus percent living elsewhere. it's important that you provide folks with the opportunity to manage and police their own neighborhoods. >> to talk about fear for a second. it always strikes me the point you made about guns. it would be very different to police in tokyo or belgium. than it would be in america

because the odds of nip you encounter in tokeover being armed are essentially vanishingly small and that is not true in america. there is a real genuine chance the person you're encountering being arm. >> how much do you that the affects police psychology? i think it affects some people if you hear any police officer say they win through an entire career ought would ever being aafraid are not telling the truth. fear players a factor in some circumstances. the metrics to decide what level of fear a person is experiencing is individual. and it all depends on how comfortable you are with where you are and so i think to the council members point if you're not from that community your level of fear may by higher. if you're black and grew up in the suburbs suburbs and employsings in west bald more that's not a environment you're accustomed to. ...

and if i do a properly a legal illegal encounter with not always a happy citizen but as a citizen. >> the human element, the skills and common sense you bring to that encounter, it sounds like you would agree with me this is a somebody had a pen or knife, the the 1st response should not be to shoot that person. it should be to de-escalate the encounter.

>> or issue. the issue. the person has a knife in the encounter is called family put that down while we talk and will be finished i give your night back. back. if you have a knife in your hand look at the fell out of philadelphia there was taken this week, don't have the knife out already in the officer was about as close as this. the backup backup backup. fortunately he had a place to retreat. the other thing about knives as weapons weapons, or bullet resistant vests are designed to stop high velocity. that is where police officers are particularly concerned about eight weapons. distance is our friend. one of the things they teach is the more distance you have more options allows you to employ the closer you are more danger there is because you always bring the gun to the encounter.

>> are there any alternatives to arrest? >> i would say sure. arrest leads to avail. the protesters in baltimore city for it was being set as high as the cops to do the murder they spent a month for ten months and pretrial incarceration without ever being convicted. arrest is a terrible thing if you can do something less command i think the police department knows that and is trying to not do arrest. >> is a study right now going on recognizing that the program has been a complete failure. the numbers are staggering

as the stop and frisk. the broken windows concept they take the view they are mine is riding a bike running in the somebody and killing them there are situations where the rest is necessary. just writing on the sidewalk, they can they can be addressed by much less intrusive types. >> the republican national convention protest resulting in hundreds of arrests. the bottom line result of that was millions and settlements. >> we can look at arrests, but there's also the interaction. if you are a young a young african-american men going up in urban america the likelihood that you will have a consistent interaction with police is

much higher than other folks. it is that arrest. we give back to to that chasm. that's what we try to bridge the gap. developing ways of police officers being there to protect and serve and being accountable and friendly. i understand, but some of these things disproportionately apply. >> a matter of consequence. fingerprints are there. a lot of collateral consequences. >> a summons in lieu of arrest. i can't believe your going to issues.

you still have to be booked and fingerprinted. the issue here is a legislative fix. you can only be present in the detained if you commit the crime of violence. this is where the state legislative legislator city council in congress must make a determination. that is something the state legislature needs to fix. unless you have a conviction you will be released. the conclusion depends on the demeanor in behavior.

they come i'm going to give you a warning. >> all right. final question. is an obligation to distinguish between negligence and criminality? >> i would say it is absolutely a requirement.

>> you have to get them to agree. should trump anything. should trump anything. the commission has to stand up to them. they cannot afford to have an officer acting and professionally and have an obligation to the public terms of that officer and put them in a situation like and remove them from my department. >> on that note, around applause. >> more presidential hopefuls announced the candidacy for president.

a new the nouvelle will be inserted. as you can see the delivery system is being withdrawn. what we have just seen as replacement of a diseased aortic valve in a manner that does not require open-heart surgery trying to become smarter the predicting who will get disease identifying the most effective means to prevent or attenuate disease and smarter about following up. currently in a narrower we are trying to harness the promise of the human genome

research project that has been in existence for more than a decade with all the informatics and information about sociology, geography demographics where you live and you likelihood of developing something like that, hypertension. a certain part of the city with less access sodium consumption, little things like that that can have enormous impact on population health. >> dr. patrick vieira sunday night at 8:00 o'clock eastern and pacific on c-span q&a. >> first families take vacation time or elect

presidents and 1st ladies ladies, a good read can be the perfect companion for your summer journey. what better book than one that peers inside the personal life of every first lady in american history. presidential historians. inspiring stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. a great summertime read available from public affairs as a hardcover or e-book through your favorite bookstore online bookseller. >> the environmental protection agency has proposed richter limits on ground-level ozone. the regulations would for small local governments to adopt plans for improving air quality. an epa official testified about the new standard at a house hearing chaired by congressman ed whitfield. this is two hours.

>> i i like to recognize myself for helping statement. lower the standards so -- parts per billion. they don't. >> the marginal cost goes

through the roof and the epa estimates 65 to 70 ppb per standard billion per standard 3.915 annually in 16 parts will cost 39 billion. independent estimates are much higher the national associations the study that puts the cost of 65 ppb standard that 145 in the air which will make this the agencies. the the study also estimates 1.4 million fewer jobs and household cost averaging $830 per year. these costs come on top of the other rules we seen in this administration many of which also affect the energy and manufacturing sectors. moreover, this rule is yet another chapter in the

administration's effort to force more extreme climate policies on the american people's. the utility the litigation will come of the 111 the lights out of this proposed ozone. today in america. 230 counties all my god. it might also add in implementing guidance for the states with its 2008. now, these counties to.

358 counties they currently have monitors would be a nonattainment if they go to 70 parts per billion the 500 58 550 550 parts per billion race on recent data. this doesn't include counties nearby. the designation my epa now nonattainment designation is like a self-imposed recession. he becomes extremely difficult to obtain a new permit to build a factory to expand the factory of powerplant landed in and permits for existing facilities would be impacted. just last week the manufacturers, over half of

them, 53 percent if located in a nonattainment area. the same permitting challenges apply for roads and other large of a structure projects in effect almost all the major job communities, economic activities jeopardize the attainment area. designation is a nonattainment is enough to scare off employers. the major parts the san

joaquin valley may never be in compliance. and they are certainly not in compliance today and have been out of compliance is the beginning of the clean air act. so it's not working very well. this time i like to recognize the gentleman for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman. for holding for holding this hearing on the epa proposed ozone standard. also want to welcome the assisting administrator and thank you for testifying before the subcommittee. since 1970 the cornerstone of the clean air act has helped keep air quality standards. each air quality standard based on science and medical evidence to the standards as

the is the level of pollution, the structure has been extraordinarily effective and cleaning the air and protecting public health my including the including the health of children and seniors. the current standard is falling short. it's been weaker than the law would allow command such the scientific advisory committee made crystal-clear that in order to adequately protect someone's health epa must strengthen the ozone standard to ensure an adequate margin of safety for individuals but these recommendations were ignored by the bush and ministration the the flagrant disregard for the fact is yet another exhaustive review. to revise the standard to fall within the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion as recommended, the epa decision is fully consistent with the law and the litany

of adverse health effects. nearly 1 million asthma attacks for children result in the school is of thousands of premature deaths. these are meaningful real-world benefits benefits, but i have little doubt today we will hear much. in kansas united states supreme court opinion written by justice scalia medically the epa approach for determining the safe level of air pollution and cause may not be considered. the best way to implement the standard. if you're in all the epa may not consider this when setting the standard. nevertheless worked with the

office of management and budget for careful analysis of projected cost and benefit associated with reducing use of. they estimate the benefits would range from 13 to $38 billion annually outweighing the cost by approximately three to one. industry is prepared dubious and grossly inflated estimates but failed to consider. the completely one-sided picture ignores the real cost especially for children whose light of the fully developed. the epa proposed ozone standard would have dire consequences for economic growth. these doomsday claims the history of the clean air act is the history of exaggerated claims that it never come true. over the over the past 30 years the clean air act is reduced -- -- for all

americans. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the german yields back. i recognize the german from texas for five minutes. >> is that why hours going over comments about the ozone rule. it was a common theme. members of the chamber with a greater partnership members mom-and-pop store

this is a quote. when you to search. epa says you please then you can have more please. the words came from the epa workforce the state agencies and make this will work but have no clue over the health impact. these voices come from all america.

>> the gentleman yields back >> i want to thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing today on epa proposed ozone rule. i i also want to welcome back mr. mccain, the acting assistant administrator. she's always give us and support forthright right testimony. mr. chairman today is is been duly noted. we're here to assess the proposed national ambient air quality standards for the ozone the cpa legally mandated to put forth -- the

epa mandated quality standards. concentration levels sufficient to shape public health with an adequate margin of safety for certain pollutants that endanger public health and the environment. we know we know that the epa establishes new standards based upon medical and scientific