association federal credit union. see you in a few minutes. >> in a few moments, the conference of mayors talks about how to combat gun violence in cities. after that mitt >> sunday, look for our interview with andrew. his new release is "hitler land." >> despite the time i spent in germany, i had not spend time thinking about, what would it have been like to be a correspondent there in the 1920's and 1930's? what would you have noticed or not noticed? >> sunday at 8:00.

>> a forum on guns, self- defense, and stand your ground loss. the american constitution society and the georgia association of black women attorneys posted this panel discussion. this is an hour. >> turning to our program this evening, the debate over the appropriate role of guns in our society is the continuous insignificant. -- continuous and significant. the debate rages on the day. -- rages on today. the topic of guns, self-defense, and public policy is not a new discussion. dating back more than a century, for reasons of will be

discussed here tonight, it has been expanded upon in recent years. in 2005 with the passage of the first stunt -- stand your ground lot. a similar law was passed in georgia the following year with overwhelming majorities in both the state house and state senate. it was signed into law on april 4, 2006. there are these 24 states with some version of this law. the basic premise of these laws is to eliminate a duty to retreat when a person has a reasonable debate they're subject to death or serious bodily harm all cited their homes. this brings us to the night of february 26, 2012. that 7:00 that night, george zimmerman called 911 to report a

suspicious person, trayvon martin. he stated that he was following martin after the teenager's started to run from them. he told the dispatcher that he was person and martin despite the dispatchers that advice to the contrary. at about 7:10, martin was on the phone with his girlfriend when he sells a moment -- when he saw george zimmerman. the girl friend recalled george zimmerman asking trayvon martin what he was doing. there was an altercation, during which martin's phone went dead. george zimmerman told police that martin approached him, they exchanged words, and when he reached for his cellphone,

martin punched him in the nose and began slamming his head and the sidewalk. the precise nature of the altercation is still not clear, i 7:25, martin was shot and killed. he was carrying a small amount of cash, a bag of skittles, a can of ice-t. 15 minutes after the shooting, george zimmerman clancy shot martin in self-defense. the chief of police for the police decrement stated that george zimmerman had not been charged because there was no evidence to dispute the account. two days later, at the file was turned over to the state attorney's office. on april levin, george zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder by the florida special prosecutor. he is currently out of jail on

bond awaiting trial. in the aftermath of the trayvon martin shooting, reverend filed a lawsuit challenging certain sections of -- certain sections. that motion is currently pending before judge thomas crash. the inception of and surrounding standard grot -- ground laws brings us to tonight's discussion. we will hear about the origins of george's stand your ground law. rep was born in atlanta and attended for many university.

-- permit university. he finished nine years of active service before moving to a metro atlanta, where he worked for over a decade as an environmental program manager. first elected to the georgia house of representatives in 2004, he serves on the transportation, rolls, and appropriations committees and serves as the chairman of the judiciary and on civil general and juvenile law subcommittee. following his presentation and a few audience questions, we will turn to our panel discussion. that panel will be moderated by richard dain. he attended the university of georgia. he later received his llm from the university of michigan. he worked for the department of justice as an assistant u.s.

attorney and then as the chief of the criminal crime section. as a federal magistrate judge and finally as the united states attorney between 1998 and 2001. he is currently a partner or he serves as the practice leader for the corporate criminal investigations group. our first panelist is reverend hutchins. he has been heavily involved in many civil rights causes, including the response to the shooting of kathrin johnson, an 92-year-old woman killed by the atlanta police department. he served for eight years as the national president and ceo of the national youth connection. he was a candidate for georgia's fifth congressional district and helped to create the one church

one precinct project. this spring, the rev. letter rally supporting trayvon martin at the georgia state capitol. he has received an honorary doctorate degree of divinity from st. thomas christian college. he has received an official commendation from the state of georgia. he is a baptist preacher, a former pastor for the african methodist episcopal church, and serves as chairman and ceo of martell hutchins ministries. our second professor -- our second panelist is professor erica j. hashimoto. she served on the georgetown

journal of legal ethics. she went on to serve as the assistant public defender in the office of the federal public defender in washington, d.c.. she is an associate professor of law at the university of georgia school of law, where she teaches an appellate litigation clinic and class is in criminal law and sentencing. our final catalyst is john monroe. -- panelist is john monroe. he received his jd from the university of wisconsin school of law. he is a practitioner in roswell and vice president for george carey. george carey is a grassroots guns rights organization dedicated to preserving its members are right to keep and bear arms. founded in 2007, it currently

has 5200 members and has participated in 20 lawsuits at all levels of the federal and state court system. i want to thank our moderator and all of our panelists for appearing with us this evening. i would ask the audience to be respectful of all of our panelists. >> i would like to thank the american constitution society for putting this event on.

i think this is a terribly important topic for us to discuss. i think it is timelyor important reasons. i am mindful that discussing issues of carrying firearms, even the importance of it, can trivialize the loss we have seen in her recently in a nation. i hope that nothing bad happens to date to realize is that in any way. the loss of any life is sacred and important and should never be taken lightly. as we start today, i want to highlight and provide some background for this very important panel today to discuss the moral, ethical, philosophical issues with respect to the right of self- defense in this country.

what is often referred to is the right to bear arms is more broadly the right to defend oneself, one's family, and once property. it was under this context that the georgia legislator took up the lot in 2006. i would like to highlight idec hypothetical for you. -- highlight a hypothetical for you. i want you to imagine for a moment a young mother walking through downtown atlanta. a young mom excited for the birth of her first child. six months earlier, perhaps, has a relative newborn. mama's walking down the

sidewalk and the toddler is walking next to the stroller. she sees the proverbial -- a man jump out and approach her in an honest way. the man walked towards her and reaches into the baby's stroller and snatches the child from the stroller. if you can imagine the horror of a young mother, if you could imagine the horror of that young mom when a large man is making off with her child jumping into a white van to escalate to do have the knows what. the issues of what the mom

should do horrify us. the options available to work to provide defense for her child are few. to suggest that a small woman of slight build can overcome an athletic man who might be making off with her child, what options she has to hurt is central to the conversation you're going to have today. the conversation is one's right outside of one's own to protect one's family against those that would do them harm. perhaps death, perhaps brutal beatings or otherwise. what is the fundamental right to self-defense? if there is a fundamental moral and ethical right to self- defense, what does that mean to someone who does not have the ability to defend themselves?

that really is the central conversation we're having here today. as they wrestle this as a culture, i want to hone in on that issue as the guiding 0.4 conversation today. that was the issue that the georgia legislature was dealing with in 2006 when this issue was how does one -- the legislature charged with passing fair laws for a state wrestled the issue of the right to self-defense? i do not know that i have all the questions for you today, but i would charge assault to move forward with this charge. the quality of one's life is a direct proportion to the quality of the questions that an individual is willing to ask. in facing public policy, states are advised in much the same way. consider the right set of

conditions, we can move forward with our common values that all lives matter. whether you are wealthy or not. whether you have power or not. house to be wrestled with this issue of once a fundamental right to defend themselves in a world that can be all too brutal? we as a state government taking this up in 2006, a study of state politics is also a steady in comparative government. there are 49 other states. the process of improving laws, we find there are examples that

can be gleaned from other states. back in 1974, at georgia became a model for the nation after the death penalty statutes were struck down. representatives got together to craft an equitable and fair the death penalty statute. a lot more can be provided to exonerate the person, free the person from the risk [inaudible] back in the 1970's, there were not organizations who could vote on the conservative side, progressive side.

today, we have those kinds of organizations. the progressive side, the center for working families. on the political rights, the american legislative exchange council, which has been brought under intense focus because of their support on standard ground laws. the american legislative -- it allows properties that have been environmentally impacted -- it is likely to become part of the conversation today. overall, these organizations in general provide a forum for

conversation and the sharing of practices across gates. given the fact that state policy makers provides best practices, lessons learned. i want to put before you the issue of the stand your ground law in georgia. the legislature was seeking to provide clarity to a couple of important circumstances. the first circumstance was an idea that had been in georgia law for years. the concept of date duty to retreat. if someone is attacked with life-threatening force, previously a person had a duty to try to run away. there was no specific

provisions that allow it once expressly to protect themselves or others outside of their home. there was vagueness with one's ability to exercise their right to self-defense outside of one's home. we understand that all laws are in perfect. -- imperfect. in 2006, the stand your ground law was seeking to provide more clarity to these issues. in conclusion, i want to ask that we be sensitive unmindful. these are very difficult issues.

i would charge you to never take your eye off the ball of the important issues. once fundamental right to self- defense and passing laws that are consistent, that allow the courts to judge on understandable ways to uphold the principles of justice we all hold so dear. it is an honor to be with you today. [applause] >> we can take a couple of audience questions. go ahead. fry wrote. -- front roaw. >> the enough there have been

studies done on the impact of shooters -- do you know if there have been studies done on the impact of shooters? there were some concerns raised the there is an element of racism in this, but i have not been able to come across any academic studies were any credible information to suggest anything. >> i do not claim to be the expert. the fact that we have a member of the law faculty, the question might be directed best at the professor. i do think we had enough of basis of concern that there is tremendous -- there is a compelling state interest.

i would not suggest that every state has dealt with that as effectively as they cut. we're finding some states where the work of state legislators worked very imperfect. it is an important topic to move forward with. rather than get into the tragic circumstances that exist in any specific cases, as being a basis for throwing out an entire theory of law, i think we have to be very careful to tease out the issues and make sure we do not lose sight of the fundamentals because the tragic circumstances of been in specific cases. in the trayvon martin, i think we need to let the system work. we recognized that defense attorneys right to defense, a defense attorney is going to see europe stands -- standard ground

was going to be the basis for the defense claim. i would ask this audience on television and among us to tease out those issues and focus on the important constitutional mandate that we as the legislature have taken very seriously. >> sense it has been passed, as they study been done as to -- since it has been passed, has a steady been done -- how many have been exile reverses the when you has been charged with

first second-degree murder? >> we spoke in some detail before the session today. i do not know the answer. not to be dismissive of it. >> thank you for being here. was there a particular incident or issue that brought about the changes in florida in 2005 and georgia in 2007? or was it an issue that ended up coming up for no particular reason? >> i cannot speak to florida cases specifically. in georgia, there was a recognition that our statutes was vague with respect to what it meant to duty to retreat.

there was a policy question. does one endanger themselves if they are aggressively challenge with a deadly or serious force? does it in danger -- giving someone out of the public view in this attempt to retreat. is that something we should ask the citizens of georgia to do has a duty? we as a state, we believe there is a compelling state interest to providing clarity to the law and make public policy statement that very clearly a person should not have a duty to retreat. we also believe from a public policy perspective that one's

right to bear arms should not be constrained just within their homes. they're both public policy questions that were raised woman looked at the georgia law. -- that breeze, looked at the georgia law. [applause] >> thank you. professor, you have been printed out as the resident academic. i will start with you. we have a series of questions to each of our panelists and a provides an opportunity to answer the question and make some general opening remarks, four or five minutes or so.

let me ask you that in the supreme course that has been mentioned earlier, the case of held the castle doctrine. justice oliver wendell homes stated that "the pastor flexion cannot be demanded in the presence. this was a case in 1921. upheld the doctrine. given the origins of the standard ground lot under this doctrine, in what ways to have the expand -- >> justice homes caller: coming voices the intuition that lies behind a lot of the law. it is scary when someone pulls a

gun on you, pulls a knife minute. it is hard to imagine having rational thought about what you should be doing in the face up a gun being pointed at your face. i think parts of standard ground laws have drawn on that intuition. i also think that they do a lot more than not. they go beyond -- it is difficult when there is a gun in your face. i want to focus on florida. it was passed in 2005. in georgia, i will disagree a little bit. he is correct that there was nothing in the statute saying there was no duty -- duty to retreat in georgia before 2006.

since 1898, but there you are in your home there was no duty to retreat. my understanding is that the legislature wanted to make sure that ended up as part of the statute. there has not been a duty to retreat in georgia. florida, on the other hand, did have a duty to retreat. it required when people were not in their own homes, that if they were confronted with force, before they could use deadly force in response, they had a duty to try to -- if there was a reasonably available avenue of escape, to take that available avenue of escape. the stand your ground law, one of the things that i did was to get rid of that duty to retreat. no matter where you are, on the street, or out forever, there is

no longer a duty to retreat. in some ways, this provision comes closest to our intuition about self-defense and the panic that strikes when you have they done it raised in your face. most of those cases, a jury would say there is no reasonable avenue of retreat, particularly if it is a done with which the person is being attacked. most jurors understand that if a gun gets pointed at you, you may not feel that he did so reasonably safe to go running. i think the stand your ground

law did not change that much of what was already happening in the court system. there are places where that provision gives a little closer. for instance, a bar fight. you get a person who is worried about a person punching people and he could run away or he could pull out a gun and shoot a person. to the extent that the fist could be seen as a deadly weapon and risking serious bodily injury, at that point, the defendant is entitled to use deadly force. once you get rid of -- get rid of the duty of the retreat, he has no duty to do so and he can pull out his gun and shoot the

person died. that particular stand your ground provision is the one that comes closest to the justice's view. there are other provisions that i think move further away from that justification. there is another provision of florida's 2005 law that creates a presumption that a shooter has a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. if the victim was in the process of forcefully injuring a residence or the vehicle, in some of these cases, there is going to be a risk of imminent death or bodily injury. you could imagine the person upstairs in their home, they hear their door been knocked and, and they are scared, right?

they're always would have been a self-defense claim. no duty to retreat because the person is at home. i think, though, let's imagine you have somebody outside. neighborhood watch volunteer, a neighbor who happens to be looking across their porch, and they see somebody forcibly entering their neighbor's house. at that point, you would kind of hope this person would call 911, right? stand your ground law allows the person to do instead is to pull out their gun and shoot the person. that, i think, strays much

further from the intuition that it is hard to be rational when you were facing deadly force coming at you in the form of a gun or knife. i should also note that it is not just to stand your ground laws that have expanded self- defense and these kinds of ways, i think. there is always what has none at as a first aggressor's role. if you are the person initiating the force, you cannot shoot the person who punches back to you. in florida, at least as i read their statute, and this was before stand your ground that adopted time and the first aggressor does have the right to use the before us, even if they

initiated the altercation. the only exception, at least as i've read it, is they have a duty to retreat. you get back the duty to retreat, but only if he were the first aggressor. you started the fight. again, that moves us away from the person who was walking down the street, they get jumped, and a pullout a gun. because i think some of these provisions move away from that very strong underlying sense that we have these justified -- self-defense laws, it is for the having a conversation about whether these provisions makes sense. there has to be more than just we want to protect people who are in fear of their life. >> thank you. we're going to cycle back to each of the panelists.

these first questions are to provide you with a platform. you have been involved in a number of different high-profile civil-rights issues in the metropolitan area over the course of many years. the first time i met rabin hutchins, he was marching on my office as u.s. attorney. he was entirely civil about the whole matter and we ended up striking out a french ship. you have been very active endive with like to ask you what prompted you to file a lawsuit?

>> first of all, any time i am blessed to be in the company of richard deane, it is an honor. i want to express appreciation to sarah and matt for putting together these -- this conversation. let's give these organizations and hand for bringing us together. [applause] the thing that strikes me most in this hour is we are seeing are around the nation such an increase in high-profile violence and crime, whether it is 20 something kids killed. we are seemingly moving into a

place as a nation where we are just obsessed with violence and guns and one of the reason why we feel so strongly about these stand your ground laws is we are moving closer to a wild, wild west mentality where we are have a posture of shooting first and asking questions later. what the death of trayvon martin did for us as a nation, it exposed a flaw in our criminal justice system. there is much said, many of us watched george zimmerman speak for the first time as a result of this tragic situation.

he said, what ever it was it said, the stand your ground did not apply to george zimmerman. i heard lawmaker after lawmaker said, stand your ground did not apply. it was applied. the night trayvon martin he was killed, and that is why he was not arrested. the idea that it did not apply it, it is not truthful because it did apply. it was only after the tens of thousands of people cried out loud and marched in a way that was reminiscent of the 1960's that it was on applied. folks ought to know is that is what happened. the investigation had been closed. it was only after some of us demanded justice, was the

investigation opened. and then we sell the indictment and the of the ship -- the eventual arrest. what a massive outcry? why so many people around the country? i heard this in a number of conversations around the country with people asking me, why are african-americans so energized and so angry about this issue? so many mothers, like my mother, who has been a worker she saw me at 35 years old in trayvon martin. so many african-americans and other mothers saw their own children symbolized in trayvon martin. when the rally cry came, people responded because they saw some

of themselves and their own children in trayvon martin. why did i filed a lawsuit against the state of georgia? we called for a demonstration because we believe that george's stand your ground lot is is as bad public policy as the florida law. we organized 70,000 demonstrators in georgia, the majority of which were students, to come to the state capital. we marched to demonstrate. the next logical step in that pursuit was to file a legal challenge because we saw legal loopholes and the standard ground law. the reasonable person's standard is the logical --

illogical. we believe that is a place of on equal protection under the law. it is vague in its application. when the big issues that have with standard ground because of stand your ground, police officers who were trained in the use of firearms who should have more experience in judgment making and difficult decisions have a higher burden of proof because of stand your ground than do everyday ordinary serious -- citizens because they go through a great deal of scrutiny when they kill a person. because of that, i thought to myself, this has to be bad public policy.

if law enforcement officers have been more difficult time justifying their actions, we believed it was unconstitutional and believed it is unconstitutional because of vagueness. unlike the rest of these lawyers, i am not a lawyer, i am a minister first and an activist second. i believe as a person of faith, we're moving into a dangerous place as a nation when we as a matter of public policy discourage or fail to encourage the presentation of life. i believe we are moving into a dangerous place as the society when we as a matter of public policy put laws on the books that say to everyday ordinary

citizens that the preservation of life should not even factored into one's decision. i grew up in the south. i own a gun. i dare want to try to come into my home, but when i am in the street, i am going to do everything i can to preserve life. because stand your ground is and hypothetical to that basic truth, we believe is only in the best interest of all americans to deal with these laws. >> thank you, reverend. mr. monroe, i would like to turn to you. it is the most influential

organization at the state capital. why has the georgia carry chosen to intervene in the reverence lawsuit? why do you think stand your ground laws make us safer? >> we did not exist at the time the law was being debated. we did not have much influence. in retrospect, i expect we would have supported it. i do not think it would have been high priority agenda item. as the professor mentioned, it was started the law in georgia. -- it was already the law in georgia. i have the case where the court says one may use whatever force

is necessary to protect themselves from make felonious assault. that has always been a lot in georgia. -- the law in georgia. there was never a case that said anything different. in fact, that has been the common law of this country for nearly 500 years. when henry passed the statute legalizing shooting thieves, without regard to fear for life, a subject who did that was during the king's work. he was justified in doing the killing in the first place. that is nothing new. as for why we intervened in the case, whenever there is a

subject been publicly debated that impinges on the purpose of the organization of the rights of its members, we get involved. if there were a statute or a bill introduced in the general assembly that would, for example, suggest repealing the stand your ground law, we would get involved in that. it is only natural that we would have gotten involved in that. of course, we disagree with several of the major premises of a lawsuit. i have the complaint here. for example, staff to torelli remove the duty to retreat -- statutorily removes the duty to

retreat. prior to 2006, georgia law did not impose the duty to retreat on victims of attack, which was true. the bottom line is we got involved because it was important. the case is important to the members of georgia carry. and we want to keep the rights of the members to keep and bear arms and use them, if necessary, to the extent that we can. as to whether stand your ground laws are important or deter crime, i do not know -- i am not a criminologist. i do not know to what did sense -- extent they deter crime, but they do give people the means to protect themselves.

if people otherwise have duties to retreat, that might give someone pause before they do anything and cause them to be a victim of the more serious crime. comparing that to trayvon martin case, i disagree with the reverend hutchins. i do not believe that case is about stand your ground. i was not there. if you believe that george versions of the facts, she was lying on his back. his head was being bashed against the sidewalk. there is no opportunity to retreat there. if you believe the martin family version george zimmerman shot him in cold blood, there is no duty to retreat there either.

either way, there is no duty to retreat. >> and you have mentioned the provisions of the statute in florida. we have just heard his view of the world is that he does not believe there is an application of the law within the context of what we believe we know about the trayvon martin shooting. if george zimmerman was the initiator of whatever the contact was between them, what he have the protection -- would he have the protection of the stand your ground law? >> assuming that george zimmerman initiated contact, as

i read for the's first aggressor law, because if you believe george zimmerman's version of it, he does not have an avenue of retreat, even though he was the first aggressor, he would be entitled to use deadly force. there is one other potential exception, if george zimmerman was engaged in felonious conduct.

i do think he could claim some sort of self-defense for that first punch as well. that is one way in which the law could be implicated. >> i want to get a piece of this, as you can imagine. the first thing is that mr. morales and i agree on one thing and stand your ground should not have been applied to george zimmerman. but it was applied right there on the scene and that is why he was not arrested that night. that is the reason why it had to change. law enforcement officers on the street should not -- who do not have law degrees, they should

not be making judgments on the street. those should only be made by prosecutors, judges, and juries. the fact that he was not arrested that night because of stand your ground said that it was applied and now the question is, willie florida jury unapply that which was applied that night? the lawsuit, what we challenge as a matter of law is the notion which did exist -- let me say this. in the proper context, what we say is that 396 removed the duty to retreat when one is not in his or her home. we're not suggesting, by any

stretch of the imagination, that stand your ground existed or no duty to retreat existed inside one's home. there was a certain duty to escape from committing a crime of harming someone or defending yourself by using deadly force. if we're going to have a conversation about whether or not stand your ground is appropriate, whether we like it or not, stand your ground was applied that night to george zimmerman. >> let me get back to the point you are making. another provision of this statute, and we touched on it and number of times, but to get to the point of what the rev. is pointing out, under the florida statute, any person who claims

they are acting in self-defense is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action. the police may not arrest a person for using force unless they determined there was probable cause that the force was used and was unlawful. is that an unusual provision under these statutes? it is not just a defense. >> that is exactly right. a number of jurisdictions have passed the immunity of language. georgette has that same -- georgia has that same community language betrayed because self- defense gets transferred from being an affirmative the event into being an immunity from prosecution some courts have said that all along the way, all along that criminal prosecution wrapped, starting with the police, prosecutor, and then the

judge, at every point, everybody is supposed to be making sure that the use of force by the defendant was on lawful and did not fall within the stand your ground or self-defense. for instance, in florida, not only did the police have an obligation to assess the strength of george zimmerman's self-defense claim, if his lawyer asks the judge for a pretrial hearing, the judge has to decide whether the use of force by george zimmerman was unlawful or not or whether it was self-defense. usually, that goes to the jury if there is a dispute. because of the way these laws are structured, it gets

revisited call lot more times along the way. -- revisited a lot more times along the way. you have the police trying to make these determinations as to whether this was all muffled force or not. >> professor, i want to direct this to you. one of the things that is different about the florida statute that in georgia, fortunately, is the florida statute goes a step beyond community. if, in fact, one is charged with a crime that should have been covered understand your ground, they have certain civil possibilities in terms of being able to sue law enforcement, prosecutors, and the like. are you familiar with that? >> i am not quite as familiar with that. my reading of some of the civil action provision is that what

they primarily relate to come to forgive me if i'm wrong on this, what they protect is george zimmerman from a civil lawsuit been brought by the family of trayvon martin to the extent that he prevails on the stand your ground claim. even though there is a different standard of proof in civil action, if he prevails in the criminal case, at that point, there would be no civil action against them -- him by the ma rtins. >> >> is there any justification under the "stand your ground" law of focusing on florida, barring prosecution or

eliminating civil liability? why is it not sufficient for a person to use "stand your ground" as an ordinary defense to criminal prosecution? >> a first of all, i am not as familiar with the georgia law. there is a criminal and civil community provision in georgia's law which existed prior to the 2006 bill. they were there before. the idea is if you were justified, which is different from being excused, if you are justified in doing what you did, you should not have to go to the expense, the emotional trauma, perhaps the incarceration while waiting for trial of having a trial when you were justified in what you did in the first place. the idea behind the immunity statute is to give you the

protection that professor hasimoto was describing where you can bring a motion to claim.ismiss the you are entitled to a hearing long before you get to trial. you can testify as to the fact pertaining to your use of the defense and your testimony is in while subjects to cross- examination is not subject to being used against you at your trial if you are eventually tried. the idea is to get a judicial determination of whether or not your actions were justified. >> i would like to turn to you because you have talked about the "stand your ground" being bad public policy. in 2010, john loch published the third edition of his study.

he determined that in states where "stand your ground" laws have been passed, murder rates have declined by 9% and the violent crime rates have declined by 11%. in florida, the sponsor of that stake "stand your ground" law claims the crime rates in florida dropped significantly in 2005e bill's passage until today. in line with these findings, is it not correct to conclude that the "stand your ground" laws reduce crime and save lives when it is being applied by prosecutors -- not by prosecutors but prosecutors have to contend with that in their various states? >> there are two responses. one is that there is the presumption is that the end justifies the means. that is number one. secondly, i do not know, i have not studied or read that study. i am not sure i would agree with it. in my lawsuit we cite a

different study that says the opposite and that is the states that have "stand your ground" laws have not seen significant reduction in violent crimes. the overall issue is this something are related to earlier, referred to earlier, and that is we are living in a time where people seem to in some way believe that the way to protect ourselves, the way to become more save society is to arm everyone with not only the physical but also the legal ability to use a deadly force. one of the things that was encouraging to me, with no georgia,ect to when i filed a lawsuit challenging georgia's "stand your ground," and by the way my attorney is here. he is a candidate for office in

georgia. the thing that was most encouraging is that not one crime organization challenged our lawsuit. not one anti-violence, not one domestic violence prevention organization, and there are some great ones in georgia and across the nation, none of them challenged the basis for which we filed the lawsuit against the state of georgia's "stand your ground." it was only the pro-gun lobby. that says that those who are practitioners in these anti- crime, anti-violent movements do not believe that "stand your ground" is good public policy. >> for the record, george carey is anti-crime. >> i imagine it would be hard to be otherwise. >> you think. >> turning to you, a 2010 national district attorneys

symposium noted concerns that "stand your ground" laws have been used by criminals as a defense to their crimes and result in a misinterpretation of clues that could result in the use of deadly force by an individual and that individual was not in fact in danger. in florida, when the "stand your ground" law was being considered, the miami to the police stated -- whether it is trick or treat or kids playing in the yard or someone who does not want to be some drunk guy struggling into the wrong house you are encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical ld not ben-issued it shouuld n t used." what is the present opportunity for individuals to manipulate the criminal justice system by making use of this purported defense? >> i do not think it is true that that laws such as that

encourage people to use deadly force when it otherwise should not be used, because the premise of start-up laws or the common law and the absence of such statutes is to ensure that people can use it if it ought to be used. as to the subject of criminal defendants ms. using it as a defense or manipulating the system, i think the bottom line is criminal defense will use of whatever defenses appear to be viable in the defense and that includes not just "stand your ground" laws but any defenses that might be available. i do not think that is unique to any particular kind of defense. >> professor, there was mention made earlier of various studies. are you aware of any studies that definitively speak to the kind of issues we have been talking about as to whether reverend hutchins says that he

has mention of a study in his lawsuit that says the opposite of what i was pointing out. >> i think it would be difficult to draw causal connection between the passage of a "stand your ground" law or the elimination of a duty to retreat and violent crime rates. there are so many things that affect violent crime rates. and we have nationwide then seen a drop in violent crime rates and generally speaking. there are all kinds of things that could be contributing to those falling crime rates. it would be difficult, particularly given that these laws are not -- they're not used that often. until trayvon martin was killed,

i imagine that most people even in jurisdictions that have "stand your ground" laws, of a lot of people did not know about them. i would be somewhat skeptical of a study that could say definitively there is a causal connection between the passage of a "stand your ground" law and a drop in violent crime rates. >> reverend, do you have a comment? >> i think what professor says -- hashimoto, i'm sorry -- is something that i say to people all the time. you can make a study or a poll say ever is you wanted to say. if you polled my family are did a study of my family, they would tell you that i am the best looking thing since sliced bread. i happen to agree. i think we should deal with this. there is a partisan aspect as well as a racial aspect to these

"stand your ground" laws. if you look around the country at these states that pass "stand your ground" laws following florida and texas, almost all of them are red states. there is a reason why even in those red states like florida where there are a number of well-known and well-respected republican police chiefs, not once in a police chief and florida or 1 cent a police chief and georgia supported the passage of these start"stand yor ground" laws. these are the persons with the most responsible for the provision of law and order and municipalities across the nation. because the police chief to not support these laws, it should cause them to look at it. finally, i want to deal with this issue of the racial element of this because that is something we have not talked about in this conversation.

i know we are drawn to a close. one of the reasons why -- one of the bases upon which we filed our lawsuit is that courts around the country have held that race can be used as a measure of one's f voteear. what is reasonable to a 90-year- old jewish woman in south carolina may not necessarily be reasonable to a 17-year-old african american male in southwest atlanta. because what is reasonable to that elderly jewish woman may not necessarily be reasonable to that young african-american man, and because the law is so vague with regard to what is reasonable. the georgia statute gives no definition at all to what exactly is reasonable fear and leaves its objective.

it creates an unfair and unbalanced protection on the law. when believe because of that, there a certain racial element. when there is such vagueness in the law, historically, we see that african-americans and minorities get the short end of the stick. ed said in his opening speech that we need to let the system work. we tried that. the night trayvon martin was killed we tried it to let the system work. the system let george zimmerman go. it is only one we did what we had to do so many times over the last 100 years, when we cry out loud and said no justice, no peace, and marched in the streets did the system work. it only works because we made it work. the idea that those of us in the african-american community should remain idle and passively let the system work is just not

a reality for us because we know historically, and even to this day, it works when we make it work. >> on that point you made earlier and that is that we are drawn to a close, we wanted to make sure there was an opportunity for audience participation and any questions you might have. before we run out of time, we would like to offer the audience the opportunity to ask our panelists questions. yes, please? >> professor, if reverend hutchins it did get what he was asking for, it would not change anything since the law existed before hand. am i misunderstanding? if that 2006 law got repealed, it would not have any bearing on anything? >> i think that is right. assuming that it is just challenging the absence of the duty to retreat part of the "stand your ground" law.

because georgia case law has been clear there has not been a duty to retreat since 1898. >> i want to make a comment. i agree with everything that reverend hutchinson said. and being a mother who has lost a son that was murdered and the young man that murdered my son received a 30-year sentence. with the "stand your ground" law, it does need to be revisited, or amendment or done away with because when you really look at the perpetrators who are committing these crimes, they can use that. if you do not do something about it, there is going to be a vigilante-type crime in the community, where they feel they can take a lot into their own hands. and who suffers? the community suffers. so you have to include race in

this. and that is something nobody wants to discuss. >> this gentleman, please, and then you, ma'am? >> my question to the panel would be, the way the law is structured with that are reasonable standard as far as the invocation of "stand your ground" with there be any harm in recrafting the law that sets out criteria were it should apply? if the other person produces a weapon or if you are or any other criteria for when it should apply instead of applying the vague and broad reasonable person standard? >> let me try to answer that.

thank you very much. in reference to your question, ma'am, what my lawsuit does is exactly what robert alluded to, what is a misnomer and amiss definition of what my law seeks. we do not seek to do away with it as the premise of our lawsuit. we seek to provide some reasonable and legal language and parameters for that which is "reasonable." . if our lawsuit is successful, we believe there will come forth a law that protects people's right to defend themselves without presenting this on reasonable "reasonable fear"language and defense. >> do you have comments? >> the fact that you described their reasonable standard as on reasonable is itself a judgment call you are making. the reasonable man standard is

something that exists there out the law. we use it in torts and in other areas. to suggest the topic or the notion of are reasonable man is unconstitutionally vague as to condemn the entire legal structure that we have today. just as the lawsuit seeks to declare the common law to be unconstitutional when the common law is the basis for the constitution. it is a circular argument that will not go anywhere. >> yes, ma'am. >> i have a question for reverend hutchins. without taking sides, under the reasonable standard, which is used fairly often in civil- rights cases, it is not an objective. it should be an objective standard as opposed to subject it. how would you like to see it? >> i think that, first of all, i

think that certain situations would give us an opportunity like what happened in florida to provide some definition to what is reasonable. what is on reasonable as when a person like trayvon martin is walking through a neighborhood and is pursued by george zimmerman. we know or at least we believe that is entirely on risible, and yet, and the situation in florida, the "reasonable standard" could apply. what i think needs to happen is there needs to be some of proper parameters put arouand the language, some definition given to what situations ought to be quantified under these "stand your ground" laws. in a nutshell.

i want to relate back to a point mr. monroe raised. the notion that we are in some way challenging all common law if flatly ridiculous. we are talking about a specific set of circumstances, a specific public policy. and how it leads or had led to the loss of life. that is the basis upon which we are challenging this law. none the notion that we do not have the ability as people to make reasonable and sound judgment calls. it is based on this particular statute. >> yes, ma'am? in the back here, please. >> i would like to ask mr. munro of question. i would be curious to hear how you believe race does apply or has an impact in the application

of the general "stand your ground" statute. so one, to you think it has an impact, race? assuming you do, how do you deal with that in interpreting these reasonable man standards which is due out the law? >> i guess i do not agree with the premise. i did not know why race would have anything to do with it. either a person is justified in using force or he is not. race does not enter into it. i do not know that there is not a disparate impact on rates because of the application of the law. i do not think the law itself is concerned with color when it comes to application. >> let me follow-up on that. i think the senator started off with a hypothetical.

slight go back to the fligh woman who is walking down the street and is a white woman and is approached by a group of young black men who walk up san on say something that is toward and should not have been said, and her reasonable -- i am not familiar with the language of the law -- but her, the standard for her as a reasonable person or if you take that same situation and you have another down, black man walking down the street and his approach to the same way. if you are applying the same law and the reasonable person standard, the thing she would get the same result in each situation? >> that is what the end of my comment was. i do not know if there has been at disparate impact. but i do not think the law draws

a distinction in the two situation to are describing. if the young woman is surrounded by several black men or several white man does not make a difference. either the circumstances were justified her use of force or they did not. and i do not think the race of either of the putitive victims or aggressors has anything to do with it. >> over here, sir. >> i have a question. do you believe that --provision requires a police officer to perform a different function? if so, why do you believe that? [inaudible] >> no, i do not think it imposes any additional duty on a police officer.

the same standard applies if the police officer has probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime and he can make an arrest. if he does not have probable cause, he cannot make an arrest. that standard has not changed. the potential for a civil rights action against the police officer for arresting somebody who it turns out was immune from prosecution is not heightened. the same standard is still going to apply in the attempted to sue the officer for wrongful arrest. probable cause standard is the standard. under qualified immunity principles and the civil-rights action against a police officer, it is not probable cause. it is arguable probable cause. the standard is low. immunity from prosecution. there is no immunity from arrest. >> professor, do agree with that assessment of the statute? >> it's true to say in the

general the police have to have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the person committed before the person can be arrested. the gray area is whether, assuming that the defendant asserts some sort of an affirmative defense, whether the police then have to have probable cause to believe that the defense does not apply. i think that is a little bit of a gray area. and that is what the laws made clear with respect to "stand your ground", and that the police have to have probable cause to believe that the use of force by the defendant was on lawful. that is that self defense does not apply. be a change. >> you, ma'am? >> there is a citizens task

force and florida. there have been two hearings. they have been pretty interesting because the audiences seem to be fairly representative of independent grass-roots action. there does not seem to be a lot of artificial audience of building. a couple of things have been interesting. one in particular is that folks across the races have expressed support for people to be able to carry guns in this country and have guns and use guns, but people are very confused with the the number of "stand your ground" laws and what it all means. i have been looking at the 26 states that have start-up laws, some of them are incredibly complex. you can use it here and maybe you can use it there or there. then it it kind of gets distilled into "stand your ground,"which people can

interpret any way they want to. i am just curious about whether, why did we need in georgia to change georgia's law, to do anything different other than what had been done in the last 100 years? perhaps we need to think about going back to that language versus a continuing to spread this out. i look at the georgia code and it is on 10-12 pages. this page has exemptions. i am not a lawyer but if i were carrying a gun, i am not sure if i can shoot somebody or could not. but i do think there is tremendous confusion about that. people sincerely have come to the task force to say, what does it all mean? >> i cannot agree with you more. i think we had in georgia pre- 2006 was more than sufficient.

those that disagree is the pro- gun lobby who wanted to have this legislation passed in multiple states like texas, and florida and georgia. this was nra, pro-gun lobby legislation. one of the thing you raise is that people in the african american community and in all communities basically agree that we ought to be able to protect ourselves and our homes, but this idea that some seem to have that well, there is nothing wrong with the law itself. there may be some problems with how the law is applied. there may be some racial disparity with how it is applied. if there is racial injustice and how the law is applied, then there is a problem with the law itself. how can you separate the application of the law from the law itself? which is where i think mr. munroe and i disagree.

that is the basis for our lawsuit. if you look at the application of the stand your ground laws, in high-profile cases, african-americans and minorities get the short end of the stick. for anybody to suggest otherwise is not living in the world that we live in. >> that might be. the speeding law is applied desperately against blacks but that does not mean we should repeal the speeding law. should change how we are applying the law. >> we should put some parameters about how the law is applied. i hope our legislation will do just apple. >> this gentleman here. >> first, a quick comment. mr. munro makes a good point. just because a lot is misapplied does not necessarily mean that there is a problem with the law. if it is misapplied because

there is ambiguous language, then yes, there could be a problem with the law. but there may not be vague language and somebody might be choosing to apply the law poorly. who knows? there could be different reasons. the question is, enough trayvon martin case, reverend, i appreciate what you were saying about the factor that it was applied by the police. i was not aware of the immunity provision and how that was involved. so i'm glad that case has race discussions about the "stand your ground" law. now that he has been arrested and charged with the crime and has said that hewas pinned to the ground and this was the only way to defend himself and there was obviously no outlet of escape, if you believe that, is the "stand your ground" now

implicated now that that is the defense? >> as opposed to like a regular self-defense? >> i think the immunity provision is separate from the "stand your ground" law. the no duty to retreat harvest is still implicated, because until the law go passed, a defendant who wanted to raise an affirmative defense would do so at trial. or if the government concluded they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was not acting in self-defense, they would dismiss the case. now because of the "stand your ground" law, and this is what commentators have been talking about, you get a chance if you are the defendant to put this on before a judge and have the judge make a determination as to whether by a preponderant of the

evidence the defendant was acting in self-defense. if the judge concludes, based on a disputed backshore record or whatever, -- a disputed factural record, the case is dismissed. that is one of the big ways in which it could still be implicated in the trayvon martin case. >> the other point is on the comparison with the speeding laws, what is a reasonable speed to travel is not what the laws is in georgia. if there was a definition, like 55 or 75 miles per hour, if it's a speeding law. with regard to the "stand your ground" law, if it had that kind of subjective language, then we may not be having this

conversation because george zimmerman would of been arrested that night. >> and georgia has something on the order of traveling and an unreasonable speed, something on that order. driving too fast for conditions. >> you get my point. >> one more, please. >> professor, is there a review of the judge's decision you just described? >> i think there is a provision for appeal. i am not entirely certain about that, but i think there could be one more court that would look at it. >> jeopardy has not attached so the state can appeal if immunity is granted. >> [inaudible] >> they do not have the opportunity on the finding of more evidence to come back and

look at the case again. that is coming from prosecutors in florida when they are testifying before the task force. >> thank you, all, for your audience participation. we are drawing to an end. >> [inaudible] >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to as a public service by your television provider. in a few moments, the u.s. conference of mayors talks about how to combat gun violence in cities. in an hour and a half, mitt romney campaigns in ioaw. and president obama campaigns in colorado. after that, we will re-air the form on so-called "stand your ground" laws.

when the u.s. conference of mayors met in orlando in june, they talked about how to combat gun violence in cities by treating it as a public health issue. if this 90 minute discussion is led by philadelphia mayor michael nutter. >> good morning, everyone. we apologize for being a little behind. i think the one thing we know, especially given the subject matter here this morning and with the anticipation of a special guest that everyone here is safe, secure, and nonviolent in their behavior. we are here this morning to

discuss, this is a forum on effective approaches to reducing violence in our cities all across america. we have a great panel. be introducing the members shortly. but this particular panel discussion is about discussing the unique and effective ways of addressing what i personally believe is one of the most serious problems facing the cities all across the united states of america, and that of course is, unfortunately, the issue of violence. many of you already know that reducing violence is a top priority for me personally. i will be talking a little bit more about that tomorrow. but as mayor of philadelphia and the vice president of the u.s. conference of mayors, i had a focus on the issue of violence in my city and cities all across the united states.

giving you a picture of the country. in 2010, there were 13,000 murder victims across the united states of america. on average, each day, 16 young people between the ages of 10-24 are murdered. 86% of them are male african-americans account for 50% in total homicide victims and 85% of those becomes are black men. of the offenders caught committing the murders, 16% are black men under the age of 24. it is clear that, unfortunately, we are watching an entire generation of african-american men falling behind. watching the next generation of our children growing up without fathers, and uncles, and mail

positive role models. watching our communities crumbled house under the weight of incarceration, drugs, illiteracy and most of all, violence. we are watching, but of course, many are asking the question, what are we doing? at the national level in addition to my work at the u.s. conference of mayors i have been working with mayor land rieu to establish cities united. this is a diverse coalition of mayors working in partnership with a variety of stakeholder organizations to reduce violent deaths among black men and boys. i want to encourage all of our mayors across the u.s. conference of mayors. i will be talking about this tomorrow. to join us in this effort. i will be speaking about what cities united is trying to do

and what we expect to do in the weeks and years to come. in several cities, officials are implementing what is often referred to as the cease fire model. and that is what we are going to discuss. cease fire provides an interdisciplinary public health approach to preventing violence. this began in chicago. is being implemented in several other cities including baltimore, new orleans, and philadelphia. it has been the subject of a rigorous evaluation. it has been demonstrated to show that it is working. in philadelphia, cease fire is one of our tools and a strategy to reduce a violent. working with local partners like temple university, we applied for federal grant to expand our model to enhance our strategy. we are very grateful to robert wood johnson foundation for sponsoring this forum, making it possible for mayors across the country to learn about cease fire. we want all of you to be able to

go home with this information. again about cease fire and how it works in a number of cities across america. the conference of mayors looks forward to continuing the work with the robert wood johnson foundation to provide information to mayors and others on this issue and other issues affecting our city's most vulnerable residents. let me talk about our panelists. we are pleased to have with us cease fire's fire and executive director. work inary's pioneering chicago which led to the application of public health principles, treating violent as an infectious disease to reduce shootings and killings. a a physician and epidemiologist, gary is a professor at international health at the university of illinois. he'll describe the cease fire model for us. we will hear from baltimore's

mayor. this city has the longest running replication of the cease fire model. mayor rawlings-blake serves as the vice chair for gangs and its development in our criminal and social justice committee. following here will be jennifer whitehill at the university of washington and has remained an affiliation with the johns hopkins school of public health , where she participated in the evaluation of' s cease fire replication. -- evaluation of baltimore's cease fire application. then we will hear from mitch landrieu. fresno mayor will provide the perspective of a mayor who has not yet implemented this model. she will discuss cease fire's

representative ability. -- replicability. who wrote these remarks? it is not something i usually say in philadelphia. how her efforts are already under way in her city to reduce violence. finally, jane love, team director of the of all mobile populations portfolio of the robert woods johnson foundation. she will discuss the information to provide information to mayors and city is about cease fire and efforts to assist them. we've asked each of our panelists to be brief. that always happens at the u.s. conference of mayors. and annie paddle i have been on, i have ignored that -- on any panel i've been on, i have ignored the request. we want to leave a good amount of time for "q&a" at the end. therefore, you are up. >> thank you very much.

good morning, everybody. how is everyone? thank you for coming. i'm going to talk today about cease fire health model, the public health model, the theory behind it, how it works. the results we have been getting and also the way ahead. the way i like to start is by thinking about this problem in the context of other problems you have in the history of man that obstructed our progress. this is a painting of plague. we now know it was an infectious disease that centuries ago we were stuck with the situation where people were dying in neighborhoods, people did not want to go into those neighborhoods, and people themselves were blamed. and we frequently had solutions such as this -- a dungeon.

the reason we went dissolutions like this is because we did not know what was going on there were invisible process is going on it for which we have not scientifically not gotten there yet to figure it out. in this case, it was a microorganism inside a flea inside a rate. who knew? i sensed it with respect to this problem of violence that we are now just beginning to understand the invisible brain process these that are going on underneath us that allow us now to move on to a better scientific positioning for developing a more scientific approach to the possibility of putting this problem behind us. in the absence of that, we are still working with the same type of solutions. however, if we begin to look at this in a scientific way, in this city we begin to look at these maps and say, wait a

second. here we see geographic clustering. this is absolutely typical of epidemic processes. we look atse if graphs, we see curvilinear waves typical of infectious or epidemic processes. one of the reasons why criminologists and economists have difficulty saying violence when upper down because of this or that is because they are looking for a linear responses when this is a more a transmissible type of process. then we all know that violence begets violence but what does that mean? what it means is that there is transmitsiblity. that being exposed to violence as a young person and as a victim or even observing it, you are more likely then to do violence. not everything is transmissible.

colds lead to colds. flu leads to flu. but diabetes does not lead to more diabetes. being exposed to someone with a stroke does not lead to you having a stroke. this is a transmissible, infectious process. if we proceed and think about this now, think about violence as a scientific issue, in order to develop a scientific approach. we would not only look at its epidemiology but behavior. violence is a behavior, right? what else could it be? we would then be wondering, where did behavior's come from? where do babies come from? -- do behaviors come from. the majority of behavior is are modeled. what is going on in the brain is r neuronous, miorrrro

circuits. what keeps behavior is in place is what we think other people think, what we call social expectation. these kids may not have thought about it but they know it is expected of them to fight. just as it is expected tof me this.r there are social expectations of others and there are scientific pathways in the brain, dopamine pathways that are as powerful as being used for food and sex are also being used for social belonging. isolation shows up as pain. then we have this escalation capability of violence which has to do with dis regulation of the limbic system and hyper vigilance. what you put it -- if you put this together, what you get is

infectibility of behavior. there is good news because we know how to reverse epidemic. there are only three things you need to do. one, and truck transmission. secondly, find who is likely to transmit, and provide behavior change. and shift the underlying norms. this is how world health reverses epidemics, especially contagious epidemics. to interrupt transmission you need to find somebody who can interrupt the process. we use of violence interrupters for this stage of the system. the second is you have to find who else is a like a person to do of violence, which we can do it in the neighborhood to certain characteristics, and apply some behavior change to professional standards with them and cool them down so they are

less likely to transmit. last, work on the underlying social norms that drive the thing, and it becomes less acceptable. this is what it looks like on the street. the cease fire health method. interruption has two steps -- detection from sources of information in the community, sources of information elsewhere, including in a hospital. they are trained in how to persuade an interrupt. changing the thinking of -- is the job of outreach workers. and then changing the underlying norm through a number of methods that community managers put into place, including responses to every shooting, using multiple messages, the clergy, a public education campaign. if you put this into place, in this community, shootings over

time, easy or rapid reduction. then when the program got doubled, further drops and interrupters added. this is a community that went from 30 killings to three. we have one from 40 to 6. these are the first six communities that use this, average 45% drop. 8 more communities, 3 sets of controls. before and after hot spot mapping. shooting densities, before and after. this is a a set of four studies the department of justice provided. these are not one-year results. this is independent evaluation, independently funded, department of justice studies. gang network analysis. five of eight neighborhoods had

100% reduction. the baltimore work will be described. and beside the results, there was a relationship between the interruptions and homicide reductions. this is the program that was in the film "the interrup ters." is there contagion, is urban violence of virus? the world addition of the economists call this approach that will come to prominence. at the institute of medicine, were reviewed the literature and the research confirming the theoretical basis of this work that it is contagious. we are now working in about 15 cities across the country, including some of these on the panel. we are working in five other countries because the state department and pentagon and others are interested in this, in particular in latin america

and elsewhere. this is a scientific approach. it comes at this problem from a different angle. law enforcement does what it does, and this comes at a different angle. it performs behavior change and it is validated not only by research but by very detailed independent studies. it allows us to begin to think about this problem differently than bad people and punishment. this is intentionally in medieval script. a new way of thinking about this as acquired behavior, but we need to do a different set of actions. the damage is a safer neighborhood, using an effective approach, adding to law enforcement. i want to highlight changing the norm, is the long-term solution we want in our neighborhoods. these are our challenges. the biggest challenge is sticking with fidelity to the model. if you do the model the way it is, it works.

if you are doing something else or saying you are, the block. we can help in these ways. cain cand candace help we can help with your city is the right place. on changing norms, the hospital intervention which i did not have time to talk about and educating or training on the approach. so these are our contact information. you have information at your seats. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, very much. we're not going to hear from mayor stephanie rawlings- blake. >> thank you. i want to thank you for convening this forum on a

critical atomic. topic. after hearing the doctor, i wanted to go into question and answers, but let's go ahead. we implemented "safe streets" back in 2007. safe streetes baltimore is overseen by the city's health department and implemented by a community-based organization and a police post with a high level of violence. healtole of the department in combating aids or heart disease or cancer is identified and given to us, work with the community to implement them, and monitor the effectiveness. the city's of department has adopted the same approach to combat violence by greeting office of youth violence prevention under the safe street baltimores program.

the health department is responsible for managing a site selection process as well as providing technical assistance and intense monitoring to ensure the adherents to the cease fire model. the health department implements a public education campaign and develops plans for expansion as well as sustainability. the program currently operates in two of the most violent neighborhoods with two additional neighborhoods to be launched over this next year. eligible areas are predominantly in the top 25% of communities statistical areas with the highest rates of violence and employment and organizations have a history of proven success with the targeted areas. when funding becomes available, committee-based organizations within the areas are encouraged to apply through an rfp process. critical for new sites vote -- criteria for site selections include, a demonstrated understanding of the cease fire

chicago model, the organizations capacity to implement the program, reputation and credibility within the target area, and experience providing services to the targeted population. since dr. whitehill will present on the findings, i will not go into specifics. i would like to discuss what we believe a tribute to our successful results. first off, as any evidence-base program, it is essential the program is implemented to the model. and my following year notes? having staff separate from the site level individuals to monitor model a year and has been critical to our success. we piloted an adaptation with -- to an adjacent police force. once we determined the model was

not as effective, we reverted to the standard model. second, the evaluation identified that conflict mediation was key to the reduction in violent incidents. it had 3 times as many conflict mediation per month. having the right outreach staff with the right skills is the most critical element to conducting conflict mediation, and it is essential to the initiative. finally, as i know this is a challenging time when it comes to funding, i will share cost information related to the program. baltimore has the distinction of operating the longest-running cease fire replication. since the program's inception and we have never needed to spend -- suspend operations because of lack of funding. we attribute the success of that

to being house with in a city agency that has the capacity to obtain funding from abroad range of sources, federal and state grants, as well as foundations and individual donations. and the help of dr. slotkine. the costs of implementing the program is approximately $500,000 per site. it pales in comparison to the cost of financial and emotional of us shooting incident. the cease fire model has saved many lives in baltimore. last year, we were down to the lowest homicide rate since 1977. i am pleased with the results and hope to be able to spread in more areas. thank you. >> thank you, mayor. [applause] ms. whitehill, you're next. >> i would not be researcher if i could not get my power point

slides up there. i'm jennifer whitehill. can you hear me ok? i'm here on behalf of my colleagues at johns hopkins. we completed the independent scientific evaluation of baltimore's safe streets program. what we found in a nutshell is that it had great success in reducing serious violence in the neighborhoods where it was implemented with the most fidelity to the cease fire model. our study focused on the four neighborhoods where the program operated between 2007-2010. these neighborhoods are in green. the first site was in -- park. later that east baltimore site

was expanded to two neighborhoods. there was another site in south baltimore in a neighborhood called cherry hill. the yellow areas are the other neighborhoods that are in the top 25% for homicide and shootings. that is what we use for the comparison group. we looked at the neighborhoods that bordered the safe streets and neighborhoods to see if there was a spillover and those results to neighboring areas. the sec in blue. -- those you see in blue. we obtained data from the baltimore city police department. we measured changes in homicide and a non fatal shootings in the time before and after the program was implemented. we compared that difference to the same time period in a similar high violence neighborhoods and we made the same comparison for border neighborhoods. we want to be sure the result could be exhibited to the

program and not something else. we control for the baseline level of violence in the permits, seasonal variations, a drug arrest, weapon arrest and special policing activities that were focused on reducing violent crime. this table shows to what we found in terms of the percentage changes relative to the comparison a but. the asterisks indicate the results that were significant. the clearest results were in cherry hill. after the program was implemented, then neighborhood have that 56% decrease in homicide and a 34% decrease in nine fatal -- nonfatal shootings. things are complicated in east baltimore. the three sides shared a management team, and by the time the program got going in madison east end, in that neighborhood

it happened that a long-running gang feud erupted in that same month. that wassome of the staff resoum the park were directed away towards that situation in madison east end. but we did find the park had a 53% reduction in homicide during the month when the staff was occupied in another area. we did not see a reduction in homicides but a 34% reduction in non fatal shooting. while those results with the primary outcome for an evaluation, we wanted to see at the program did anything to change the social norms about using gun violence to settle a dispute. that is the theory behind this program. we undertook an anonymous street survey of young men in the

park, a dented the 18-24 age group and a similar neighborhood that did not get the program. on our survey, the young men indicated how likely they would be to use a gun in different scenarios that are considered, and sparks for gun incident. in mceldery, the young men were likely to express little or nor -- or no support. be found this model can be replicated affectively and can lead to impress the reductions in shootings. it is important model be implemented with high fidelity. there is evidence to support the fact that cease fire changes social mores about violence. that is assured a violation. i am happy to take any questions later. -- that is the short and sweet of it. i am happy to take any questions later. [laughter]

-- [applause] >> thank you. jackie speier leadership on this issue. i enjoy working with you on the city's united. we tend to get into these meetings in language gets a antiseptic. i will change that. i will walk you through some national statistics. 13,000 people were killed on the streets of america last year. let's stop on that for a second. 13,000 people were killed on the streets of america last year. what you have to compare that to determine whether or not that is okay. how many people were killed in the first or second iraq war or in afghanistan? 13,000 people every year for the last 10 years dwarfs that number. we spent $1 trillion prosecuting

those wars but the amount of money be spent on protecting american citizens on the streets of america is the minimus in comparison. of those 13,000 people killed on the streets, 50% of them were young african-american men between 16 and 24. the african-american population is around 12%. run those numbers in your head and ask yourself what it means. young black men are being slaughtered on the streets of america. that is what that means. some people will think that is a little too harsh so let me prove my point to you. my city, new orleans, has about 360,000 people. we had 199 murders last year. which puts our per capita murder rate at 10 times the national average. we have the worst problem as it relates to murder.

there is a distinction between violence and murder. from a public health perspective, we ought to see it that way but the statistics in new orleans are similar to those we have seen in philadelphia, new york, baltimore, everywhere else. in certain neighborhoods in our cities, you have young man being killed for sometimes -- and sometimes 100 times the rate of the national average. this is a national epidemic. it is not ok. we have to state that. the lives of young african- american men are really important. we have to do something to stop the carnage on the streets of america. there is a school in new orleans where five young men that coincidently went to the school got killed within four or five months of each other. they were not related from what we could tell but they were in the same area. it was more likely for a kit that would to this high school to get killed then a soldier in

afghanistan protecting our freedom. those are catastrophic numbers. they cry out to us as a nation to fix. the first thing we have to do is recognize that. one of the things that many -- the mayor and i have struggled about is what makes people stand up? what makes people stop? i will say two things that might upset you but that is what we are here to do. mayor mike has had a number -- has a different number of times that the to cut plan killed 200 african-american men on the streets of america, but what the to pay. -- has said a number of times that if the ku klux klan killed tillich african-american men on the streets of america, they would have hell to pay. my wife heard a report on the

radio. a man was talking about chicago. this guy who was a caucasian said it 53 white people got shot in chicago over the weekend, the president would stop what he's doing, call out the national guard. basically what you have is a little racial discontent with the african-american community is saying if he did not pay attention, we will not pay attention and the white community says if you are not paying attention, we will not pay attention. it all goes down to is not my fault. here is the other thing we have to get our hands around. not everybody is to blame but we are all responsible. if we focus on the problem and put the right resources behind it and analyze the right way, i think we can solve the problem but if it is something we do not think is a major problem, if we do not think it is important, we will not put the resources, the time and the organization behind try to understand it. this is a very deep problem.

in new orleans, 10 times the national average, we went back and looked at it. people said you are not doing a good enough job. there is something wrong with your police chief. there is something about the way you comb your hair. [laughter] i agree with that. so we went back and look at the data and we found -- 1979- 1980. gamal reagan, alice cooper, larry bird. we had an average of two and 41 murders every year on and on. some years got better, some years got worse. when you went back and look at the average, this tells a this is a very deeply rooted problem, that can only be dealt with from seeing it as a public health epidemic. the cease-fire model is built on an idea that is exactly right. it is one of many tools that we

have to use but unless we recognize that it is deeply rooted in a lot of serious things, we are not going to get there. the doctor used the word transmissible. i want to tell you a brief story. last week in new orleans, there was a birthday party for a nine- year old boy taking place about 30 seconds from city hall in a residential neighborhood. three young men were driving down the street and saw somebody they had been looking for on this porch. they got out of their car and one of them took an ak47 and sprayed the neighborhood. when he finished spring the neighborhood, the cousin of the nine-year old at her guts blown out on that porch. the nine-year old got clipped. a bullet traveled three blocks down the road and hit a mother

of three young boys right in the head and killed her instantly. as you can imagine, a very traumatic event for everybody that's all that, everybody that went through that. the funeral was held and that we had in new orleans in repass. everybody comes back to the house and the sit on neutral ground. we were just having a fellowship with the family. walking towards me were two people that i recognized. one of them was about a 40-year- old african-american male and next to him was an african- american female. as i walked up to him, i recognized him. this man was the father of a young african-american boy who witnessed the death of a two- year old three months earlier. she was gunned down in the courtyard of her home for 20 other kids were.

the lady next to him says you do not remember me, do you? she said i am jeremy's mother, a two-year old who had been shot months before that got caught in a drive-by. these two people work together and the son of young african- american man knew brianna. this little boy himself saw and knew three people who were 5 or younger that got killed. the transmission of that and the complexity of that over a long period of time is something we all ought to stop about and say we have to find a way to get into that and to stop that. we will not be able to do this if the nation is not called to purpose on this issue. i do not want to hear from congress that they do not have enough money to do this. the new york times reported last week that the united states of

america spent $8 billion nation- building in standing up police department in iraq and afghanistan. that may have been unnecessary expenditure but it is hard for me to believe and understand as a mayor of a major american city that the point of that is to secure our homeland by helping their security forces be secure, that we cannot find a way to bring that money full circle in partnership with federal, state, and local governments so we do not have to rely on people like that robert wood johnson foundation to do for the people of america what we should do ourselves. if the identify it, and recall the nation to purpose on it and say it is important to save the lives of young african-american, we can. we know that it is fixable. it takes time, resources, money. we have a cease-fire in new orleans. i think it is a great model.

these are bright lights. it is one of many things. we have to start with saying is a national epidemic, we will not tolerate it. thank you very much. [applause] >> now you know why he is my partner. mayor ashley swearengin. >> thank you very much. i am ready to go now. mayor, well done. i want to share a few things with you from our experience in fresno. we are not implementing this cease-fire program that has been presented this morning in its entirety but there are elements that we have been able to incorporate from a law enforcement perspective. i want to say that i am very

compelled by the other elements that were we did we are missing in fresno. i am eager to see how we can raise those pieces up the in our community. i am extremely encouraged by what i see happening in our community. people standing up and saying enough is enough. it is coming from moms and dads and grandparents. we have an organization called the fresno st. states. it was brought together by seven african-american pastors who knew each other. this gets to the point of the epidemic -- at a particular family event, one of the pastors lost his grandson in an incident of violence. a similar situation as to that which mere mitch described. they were gathered for the funeral. the family was there.

they were grieving, going through the normal processes and they realized they were running out of some ice and milk. so they sent two other grand kids down the street to the neighborhood store to get a few items. as those children were walking to the corner store, one of them was gunned down as the result of gang violence and unintentional crossfire that this particular child caught. needless to say, this series of events sparked what it's become a community revolution and transformation with many of these african-american grandfathers' coming together saying we cannot live like this anymore. i had a mother in my office whose son was going through a criminal justice process and was

involved in gang activity. she relate to me that all the moms were friends in this particular rival gang situation. she could name all of these kids moms and said we were friends in high school and our sons are now killing each other. i certainly share the passion that you see from the other terrific leaders and other communities and understanding the importance of addressing this. what has been going on in fresno from law enforcement perspective, this is an important element and i certainly appreciate that it is not the fall sick -- the focus in systemic solution but it is extremely important that our law enforcement agencies are working in coordination with one another. sometimes the tools we do have are not as strategically deployed as they can be. we have to fix that problem. we have them working with david

kennedy out of the boston area of cease-fire and have begun to line every level of law- enforcement to target the 10% -- those who are committing 90% of the violence in fresno. the signature feature of this particular program is the call in. you invite these 10% people to come in. they hear from law enforcement at the local, state, federal level and from former game members and a trauma nurse or and e.r. doctor. people listen the same message which is the violence must stop. the combined message of you have to stop. if you do not, he will be locked away for many years. if you choose to stop, there are

a range of resources available to get you out of the lifestyle you are in now. after the law enforcement panel, there is a group of service providers to meet with the individuals and connects them with services in an attempt to help them begin the process of exiting the gang activity they are involved in. so far, we have been doing this for the last two years and we had 315 call in. of those, only five have recommitted a federal violent acts. there has been a tremendous impact on jarring people's attention and we have seen a tremendous reduction in violence. what i am inspired by this morning is the idea of raising up the interrupters. this probably sounds like the hardest thing to implement and i'm curious to hear from others on the panel how you go about finding people to be effective in that capacity. what we have experienced in fresno is that -- it is

difficult to find those with the credibility needed to fill that function. those who are willing almost upon admitting they are willing to do it, they become less effective. it is difficult to get the credibility they need. i am anxious to learn more about that and see that added in. i am also really curious about working with hospitals and finding out -- that is so clearly the right spot to intervene. we typically have police officers all over the place when these violence -- violent acts happen but we do not necessarily have the community response that goes along with that. i am anxious to learn more about that. thank you. >> mayor ashley swearengin, thank you very much. we will hear now from jane lowe. >> thank you very much. i want to thank both mayor nutter and rawlings-blake who

are replicating the replication of the day who are replicating the cease-fire model. and the new insight that reminds us there are many different pathways here that we need to take to come together and solve this problem. i want to put forward the importance of using effective solutions to solve this problem of gun violence in american cities. you might wonder why the largest health care of asia in the united states that has -- health care system in the united states -- why we have an interest in reducing gun violence. it seems like this -- it seems like this might be better left with law enforcement and

criminal justice. but for us, we regard violence as a pressing public health issue that strikes at the heart of the community and well-being of individual families and whole communities. it disproportionately affects low income communities and vulnerable populations and as you have heard from everyone here, the young men of our cities. these are areas where the foundation has always placed very special emphasis. it goes without saying that gun violence, the toll of gun violence, is very clear. we should back kid ourselves about this happening just in one ould nothood -- we shuld no kid ourselves about this happening just in one neighborhood. what is happening all across america affect all of us and we need to remember that whether we like it or not, we are all very

deeply interconnected. clearly you have heard from gary and others about the contagion of violence. we know from other work of their doing around behavior and neuroscience and the evidence that is rapidly emerging around brains and brain science, that this is an important issue. it is no exaggeration to say that gun violence is an academic -- is an epidemic. i assume that nothing commands a retention more than a need as homicide as the lead story in your morning paper when you go to read it. it is also clear and this is where the neuroscience comes in, that the physical and mental toll that takes place for people is not just among those who are directly affected or

involved in actsf violence. in these neighborhoods, the mayor provided examples of where people have been exposed to violence and how the chronic instability affect people's lives. we know that when a child is exposed to violence, it has very lasting impact on their lives. this is what in the parlance of the science is called toxic strikes -- toxic stress. it can rewire a child's brain so that they are less likely to succeed in school or be physically and emotionally healthy. that creates greater risk for disease and disadvantaged. the evidence for how and why to protect -- to prevent the epidemic of violence.

a cease-fire is a public health approach that seeks to interrupt the spread of violence much as the same way as gary described the spread of infectious diseases. the foundation supports the cease-fire model to combat environments because it works. that was our hypophysis 10 years ago when we began our investment and since then, the foundation has committed nearly $10 million to develop tests and spread the model and tell the stories you're hearing today. our most recent investment was to begin to develop a business plan and strengthen the organizational capacity for replication and provide the technical assistance that is available to all of you across the country to help replicate this model. we know that the technical assistance is there in truth

because of mayors like those who are with us today. people were open to different solutions. one out what some have -- sometimes have to be explained to a skeptical public but this idea may to bottom line economic sense because gun violence undermines the very fabric of life and opportunity in a community. it is a cost strain through lost wages, no job creating investment, and exceptionally high use of police and emergency room services. as dr. gary slutkin, if you can stem the violence, it makes communities healthy and strengthens them in ways that are fundamental to health and vitality. investments in schools, housing, and so on. while we have committed significant amounts of the cease-fire model, the reality

is that any philanthropic resources can tackle such a vast problem are entirely insufficient. it is not realistic to think we will support this work indefinitely. other partners, including u.s. mayors, need to come on board based on the evidence and the track record of success, and helps spread a novel model that works. we can do this together. we do not want to wait any longer. we cannot afford to watch any longer because the payouts are enormous. fewer shootings and killings, revitalize neighborhoods, and fundamentally healthier future for the people and communities you lead is division and is the goal. thank you very much. [applause] >> with a great panel. we want to thank all of our

panelists for their presentations on this very important topic. we want to open the floor to the mayor's in the room. we have in philadelphia shown a movie called "the interrupters." we have had a number of showings of this film. it is very powerful, very compelling, but also very clearly tells a story about what is really going on on the street. it was made in chicago. you could watch the movie, close your eyes for a few minutes and you can be in any city in the united states. we have shown in a number of times and planned to show its during the course of the next school year in a variety of places across philadelphia. with that, mayors in the room,

if there are questions, comments, concerns, raise your hands and we will get you. >> thank you perry quick question jerry i appreciate this model. my name is michael hancock from colorado. we were just talking here. this model makes sense. we have seen it work in a lot of ways. someone live up a cigarette in this room, we would freak out. that is the model you have talked about. we have changed the norm. one of the things i have trouble with regarding this by the behavior is the psychological long-term damage that has been done, particularly with african- american males. the question is how do we begin to reverse that? want to get beyond making this

an unacceptable norm to carry guns, have it in your possession, -- the question i want to know is what is the next step? there is something psychological and challenging when an african-american boy or any young man can point a gun at another young boy that looks like them and say it is ok to take their life. i'm wondering if some of the experts that dealt with the program can comment on that because i think that has to be the next logical step in combat in this challenge and disease that pervades our neighborhoods. >> before you answer, but to give you another statistic. in new orleans, 88% of the young men actually know each other. >> we can add to that. not only do they know each other

more often than not, but on any given week, on a monday, you can have a person who is a perpetrator encased in some criminal activity and by friday, that same person is a victim. most of the folks involved in criminal activity, violent crime, in the 70%-80% percentile range have criminal records, multiple arrests. they are all in the game. the overwhelming majority of violent crime in most cities in america is committed by a relatively small group of people chasing each other around. in many instances, some of them have been shot multiple times and are survivors.

you get a sense that there is all this criminal activity going on and it is not random. these folks all know each other. this week's shooting is about something that happened to weeks ago with somebody else. brother, cousin, and that you, friend, my man, my boy, whatever the case may be. and they are chasing each other around. >> let me remind anyone that myself and candace, will be here after the session. i will be here all day today if anyone wants to contact me. gslutkin@ -- the business of transmissible with the mayor has correctly led -- it is not a metaphor

anymore. the sides of this is really solid. it really is infectious. we really have fundamentally misdiagnosed this problem. it is a very important and central concept that we have been mistreating because we had misdiagnosed it. we need more funds but my original diagnosis which was people deny care enough or that there was not enough money in it is not the whole thing. it is really that we have not been applying the right approach is. malaria was blocked for ever. until we came up with these. this problem has been

fundamentally misdiagnosed and with respect to the issue of the business of,, that's -- of trauma, it is an effect and cause of this. it is important to realize that severe punishment, and threats of punishment, as if everyone had not had enough of that already. you think the african-american male population has not been threatened enough? it has negative consequences on the brain and cause of war trauma. and more deregulation. besides all that, the adolescent brain as we now understand it, is not a consequence driven. the frontal lobe is not yet prone. they are not worrying about the

consequences. when we said they do not care, they are wired not to care. adolescents are wired to go out into the world because there are supposed to protect things and do things and change the world. what they care about is what their friends think. that is the way we are evolutionary wired. furthermore, they need risk. they need risks to be normal, to feel normal. that is the normal adolescence. the widow we see this in terms of using the signs -- the way that we see this in terms of using the science is that this is three steps. to reduce the trauma, we have to begin to reduce the trauma that is happening which means that we have to reduce the shootings as fast as we can which is what the - >> part does.

-- what the interruption part does. this method its results when you use the model in the first six to 12 months. point to shift the norm. -- point two shifts the nomr. rm. then we have to put into place some kind of treatment. professionalized mental-health care for people who have been repeated the traumatized. we are training the workers themselves to help others managed. there are methods for that that we did not talk about. but there are new interventions that we need to put into place to scale. we are not being honest if we are just treating the trauma and

not stopping the cause which is the shootings. and the aggressive other stuff going on. >> i want to say one word about this, peace and for the mayor of denver. there is a physician in philadelphia at the drexel school named john rich who is also a public health doctor who is working very hard on these issues of the impact of trauma on young men. i would discourage you to take a look at his work. it is focused it on, and formed care. -- focused on trauma enforced care. i will also say that on the philanthropic community now, there is a surge of interest and

activity happening around address in the heat -- the needs of young men of color in this country. robert wood johnson foundation we at johnson will launch a program this fall that focuses on young men of height -- young men of color in high school. it has to not only deal with this terrible issue of violence but a coats -- but goes back upstream. where are the structural barriers? we're focused very much on the issue of violence. it is big and it is powerful. we also have to remember that the solutions lie upstream as well. it is very important that have public health, education, employment, the business community, all of us have a stake in making the lives of our

young people, whether they are young men of color, young women, better. so we have to think about this in -- as big intersecting circles and work with in our community to gather up all the organizations that are one way or another coming at this problem from different points of view. >> to follow up on - >> and transmission. immediate - >>. -- immediate interruption. then transmission -- when you get upstream on this thing, let me bring this home to you. this little five-year old girl was killed was buried at the same place where a 16-year-old boy was killed three months earlier. two days after her funeral, i

hosted a free lunch program in that same church. we are now serving more meles but we bought those kids in for breakfast. i had a table, 23 5-year-olds. i could not help but look at them and think where you going to be? we talked about these kids knowing each other and killing each other. one of the great dangers is you hear people say i cannot touch that, that is not me. let me tell you something, they were not always thugs. one day they were that five-year old eating that free breakfast. on the issue of - >> -- issue of interruption, if

we cannot change what happens between those ages, they will be doing the same thing. what are the conditions that have to be changed so we do not keep producing the same outcome that we have now. ceasefire is like putting a plug in the problem and taking the kids that are there and sing stop what you're doing. yet it way down and change the conditions of we cannot have that problem for those same kids tenures from now. >> mayor henderson from fort myers, florida. is this power point available? a in our city, we're having some challenges with witnesses getting a lot of stock. can you share with us -- >> with this is getting what? >> lockjaw. silence. that is a crude term, i'm sorry.

but you get it. can you help us understand how you are dealing with it in your respective cities? thank you. >> there has been this -- on the first question, i am sure that dr. gary slutkin will make his power point available to everyone. in philadelphia, we combat no snitching. and witness intimidation. we have had a couple of bad situations but in many instances, folks -- everybody knows everybody. friends of friends, associates and the rest that goes with it. somebody shoots them, the folks

in the neighborhood know who did what. there is no big mystery here. because all these folks because they cannot keep their mouth shut of their lives depended on it. unfortunately in many instances, they will not call the police. they did not want to deal with that system. we will deal with this ourselves. so when you go back to dr. gary slutkin's work, you have to cool that down immediately. often starting at the hospital where the one who got in and the boys show up and say we are going to get so and so. there's all kind of inappropriate language not for a writ -- not appropriate for c-

span3 you have to kill that out immediately. that is where boots on the ground really do make a difference and having people in the neighborhood who are prepared to stand up and stepped-up is what this is really all about. so we do have in many instances folks stepping forward. we put in philadelphia a couple of months ago the 100 most wanted folks up on the city's cable access channel and website. within two weeks, 21 of those folks have either been arrested, turned themselves in or we got information on where they were three people really do want -- everybody was a safe community ultimately. we have some folks out there or not and aged in -- not engaged in the common things we might be but we have to provide them an opportunity.

using social media, texting, anonymous opportunities to give information and get that stuff out so that we can do our job. i think the no snitching attitude continues to be a major challenge but we have to give people a sense of hope that it will be protected and not be subject to retaliation. >> the morning. i emir of hempstead, new york. -- i am mayor of hempstead, new york. we are trying to implement a cease-fire. how do you determine interrupteres? how do you screen them for that?

>> the people the work with you on the cease-fire? >> in baltimore, it is people who have been in the game. when i was talking about it earlier, choosing the right individuals -- that is out of my lane. i know the work of it. i can explain it but i would not be speaking with any credibility on the streets in some of these neighborhoods. they need people who have been where they have been. the benefit of that is when you get the right person, you are able to get the results. the challenge is making sure that person is out of the game. >> i want to add to this because there are so many mayors here. our experience in watching cities try to do this on their own is that ordinarily, it is

not so exactly likely that people are going to be selecting the right people on their own. we have a lot of experience in helping in this. there are criteria for this and there's research to be done in the neighborhood on this is because you need to determine what is actually going on a debt of this neighborhood right now? are there five groups, three groups? is it random stuff? what is going on here? and then who do we need to hire to interact with these various groups or whatever who knows them? that point by point, you have to go through a systematic process of determining who has that rolodex, and who was both of his or her feet on this side of the line now. not a toenail over there. and they are hungry to do the

work and they can do the work. so there -- and they are not random. they have to be part of a disease control system being supervised with monitoring and support and training. there is a whole training program i did i get into for interrupters so they can do persuasion, and behavior training and norman chains. we are -- and norm change. they need to be the right person and properly trained. >> he should get in touch with you. >> right. >> that and the thing the bottom line. if you other mayors. -- that ends up being the bottom line. a few other mayors. >> can you talk about the

intimation -- implementation process -- where to start? how long it takes? >> let's get a mere stephanie rawlings-blake. >> it was really a blueprint for the way we handled it. first you have to identify those areas. we do this all the time with our cities. we identify where we have neighbors that have historic of violence. you have to identify those intense dots on the map. after you do that, you have to make sure that in those areas, one of the areas we first talked about, mclelderry park, there was strong community groups there that wanted different. you have to have all those things. you have to have the unfortunate part, the violence, and the community group that wants to do

something and that is identified with you. then you can later on the work of identifying the potential interrupters. i would encourage anyone that is interested to learn from the mistakes of other cities which is it is not something -- you cannot take the power point and do it. you need to work with the group to make sure you are sticking to the model. we are talking about a public health issue. the same way you cannot listen to a lecture from a doctor and then start diagnosing people. you have to work with the professionals that develop the program to get the results that you want. it is only through strict adherence to the model that we're getting the results. you have to figure out in your city how you can get that strict adherence. we try -- we tried different

ways. it is work with health department in the lead of the cease-fire method that was able to make sure we were sticking with the model. >> we are going to take a couple questions. we are a little over our time but this is obviously a very serious discussion. i know there are other activities going on. i want to follow up on something that mayor andrew referenced. we are looking at this from a national perspective. you might want to take this down. on the timber 11th 2001, -- on september 11th, 2001 - 2977 were killed. a horrific attack on the united states of america and there was an incredible response to that.

last year, there were five frigid 15 homicides in new york city. 63 in boston. 108 in washington, d.c 324 in philly. 298 in los angeles. 199 in new orleans. 433 in chicago. 344 in detroit. 91 in new work -- newarl. 147 in memphis. the top five cities in the united states and eight others. it was 2981. in 13 cities last year. even the crime has generally been going down, if you want to know how many people in those 13 cities total were killed over the last 10 years, multiplied by 10 to read what happened as a result of 9/11? the government created a cabinet

level position, as secretary of homeland security. unless you're from orlando, everyone of you in the last day or so has not experienced with the tsa, you almost have to take your clothes off to get on an airplane. as long as you do not miss your flight, it is cool. i said in a speech in tallahassee, the tsa -- on our streets what we need is the walking around security administration. we need to be safe on our cities and states, flying anywhere in the united states or around the world. we changed security procedures for how you fly in the world as

a result of that her thick incident on monday -- as a result of that horrific incident on one day. you want to be safe flying. you want to be safe walking. that is what we need to sit -- to focus on. next question. >> i appreciate all of the sharing your thoughts on the issue. my question for you is -- unfortunately for all of us, by the crime is not just a big city issue. it is in every city issue. for communities of less than 50,000, can this program work? >> we are working with some smaller communities, including other communities in illinois.

it works best when there is a serious problem. that is when it is most effective and should be used. >> last question. >> good morning. i am from gary, indiana. i know that my team has been talking to dr. gary slutkin. there are a lot of similarities. i have been involved with the drug movement for about 10 years. there are a lot of similarities in terms of changing the norm and other aspects of the ceasefire movement. my question is in terms of your colleagues and -- in the medical field, and law that the movement in the drug analysis and terms of drug addiction as a disease, came as a result of the medical world. are you having that same success among your colleagues, the

physicians, to look at violence as a public health issue? i think that the more of them that do, the more success we will have in this area. my other question is how involved is the faith community in terms of getting -- of being involved in the cease-fire initiatives that are under way? i heard in fresno they actually started your program but how involved in the community in terms of what is happening with cease-fires? >> i will take the first part of this. i am glad you're here. we hope to be working with you and would love to be. we are aware of the problems there. the health community needs to be much more involved. the health of directors, the public health departments really need to begin to step up. they have not known until this

model that there was a place for them on this serious violence. by convention, they have left that to others who control the resources in this issue but -- and they have been involved in work related to younger children. so there is a place for them now. we need the health directors to help the department of your cities to begin to step up, as baltimore has, to begin to take a very active role. not only is there a place for them by the face of this issue needs to change. to a health matters about -- so that more effective treatments can be had supplied or added to what else is there.

>> it has been a key component of what we have been doing in fresno. we have got a network of churches throughout the city that have organized themselves so we can cover each geography of the city with various rate based organizations. we have different denominations and different religions that come together. in addition to community prevention outreach work, our police department initiated a partnership in the historically most dangerous part of the city, south west fresno. they have 50 different state based nonprofit that meet every week with the police department and stage a range of programs and outreach year-round. it started in south west fresno. now they are moving to south east and central fresno.

they are very small churches. it does not have to bea mega church. most churches are very small but as they come together, they are very impact fall and they have the relationships that are needed with that grandmothers and grandfathers and the guardians and others involved in the lives of the people we're trying to impact. >> i am getting this serious signal about -- this has been a most engaging conversation. i want to thank all of our panelists and mentioned to the mayors that it is important -- as important as boots are on the ground, we need to continue to advocate for and push for support from our federal partners. the cops program is very important. all across the united states. make sure that we have our forces heard as mayors and

community leaders with regard to law-enforcement. our police department, as good as any of them are, cannot and will not be the only answer to this particular challenge. this is a community-based problem, community based solutions. some of the activities that you hear from gary and jennifer and mayor stephanie rawlings-blake and ashley swearengin are on the front lines of making america and our city is this a place b- 1. why don't we give our panelists and a round of applause? [applause] thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> in a few moments, republican presidential candidate mitt romney campaign to identify what. in half an hour, president obama campaigns in colorado. after that, if forum on so- called stand your ground lost. later, the conference of mayors discussion. >> on washington journal, tom mcmillen, a member of the nonpartisan group no labels. he will talk about the plan to change how congress operates. then the newt gingrich, the former house speaker will discuss the 2012 race, potential running mates for mitt romney and the debate over welfare reform. and a look at airline safety and last week's eric cantor out -- air traffic control error at reagan national airport. tabletop with the president and ceo of the flight safety -- we will talk with the president and

ceo of the flight safety organization. >> sunday, look for our interview with andrew essentially my predecessors as correspondence and diplomats in berlin. despite all the time i found it -- spent in germany, i had not thought about what it would have been like to been a correspondent in the 1920's and 1930's, and how you would have operated. what would you have noticed or not noticed, much less how would you have acted? sunday at 8:00 on the c-span. >> republican esidential candidate mitt romney continues to criticize president obama for recent changes to the welfare reform law. he campaigned wednesday in iowa. this is a half hour.

>> good morning, thank you. what a warm welcome, you are very kind. good to be back. it almost feels like a second home. we get to have a bite to eat, enjoy the fine food and hospitality and the warmth of the community. we're cognizant of the fact of the impact of the drought and they're concerned about what this is doing in the agricultural community and in various industries. we're looking for more rain. there are other things in her mind as well today. the tragedy in wisconsin, the temple was invaded by a gunman

who was motivated by hate, religious hate, it makes it even more tragic. tragic to have the people who are known for their peace ability and their loving nature to be so brutally attacked. we are thinking of them. this is a difficult time for a lot of americans. the american people are tired of being tired. this economy has been tough for a long time. normally, when you have a recession, you put in place policies that cause a quick rebound. when ronald reagan was president, unemployment was 10.6%. but then it came roaring back a million jobs a month were created. this president's policies have not done that.

president obama came in with a lot of promises, he said we could measure progress by number of things. if we were having progress and success by whether people could find a job. if we let him borrow $187 billion, he would keep unemployment below 8%. it has not been below 8% sense. it is now 42 straight months with unemployment above 8%. that is not the full picture. that includes those who are looking for work, but they're also people who dropped out and people who have part-time work that need full-time jobs. when you add those and, it is 15% of americans. then there are the people who have worked, but it is not the kind of job they have had in the past.

the president also said when he was running that he would reduce the cost of health insurance by $2,500 a family. it has gone up by $2,500 a family. gasoline prices doubled, a food prices are up. it is tough to be middle-class in america today. people are falling into poverty, having to go on food stamps. this is very different than the record that occurred under ronald reagan. haveresident's policies failed the american people. the best predictor of future performance is what has happened in the past. that is a measure -- do you know what has happened to the median

income of america, it has dropped by $4,000 a family? think about how tough this is on the american people. he cut the deficit in half, how has that worked out? instead of cutting in half, he doubled it, and more. the first president in history to have a deficit of $1 trillion. he is on track in four years to put together almost as much debt held by the public as all of the prior presidents combined. now and then i speak to groups like here, and i say, i did not know how any of you could vote for a democrat. we have a president and people

around him who are making it harder for the coming generation. i hope young people understand. these policies build trillion dollar deficit a year and are putting in place debt obligations you'll have to pay as young people. my generation will be gone. you'll be paying the interest on the principle throughout your lives for burdens that paid for us. it is not just bad economics. it is immoral for us to continue to spend money that is getting passed on to you. [applause] past performance is the best guide for what the future is going to be, i think people understand that if they vote to

reelect president obama, they have a good idea what is coming. it will be chronic high levels of unemployment, stagnant wage growth, and the potential for an economic calamity given the massive debt bank and unfunded liabilities. i offer a very different view. i believe that we are on the verge of an extraordinary rebound in america's economy with good jobs and rising incomes again. [applause] it is my view that we take a different course the one that has been laid out by president obama and instead, build an economy based on freedom, economic freedom, allowing people to pursue their dreams, to enhance their skills, to reach for personal achievement. if we do these things, you will see the economy come back. there are five steps i would take.

it would get america working again. number one, we have got to take advantage of america's extraordinary energy resources. [applause] we have to take the advantage of all of them. we have an enormous advantage relative to other countries. there was an article in the washington post who looked at steadies that within 10 years, america could be the largest energy producer in the world. think of that. it means that manufacturing is going to want to come back here because of the low cost of energy. [applause] the best way to get wages to go

up and to grow up a permit a middle-class is to have jobs come back and have employers competing. that is what i want to do. number two, i want to make sure that are adults and kids have the skills to succeed. what happens that central campus, if you are able to come here and get skills that will allow them to be successful in the jobs of today. i want better education programs for people who are adults and four young people. our schools are performing in the bottom of the world. think of that. america, the place that invented public education has on average stood at performance in the bottom.

how can we possibly imagine that our industries and our economy will lead the world if those coming through our education system are performing in the bottom third? i want to make sure that we finally put our kids first, our parents first. i want to make sure that every parent has a choice of which school to send their child to and every child has the chance to succeed. [applause] in that spirit, there was an extraordinary accomplishment. to recognize that providing people with skills an opportunity would enhance the entire nation. welfare was reformed. president clinton and the republicans in congress at the time came together on a

bipartisan basis and said welfare in the future is going to require work. people who received payments from government are going to be required to work. not as a punitive measure, but as a gift. there were some who said this would be terrible. the know what happened? as a result of putting work together, the number of people on welfare was cut in half, poverty was reduced. it was an extraordinary success. senator obama was opposed to putting work together with welfare. now he is president. a few days ago, he put that original intent in place with a very careful executive action. he removed the requirement of work from welfare. it is wrong to make any change

that would make america more of the nation of government dependency. we must restore work into welfare. past performance is a good measure of what is going to happen in the future and the president's past opposition to work requirements are pretty good indication of what he has now gone. when i was serving as governor, i went to work to try to extend and improve and require even more work requirements because i want more people working if they're going to seek government assistance. [applause] #3, we have to make sure that

trade works for america. nations like ours -- [applause] nations like ours that are highly productive -- the output is high. it is the highest of any major nation. we've made more staff and services per person than any other nation on earth. because we are high productivity nation, it is good for us to trade with other nations. i want to have more trade with places like latin america. bea are in the same hemisphere, and a lot of folks speak the languages of latin america. i want to take advantage of those opportunities to sell more goods across the world. i also want to crack down on any

nation that cheats. we will not let people run over us and steal our jobs. [applause] the fourth part of my jobs plan is to grow a strong middle-class with more take-home pay. the fourth element is to finally get america to cut the deficit and get on track to have a balanced budget. [applause] if business people around the world and here at home think that at some point america is going to become like greece or spain or italy or california -- [laughter] i'm just kidding about that one -- in some ways. they will have a hard time investing in america. we will have to show them that we are serious about reining in our excesses'. i will begin by looking at

every single government program and ask this question, it is this program so critical it is worth borrowing money from china to pay for it? at the top of my list of programs we do not need is one that cost $100 billion a year.

that is obamacare. by the way, that does not mean that health care is perfect. we have to do some reforms in health care. i have some experience during that, as you know. i want to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions are able to get insurance and people do not have to worry about getting dropped from their coverage and that health insurance is available to all people. i want to bring the cost of health care down. the president said he would lower their premiums by $2,500 and they have gone up $2,500, should tell them it will not work. you were going to see health insurance premiums skyrocket. the american people are not gone to stand for it. number five, a champion small business. some of the last 15 years --

[applause] the last 15 years, i think it is 64% of all the jobs created in america were created by small business. we now have hit a 30-year low in new business formation. people in small business have pulled back for a lot of reasons. i want to champion small business. the small businesses are how we create jobs. my priority is jobs. my priority is more jobs and more take-home pay. for middle income americans. i want to make sure the tax rates on small business are not raised. the president would raise to them. i want regulators to see their job as encouraging business, not crushing it with unneeded

regulations. i believe in the right of people to organize and join unions, but i do not believe that unions should be forced on people who do not want to join unions. we're going to have a demonstration that makes it easier to start a business, grow a business. small business these days, they're having a hard time getting loans. community banks are not able to help them as they have in the past. they put in place this bid bill called dodd-frank, and it was designed to keep the big banks from getting too bad. -- too big. the bigger banks have gotten bigger and the smaller community banks are the ones getting crushed by this legislation.

the legislation has had the opposite effect of what was needed. i'm going to do everything in my power to help small business succeed so we can have more jobs and more take-home pay in america. if we do those five things, we're going to have 12 million new jobs in america during my term. americans will see more take- home pay. i know what is going to happen. the reason i know that is because i have seen the american people. if we get government out of the way, if it is a friend of economic freedom, you will see those things blossom again as they have in the past. i have seen something about the entrepreneurial spirit in this country. how did you start your company?

she said, my husband lost his job and he took a class in upholstering. i thought that was an unusual class to take. and then she said, because she was the better business mind, she started a company and hired her husband as her first employee. she went on to hire 39 more people in an upholstering business. she now has one of the leading upholstering business is in her region. i met another guy. he did not do so well in traditional high school. he was number 2 in his class, from the bottom. he went to his dad and he asked for a loan. he tried to buy one of these griddles to make hamburgers. he realized he did not have enough money to begin a restaurant.

the amount of money was only sufficient to make sandwiches. so we got some tables, set them up in a garage, and started making sandwiches. now jimmy john has 1500 restaurants across america. he employs 60,000 people, 60,000 people. it is what makes this economy the most powerful and dynamic in the world. what is happening in washington is you have a president and bureaucrats around him who had never worked in small business. never worked in the private sector, who do not understand

what it is like to have these burdens come from washington. i want to make america the best place in the world for entrepreneurs, innovators, and small businesses. why? because i want more jobs and more take-home pay for the american people and i'm going to get it done. of course, we take care of people cannot take care of themselves. when it comes to the spirit of america, i want to restore the spirit of independence. i do not want to install a spirit of dependence on

government. [applause] i do not want to america to become like europe. four years ago, when candidate obama took the stage at the democrats' convention and made all of his promises, he stood in front of greek columns. my guess is that he will not want to remind us of greek columns this year. i have a very different view of the role of america. i was actually in poland last week. i got to meet a world hero -- he said to me this. the world needs american leadership. we need you -- we need american leadership. we spoke for a while and after our chat he effectively endorsed my campaign. that came as an unusual campaign, but something i welcome from a hero like that. i love the power of individuals. the power of individual people,

changing the world, changing their lives, changing their community. it is the story of america. the founders explain how america would be different than any other nation on earth when there of the declaration of independence. they said government did not create our rights. they said that the creator in doubt us with rights. among those rights were life and liberty and pursuit of happiness. in this nation, we are free to pursue happiness as we choose. as a young person strives to make the honor roll, we recognize that is part of the story of america -- individual achievement. when an individual does backed to school to get a better trade, a better still, a promotion -- we acknowledge that achievement. when a person starts a business and grows it, we congratulate them. as the president said the other day -- if you have a business, you did not do that, somebody else did for you. i was taken aback -- he said,

you took me out of context. the context is even worse than the quote. [applause] he said, you know, these people who start these businesses -- they did not build them. he said they think they are smart, but there are a lot of smart people. a lot of people work hard. i am not sure where he is going for that. my view is that we celebrate success. we celebrate people who were smart and take risks and build enterprises. he looks at government as the source of our greatness -- i looked at the american people as the source of our greatness. when the kid gets the honor roll, i realize that he had to get to school on a bus. the bus driver had to buy the -- drive the bus. but when he makes the honor roll, i do not credit the bus driver. i credit the kid who got it. [applause] and when jimmy john made

sandwiches in his garage and worked -- he was telling us he worked 20-hour days. when other people came in and join them -- i credit them with building the enterprise, not government. it is time to recognize the greatness of the american individual, restore our freedom and liberty, have government do the job offer was intended to do, to encourage liberty, encourage freedom, encourage risk-taking, and a knowledge and celebrate those who have been successful. i do not want to turn america into something we would not recognized. i want to restore to america the principles that made us the hope of the earth and, with your help, if we win in iowa -- and you will help me -- we will take back the white house. thank you so much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> president obama's two-day trip to colorado started with a rally in denver. he was introduced by a woman who

was criticized by rush limbaugh for her stance on health insurance and contraception. this is 40 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, to introduce the president of the united states, please welcome sandra fluke. [applause] >> hello, denver. i'm sandra fluke. i'm here not only to introduce the president, but to talk to you about the clear choice that we face in this election. this is a choice that will affect each and everyone of us, as well as our friends, our loved ones, and every woman in america.

[applause] that is why it is so personal for each of us. for me, it is an intensely personal -- it has been intensely personal. when i was publicly attacked for speaking out before members of congress, i became more aware than ever that this election will decide whether the rights and -- that generations of women have fought for will be rolled back. make no mistake, those rights can be rolled back. in the blink of an eye. thankfully, we have a president who has consistently - [applause] he has consistently proven that he will defend our rights. especially our right to quality, affordable health care. [applause]

because, you know, when it comes down to it, the vision behind president obama as health-care reform is quite simple -- it is that our access to basic health care should never depend on where we go to school or where we work, and especially never what gender we are. [applause] obamacare is already working. it is ensuring that millions of young women across this country have access to the care we need. as of one week ago today, thanks to obamacare, now starting to get access to preventive care like cancer screenings and contraception at no cost. [applause] when obamacare fully takes

effect, we will never again be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition like having had a cesarean section. [applause] never again will we pay more than men for the same insurance simply because we are women. [applause] in each of these ways, president obama is moving us forward. but mr. romney is offering dangerous promises to take us backward. i have to take him at his word -- he says that on day one he is going to kill obamacare dead. that would take away live-saving preventative care for millions

of americans. that is an alarming lack of vision from somebody who says that he wants to lead our country. but, you know, we have already seen what mr. romney's lack of leadership looks like. when i was verbally attacked earlier this year, the difference between president obama and mr. romney became very clear. after those attacks, i was heartened by so many americans who reached out to me and supported me, no matter what anybody's politics work. president obama was one of us. [applause] he defended my right to speak without being attacked. he condemned those hateful words. you know, mr. romney could only say that those were not the words he would have chosen.

mr. romney, you are not going to be the candidate we choose. [applause] because if mr. romney cannot stand up to extreme voices in his own party, then we know that he will never stand up for us. he will not defend the rights that generations of women have fought for. because we must remember, even though it is 2012, we are still having the debates that we thought were one before i was even born. debates about access to contraception and whether a woman has the right to make her own health care decisions. we must remember that we have a candidate, president obama, who

understands the importance of women getting access to the care that they need when they need it. [applause] we must remember, we have another candidate, mr. romney, who wants to take all that away. as we register to vote, as we walked into the polling place, as we cast our vote, we must remember, and we will remember. [applause] denver, president obama has had my back. he has at your back. he had all of our backs. now we will have his. colorado, please welcome the president of the united states,

barack obama. [applause] ♪ [applause] >> hello, denver. it is good to be back in a denver. -- in denver.

>> four more years! >> thank you. i tell you what, if we win colorado i will get four more years. [applause] a couple of people -- i want to say thank you to sandra for that wonderful introduction. she is one tough and poised young lady. she was generous to stand up for her friends. she was brave to stand up for herself. an eloquent advocate for women's

help. -- health. i suspect she will do even better things as time goes on. i want to acknowledge your mayor, michael hancock. [applause] one of the best centers in the country, michael bennett, is in the house. -- senators in the country, michael bennett, is in the house. a passionate advocate for working families, ed perlmutter, is here. [applause] my dear friend campaign co- chair former mayor -- i'm getting tired listing -- listing

is resume. -- his resume. [applause] and, finally, john register -- a veteran and para-olympian. it has been two and half weeks since i was in colorado. maybe you know, i was in aurora with those who lost loved ones in that terrible shooting. i'd just had a chance to speak to some of the first responders to help to save lives during that terrible day. [applause] unfortunately, since that time

we have had another tragedy. oak creek, wisconsin, where six members of our committee were killed in a house of worship. we have got to put an end to this kind of violence. [applause] whether it is in aurora, oak creek, tucson, cities all across america were too many lives are cut short because of senseless violence. it will have to stop. as one american family, we will have to come together. and look at all the approaches we can take to try to bring an end to it. i want you to all now that the thoughts and prayers of the entire nation remain with those in aurora.

even though the perpetrators of these acts have received a lot of attention -- attention on them will fade. what will be replaced and the stories of heroism and hope that we have seen here in a colorado and wisconsin and across the nation. that is what people will remember. that is what will matter. that is what we will value. the strength and the resilience and the care and love of the american people. unless you have managed to completely avoid your television set or your cable is broken, you are aware that there is a pretty intense campaign going on. the reason it is intense is because the choice that we face could not be bigger. it is not just a choice between two candidate. it is not a choice between two parties.

more than any election in recent memory, this is a choice between two fundamentally different paths for our country's future. the direction that you choose, the direction that you choose when you walk into that voting booth three months from now will have a direct impact not just on your live but on the lives of your children and the lives of your grandchildren. that is true for everybody, but it is especially true for the women in this country. [applause] from working moms to college students, seniors, when it comes to the economy, it is bad enough that our opponents want to take us back to the policies

of the last decade that got us into this mess in the first place, the same policies that sought jobs go overseas and ended up seeing people's wages and income going down even as the cost of everything from health care to college went up -- policies that culminated in the worst financial crisis since the great depression. we have spent three and a half years trying to recover from it. that is bad enough. but when it comes to a woman's right to make her own health care choices, they went to take us back to the 1950's. [applause] colorado, you have got to make sure that does not happen. the decisions that affect a woman's health are not up to

politicians. they are not up to insurance companies. they then are up to you. -- they are up to you. [applause] you deserve a president who will fight to keep it that way. and that is the president i have been. that is the president i will be if i get elected as president of the united states. [applause] on the issues that matter, you can take me at my record. four years ago, i delivered on my promise to pass health reform before the end of my first term. that is what we did. the affordable care act, also

known as obamacare./ i actually like the name. i do care. that is why we fought so hard to make it happen. the affordable care act makes sure you do not have to worry about going broke just because one of your loved ones get sick. insurance companies cannot place lifetime limits. they cannot jack up your premiums without reason. they cannot deny coverage when the it most. they cannot discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions. pretty soon, they will no longer be able to deny you coverage based on a pre-existing condition like breast cancer or service call -- or cervical

cancer, or to charge more because you are a woman. they cannot do that anymore. [applause] this is a law that allows young adults under the age of 26 to stay on their parents' health care plan, and that has already held 6.6 million young americans. -- helped 6.6 young americans. if you are a little bit over 26, you can get a senior prescription -- senior discount on prescription drugs, which has already saved millions of senior citizens hundreds of dollars each. right now, nearly 15 million americans are getting a rebate from insurance companies. they are sending you a check. because under the law, we

captain the amount of money they banken spent on administrative costs and ceo bonuses instead of your health care. -- they can spend on administrative costs and ceo bonuses instead of your health care. when they violate that role, they have to send you a check. we expanded access for preventive care like mammograms and cancer screenings with no out of pocket costs for more than 20 million women. [applause] last week, insurers began to offer even more services. now, most plans will halt begin to cover the cost of contraceptive care. -- most health plans will begin to cover the cost of contraceptive care. this is crucial for women's health. not just for family planning,

but as a way to reduce the risk of ovarian and other cancers. it is good for our health care system in general. the overall cost of care falls for women who read access to contraceptives. listen, we recognize that many people have strongly-held religious views on contraception, which is why we made sure that churches and other houses of worship do not have to provide, a portrait -- we worked with catholic hospitals and universities to find a solution to protect both religious liberty and a woman's health. [applause] the fact is that nearly 99% of women have relied on contraception at some point. more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 struggle to afford it. we are changing that.

before health care reform, many plans charged high deductibles or co-payments for all of these services. or the bank did not cover them at all. according to one study, more than half of all women put off the care they needed because of that. how many of you have gone without care that you needed because you knew you might not be able to afford the insurance payment? you had to choose between gas and grow trees or your kids soccer uniforms -- groceries or your kids soccer uniforms. i do not think a month in denver should have to wait for a mammogram because money is tight. i do not think a college student in colorado springs should have to choose between textbooks or preventative care she needs. it was the right thing to do.

now, my opponent has a different view. as sandra says, he says he would take the afford or can not act and children dead on the first day of his presidency. -- the affordable care act and kilt it debt on the first day of his presidency. this means that 6.5 million young people do not have health insurance. preventive care is gone. seniors pay more for prescription drugs. pre-existing conditions -- you are out of luck. then he said he would get rid of planned parenthood. then he said he would support an extreme measure in mississippi

that could have outlawed some forms of contraception. then he joined the far right of his party to support a bill that would allow any employer to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees. it is up to the employer to decide. your boss is telling you what is best for your health. let me tell you something, denver. i do not think your boss should get to control the health care that you get. i do not think insurance companies should control the care that you get. i do not think politicians should control the care that you get. the person to make these decisions on health care -- that is you. [applause]

mr. romney is running as a candidate of conservative values. there is nothing conservative about a government that prevents a woman from making their own health care choices. he says he is the candidate of freedom -- but freedom means the opportunity to determine for yourself the care that you need when you need it. it is the ability to change jobs that fear of losing your health insurance. we are not going to back -- go back to the days when it was acceptable to charge women more than men for health care. will not prevent women from -- with pre-existing conditions are being provided health care. we will not take millions of women of their parent's plans. we will not go back. we are moving forward. [applause]

understand that at a time when women make up nearly half the work force and are increasingly family breadwinners, these are not as women's issues or health issues. these are economic issues. they affect every family in america. think about what it means when a woman is the main breadwinner for a family but she is taking less pay home, doing the same work as a man, just because she is a woman. that is not right. when my opponent's campaign announced that he would guarantee an equal base pay for an equal his work -- the campaign said we will get back to you on that. that is not a good answer. we will get back to you on that? he will not say what he would do about that. you have got my answer.

i will uphold the principle of equal pay for equal work -- that was the first bill i signed into law. the first bill i signed. [applause] one other thing, today is the three year anniversary of sonia sotomayor taking her seat on the supreme court. [applause] yesterday was the two-year anniversary of elena kagan taking her seat on the supreme court. -- the nexty clear president may tip the balance of the court in a way that turns against women for decades to

come. the choice between going backward or going forward has never been so clear. let me say this -- when i talk about women's issues, i'm talking about the experiences i've seen in my life. everybody knows michelle. [no audio] [applause] [applause] the fact that we are partners in this journey of life has been my source of strength. i want to make sure that she has control over her health care choices. i want to make sure that when she is working, she is making the same as men.

my own mama would have been 70 years old this year. my sister and i lost to cancer when she was just 52 years old. she got to meet michelle, but never got to meet her granddaughter's. i often think about what might have happened if a doctor had caught her cancer sooner. would she have been able to spend less time on how she will pay her bills and more time and getting well? she is still with us. [applause] i think about malia and sasha -- we will not have an america where they will have fewer opportunities than somebody's sons. i do not want them to have fewer

choices than anybody's boys do. four years ago, i travelled across this country and that americans. i heard somebody stories. -- so many stories. i decided that nobody else should have to endure the heart it of the broken health care system. nobody thinks -- nobody in the wealthiest nation on earth should go broke because they are sick. nobody should tell their daughter and son the decisions they can and cannot make for themselves because some politicians in washington. thanks to you, we have made a difference in people's lives. [applause] thanks to you, there are folks that i meet today who have got to care. there cancer has been caught. they are living four lives. it happened because of you.

we have, too far to turn back now. -- come too far to turn back now. we have too much work to do to implement health care. we have too much work to do to create good jobs. we have too many people we have to hire. we have too many students who still need affordable higher education. we have more home-grown energy to generate. there are more troops we have to bring home. there are more doors of opportunity be have to open to anybody who is willing to work hard. we have got to keep building an economy where, no matter what you look like for you come from, you can make it here if you try. you can leave something behind for the next generation. that is what is at stake right now, colorado.

that is why i am running for president of united states of america. [applause] i still believe in you. if you still believe in me, and you are willing to stand with me, knock on the doors with me, talk to your neighbors and friends about what this means -- we will win colorado. if we win colorado, we will win this election. we will finish what we started and remind the world why america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you, and got less united states of america. -- god bless the united states of america. [applause]

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪

[cheers and applause] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in a moment, and forum on the stand your ground laws. in about 1.5 hours, fighting gun violence. and then, mitt romney in iowa iowa, and president obama in colorado. >> several live events to tell you about, the second day of the air line pilots association conference on air security and safety, beginning with a panel on enhancing security by focusing on high-risk travelers. at 8:0040 5:00 a.m. eastern, the office of safe and healthy students hosts a forum on school discipline. you can see that on c-span3. -- at 8:45 a.m. this weekend, on booktv -- >> we have two guys in the dorm

room. you end up with facebook. you do not see a friendster and myspace, all lying on the side of the road, having not achieved success. >> edward conard looks at the recession and explains how lower tax rates leads to investment and economic growth. this is part of booktv, this weekend, on c-span2. >> now, a forum on guns, self- defense, and what are called it stand your ground laws, with the american constitution society and the georgia association of black women attorneys, looking at a challenge to the stand your ground lot in georgia. this is 1.5 hours.

>> a program this evening, the debate over the appropriate roles of guns in our society is both continuous and significant, bringing up important constitutional, legal, and moral issues. that debate rages on today, as evidenced by media coverage in the aftermath of the shooting in aurora, colorado, that left 12 people dead and 58 people wounded. however, the topic of guns, self-defense, and public policy is not a new discussion. discussion. dating back more than a century, for reasons of will be discussed here tonight, it has been expanded upon in recent years. in 2005 with the passage of the first stunt- stand your ground lot. a similar law was passed in georgia the following year with overwhelming majorities in both thetate house and state

senate. it was signed into law on april 4, 2006. there are these 24 states with some version of this law. the basipremise of these laws is to eliminate a duty to retreat when a person has a reasonable debate they're subject to death or serious bodily harm all cited their homes. this brings us to the night of february 26, 2012. that 7:00 that night, george zimmerman called 911 to report a suspicious person, trayv martin. he stated that he was following martin after the teenager's started to run from them. he told the dispatcher that he was person and martin despite the dispatchers that advice to the contrary. at about 7:10, martin was on the

phone with his girlfriend when he sells a moment -- when he saw george zimmerman. the girl friend recalled geor zimmerman asking trayvon martin what he was doing. there was an altercation, during which martin's phone went dead. george zimmerman told police that martin approached him, they exchanged words, and when he reached for his cellphone, martin punched him in the nose and began slamming his head and the sidewalk. the precise nature of the altercation is still not clear, i 7:25, martin was shot and killed. he was carrying a small amount of cash, a bag of skittles, a can of ice-t. 15 minut after the shooting,

george zimmerman clancy shot martin in self-defense. the chief of police for the police decrement stated that george zimmerman had not been charged because there was no evidence to dispute the account. two days later, at the file was turned overo the state attorney's office. on april levin, george zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder by the florida special prosecutor. is currently out of jail on bond awaiting trial. in the aftermath of the trayvon martin shooting, reverend filed a lawsuit challenging certain sections of -- certain sections.

that motion is currently pending before judge thomas crash. the inception of and surrounding standard grot -- ground laws brings us to tonight's discussion. we will hear about the origins of george's stand your ground law. rep was born in atlanta and attended for many university. -- permit university. he finished nine years of active service before moving to a metro atlanta, where he worked for over a decade as an environmental program manager. first elected to the georgia house of representatives in 2004, he serves on the

transportation, rolls, and appropriations committees and serves as the chairman of the judiciary and on civil general and juvenile law subcommittee. following his presention and a few audience questions, we will turn to our panel discussion. that panel will be moderated by richard dain. he attended the university of georgia. he later received his llm from the university of michigan. he worked for the department of justice as an assistant u.s. attorney and then as the chief of the criminal crime section. as a federal magistrate judge and finally as the united states attorney between 1998 and 2001. he is currently a partner or he serves as the practice leader for the corporate criminal investigations group. our first panelist is reverend

hutchins. he has been heavily involved in many civil rights causes, including the response to the shooting of kathrin johnson, an 92-year-old woman killed by the atlanta police department. he served for eight years as the national president and ceof the national youth connection. he was a candidate for georgia's fifth congressional district and helped to create the one church one precinct project. this spring, the rev. letter rally supporting trayvon martin at the georgia state capitol. he has received an honary doctorate degree of divinity

from st. thomas christian college. he has received an official commendation from the state of georgia. he is a baptist preacher, a former pastor for the african methodist episcopal church, and serves as chairman and ceo of martell hutchins ministries. our second professor -- our second panelist isrofessor erica j. hashimoto. she served on the georgetown journal of legal ethics. she went on to serve as the assistant public defender in the office of the federal public defender in washington, d.c.. she is an associate professor of law at the university of georgia school of law, where she teaches an appellate litigation clinic

and class is in criminal law and sentencing. our final catalyst is john monroe. -- panelist is john monroe. he received his jd from the university of wisconsin school of law. he is a practitioner in roswell and vice president for george carey. george carey is a grassroots guns rights organization dedicated to preserving i members are right to keep and bear arms. founded in 2007, it currently has 5200 members and has participated in 20 lawsuits at all levels of the federal and state court system. i want to thank our moderator and all of our panelists for appearing with us this evening.

i would ask the audience to be respectful of all of r panelists. >> i would like to thank the american constitution society for putting this event on. i think this is a terribly important topic for us to discuss. i think it is timely for important reasons. i am mindful that discussing issues of carrying firearms, even the importance of it, can trivialize the loss we have seen in her recently in a nation. i hope that nothing bad happens to date to realize is that in

any way. the loss of any life is sacred and important and should never be taken lightly. as we start today, want to highlight and provide some background for this very important panel today to discuss the moral, ethical, philosophical issues with respect to the right of self- defense in this country. what is often referred to is the right to bear arms is more broadly the right to defend oneself, one's family, and once property. it was under this context that the georgia legislator took up the lot in 2006.

i would like to highlight ic hypothetical for you. -- highlight a hypothetical for you. i want you to imagine for a moment a young mother walking through downtown atlanta. a young mom excited for the birth of her first child. six months earlier, perhaps, has a relative newborn. mama's walking down the sidewalk and the toddler is walking next to the stroller. she sees the proverbial -- a man jump out and approach her ian honest way. the man walked towards her and reaches into the baby's stroller

and snatches the child from the stroller. if you can imagine the horror of a young mother, if you could imagine the horror of that young mom when a large man is making off with her child jumping into a white van to escalate to do have the knows what. the issues of what the mom should do horrify us. the options available to work to provide defense for her child are few. to suggest that a small woman of slight build can overcome athletic man who might be making off with her child, what options

she has to hurt is central to the conversion you're going to have today. the conversation is one's right outside of one's own to protect one's family against those that would do them harm. perhaps death, phaps brutal beatings or otherwise. what is the fundamental right to self-defense? if there is a fundamental moral and ethical right to self- defense, what does that mean to someone who does not have the ability to defend themselves? that really is the central conversation we're having here today. as they wrestle this as a culture, i want to hone in on that issue as the guiding 0.4 conversation today. that was the issue that the georgia legislature was dealing with in 2006 when this issue was how does one -- the legislature

charged with passing fair laws for a state wrestled the issue of the right to self-defense? i do not know that i have all the questions for you today, but i would charge assault to move forward with this charge. the quality of one's life is a direct proportion to thquality of the questions that an individual is willing to ask. in facing public policy, states are advised in much the same way. consider the right set of conditions, we can move forward with our common values that all lives matter. whether you are wealthy or not. whether you have power or not. house to be wrestled with this issue of once a fundamental right to defend themselves in a

world that can be all too brutal? we as a state government taking this up in 2006, a study of state politics is also a steady in comparative government. there are 49 other states. the process of improving laws, we find there are examples that can be gleaned from other states. back in 1974, at georgia became a model for the nation after the death penalty statutes were struck down. representatives got together to craft an equitable and fair the death penalty statute.

a lot more can be provided to exonerate the person, free the person from the risk [inaudible] back in the 1970's, there were not organizations who could vote on the conservative side, progressive side. today, we have those kinds of organizations. the progressive side, the center for working families. on the political rights, the american legislative exchange council, which has been brought under intense focus because of their support on standard ground laws. the american legislative -- it

allows properties that have been enronmentally impacted -- it is likely to become part of the conversation today. overall, these organizations in general provide a forum for conversation and the sharing of practices across gates. given the fact that state policy makers provides best practices, lessons learned.

i want to put before you the issue of the stand your ground law in georgia. the legislature was seeking to provide clarity to a couple of important circumstances. the first circumstance was an idea that had been in georgia law for years. the concept of date duty to retreat. if someone is attacked with life-threatening force, previously a person had a duty to try to run away. there was no specific provisions that allow it once expressly to protect themselves or others outside of their home. there was vagueness with one's ability to exercise their right to self-defense outside of one's home. we understand that all laws are

in perfect. -- imperfect. in 2006, the stand your ground law was seeking to provide more clarity to these issues. in conclusion, i want to ask that we be sensitive unmindful. these are very difficult issues. i would charge you to never take your eye off the ball of the important issues. once fundamental right to self- defense and passing laws that are consistent, that allow the courts to judge on understandable ways to uphold the principles of justice we all hold so dear. it is an honor to be with you

today. [applause] >> we can take a couple of audience questions. go ahead. fry wrote. -- front roaw. >> the enough there have been studies done on the impact of shooters -- do you know if there have been studies done on the impact of shooters? there were some concerns raised the there is an element of racism in this, but i have not been able to come across any academic studies were any credible information to suggest anything.

>> i do not claim to be the expert. the fact that we have a member of the law faculty, the question might be directed best at the professor. i do think we had enough of basis of concern that there is tremendous -- there is a compelling state interest. i would not suggest that every state has dealt with that as effectively as they cut. we're finding some states where the work of state legislators worked very imperfect. it is an important tpic to move forward with. rather tn get into the tragic circumstances that exist in any specific cases, as being a basis forhrowing out an entire

theory of law, i think we have to be very careful to tease out the issues and make sure we do not lose sight of the fundamentals because the tragic circumstances of been in specific cases in the trayvon martin, i think we need to let the system work. we recognized that defense attorneys right to defense, a defense attorney is going to see europe stands -- standard ground was going to be the basis for the defense claim. i would ask this audience on television and among us to tease out those issues and focus on the important constitutional mandate that we as t legislature have taken very seriously.

>> sense it has been passed, as they study been done as to - since it has been passed, has a steady been done -- how many have been exile reverses the when you has been charged wh first second-degree murder? >> we spe in some detail before the session today. i do not know the answer. not to be dismissive of it.

>> thank you for being here. was there a particular incident or issue that brought about the changes in flori in 2005 and georgia in 2007? or was it an issue that ended up coming up for no particular reason? >> i cannot speak to florida cases specifically. in georgia, there was a recognition that our statutes was vague with respect to what it meant to duty to retreat. there was a policy question. does one endanger themselves if they are aggressively challenge with a deadly or serious force? does it in danger -- giving someone out of the public view in this attempt to retreat. is that something we should ask

the citizens of georgia to do has a duty? we as a state, we believe there is a compelling state interest to providing clarity to the law and make public policy statement that very clearly a person should not have a duty to retreat. we also believe from a public policy perspective that one's right toear arms should not be constrained just whin their homes. they're both public policy questions that were raised woman looked at the georgia law. -- that breeze, looked at the georgia law.

[applause] >> thank you. professor, you have been printed out as the resident academic. i will start with you. we have a series of questions to each of our panelists and a provides an opportunity to answer the question and make some general opening remarks, four or five minutes or so. let me ask you that in the supreme course that has been mentioned earlier, the case of held the castle doctrine. justice oliver wendell homes stated that "the pastor flexion cannot be demanded in the presence. this was a case in 1921.

upheld the doctrine. given the origins of the standard ground lot under this doctrine, in what ways to have the expand -- >> justice homes caller: coming voices the intuition that lies behind a lot of the law. it is scary when someone pulls a gun on you, pulls a knife minute. it is hard to imagine having rational thought about what you should be doing in the face up a gun being pointed at your face. i think parts of standard ground laws have drawn on that intuition. i also think that they do a lot more than not. they go beyond -- it is

difficult when there is a gun in your face. i want to focus on florida. it was passed in 2005. in georgia, i will disagree a little bit. he is correct that there was nothing in the statute saying there was no duty -- duty to retreat in georgia before 2006. since 1898, but there you are in your home there was no duty to retreat. my understanding is that the legislature wanted to make sure that ended up as part of the statute. there has not been a duty to retreat in georgia. florida, on the other hand, did

have a duty to retreat. it required when people were not in their own homes, thatf they were confronted with force, before they could use deadly force in response, they had a duty to try to -- if there was a reasonably available avenue of escape, to take that available avenue of escape. e stand your ground law, one of the tngs that i did was to get rid of that duty to retreat. no matter where you areon the street, or out forever, there is no longer a duty to retreat. in some ways, this provision comes closest to our intuition about self-defense and the panic that strikes when you have they done it raised in your face.

most of those cases, a jury would say there is no reasonable avenue of retreat, particularly if it is a done with which the person is being attacked. most jurors understand that if a gun gets pointed at you, you may not feel that he did so reasonably safe to go running. i think the stand yr ground law did not change that much of what was already happening in the court system. there are places where that provision gives a littleloser. fornstance, a bar fight. you get a person who is worried about a person punching people

and he could run away or he could pull out a gun and shoot a person. to the extent that the fist could be seen as a deadly weapon and risking serious bodily injury, at that point, the defendant is entitled to use deadly force. once you get rid of -- get rid of the duty of the retreat, he has no duty to do so and he can pull out his gun and shoot the person died. that particular stand your ground provision is the one that comes closest to the justice's view. there are other provisions that i think move further away from that justification. there is another prision of florida's 2005 law that creates a presumption that a shooter has

a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. if the victim was in the process of forcefully injuring a residence or the vehicle, in some of these cases, there is going to be a risk of imminent death or bodily injury. you could imagine the person upstairs in their home, they hear their door been knocked and, and they are scared, right? they're always would have been a self-defense claim. no duty to retreat because the person is at home. i think, though, let's imagine you have somebody outside. neighborhood watch volunteer, a neighbor who hpens to be looking across their porch, and

they see somebody forcibly entering their neighbor's house. at that point, you would kind of hope this person would call 911, right? stand your ground law allows the person to do instead is to pull out their gun and shoot the person. that, i think, strays much further from the intuition that it is hard to be rational when you were facing deadly force coming at you in the form of a gun or knife. i should also note that it is not just to stand your ground laws that have expanded self- defense and these kinds of ways, i think. there is always what has none at

as a first aggressor's role. if you are the person initiating the force, you cannot shoot the person who punches back to you. in florida, at least as i read their statute, and this was before stand your ground that adopted time and the first aggressor does have the right to use the before us, even if they initiated the altercation. the only exception, at least as i've read it, is they have a duty to retreat. yoget back the duty to retreat, but only if he were the first aggressor. you started the fight. again, that moves us away from the person who was walking down the street, they get jumped, and a pullout a gun.

because i think some of these provisions move away from that very strong underlying sense that we have these justified -- self-defense laws, it is for the having a conversation about whether these provisions makes sense. there has to be more than just we want to protect people who are in fear of their life. >> thank you. we're going to cycle back to each of the panelists. these first questions are to provide you with a platform. you have been involved in a number of different high-profile civil-rights issues in the metropolitan area over the course of many years. the first time i met rabin hutchins, he was marching on my

office as u.s. attorney. he was entirely civil about the whole matter and we ended up striking out a french ship. you have been very active endive with like to ask you what prompted you to file a lawsuit? >> first of all, any time i am blessed to be in the company of richard deane, it is an honor. i want to express appreciation to sarah and matt for putting together these -- this conversation.

let's give these organizations and hand for bringing us together. [applause] thehing that strikes me most in this hour is we are seeing are around the nation such an increase in gh-profile violence and crime, whether it is 20 something kids killed. we are seemingly moving into a place as a nation where we are just obsessed with violence and guns and one of the reason why we feel so strongly about these stand your ground laws is we are moving closer to a wild, wild west mentality where we are have

a posture of shooting first and asking questions later. what the death of trayvon martin did for us as a nation, it exposed a flaw in our criminal justice system. there is much said, many of us watched george zimmerman speak for the first time as a result of this tragic situation. he said, what ever it was it said, the stand your ground did not apply to george zimmerman. i heard lawmaker after lawmaker said, stand your ground did not apply. it was applied. the night trayvon martin he was

killed, and that is why he was not arrested. the idea that it did not apply it, it is not truthful because it did apply. it was only after the tens of thousands of people cried out loud and marched in a way that was reminiscent of the 1960's that it was on applied. folks ought to know is that is what happened. the investigation had been closed. it was only after somef us demanded justice, was the investigation opened. and then we sell the indictment and the of the ship -- the eventual arrest. what a massive outcry? why so many people around the country? i heard this in a number of conversations around the country wi people asking me, why are african-americans so energized

and so angry about ts issue? so many mothers, le my mother, who has been a worker she saw me at 35 years old in trayvon martin. many african-americans and other mothers saw their own children symbolized in trayvon martin. when the rally cry came, people responded because they saw some of themselves and their own children in trayvon martin. why did i filed a lawsuit against the state of georgia? we called for a demonstration because we believe that george's stand your ground lot is is as bad public policy as the florida law.

we organized 70,000 demonstrators in georgia, the majority of which were students, to come to the state capital. we marched to demonstrate. the next logical step in that pursuit was to file a legal challenge because we saw legal loopholes and the standard ground law. the reasonable person's standard is the logical -- illogical. we believe that is a place of on equal protection under the law. it is vague in its application. when the big issues thatave with standard ground because of

stand your ground, police officers who were trained in the use of firearms who should have more expernce in judgment making and difficult decisions have a hier burden of proof because of stand your ground than do everyday ordinary serious -- citizens because they go through a great deal of scrutiny when they kill a person. because of that, i thought to myself, this has to be bad public policy. if law enforcement officers have been more difficult time justifying their actions, we believed it was unconstitutional and believed it is unconstitutional because of vagueness. unlike the rest of these

lawyers, i am not a lawyer, i am a minister first and an activist second. i believe as a person of faith, we're moving into a dangerous place as a nation when we as a matter of public policy discourage or fail to encourage the presentation of life. i believe we are moving into a dangerous place as the society when we as a matter of public policy put laws on the books that say to everyday ordinary citizens that the preservation of life should not even factored into one's decision. i grew up in the south. i o a gun. i dare want to try to come into my home, but when i am in the street, i am going to do everything i can to preserve

life. because stand your ground is and hypothetical to that basic truth, we believe is only in the best interest of all americans to deal with these laws. >> thank you, reverend. mr. monroe, i would like to turn to you. it is the most influential organization at the state capital. why has the georgia carry chosen to intervene in the reverence lawsuit? why do you think stand your ground laws make us safer? >> we did not exist at the time

the law was being debated. we did not have much influence. in retrospect, i expect we would have supported it. i do not think it would have been high priority agenda item. as the professor mentioned, it was started the law in georgia. -- it was already the law in georgia. i have the case where the court says one may use whatever force is necessary to protect themelves from make felonious assault. that has always been a lot in georgia. -- the law in georgia. there was never a case that said anything different. in fact, that has been the common law of this country for nearly 500 years.

when henry passed the statute legalizing shootinghieves, without regard to fear for life, a subject who did that was during the king's work. he was justified in doing the killing in the first place. that is nothing new. as for why we intervened in the case, whenever there is a subject been publicly debated that impinges on the purpose of the organization of the rights of its members, we get involved. if there were a statute or a bill introduced in the general assembly that would, for example, suggest repealing the stand your ground law, would get involved in that.

it is only natural that we would have gotten invold in that. of course, we disagree with several of the major premises of a lawsuit. i have the complaint here. for example, staff to torelli remove the duty to retreat -- statutorily removes the duty to retreat. prior to 2006, georgia law did not impose the duty to retreat on victims of attack, which was true. the bottom line is we got involved because it was important. the case is important to the members of georgia carry.

and we want to keep the rights of the members to keep and bear arms and use them, if necessary, to the extent that we can. as to whether stand your ground laws are important or deter crime, i do not know -- i am not a criminologist. i do not know to what did sense -- extent they deter crime, but they do give people the means to protect themselves. if people otherwise have duties to retreat, that might give someone pause before they do anything and cause them to be a victim of the more serious crime. comparing that to trayvon martin case, i disagree with the reverend hutchins. i do not believe that case is

about stand your ground. i was not there. if you believe that george versions of the facts, she was lying on his back. his head was being bashed against the sidewalk. there is no opportunity to retreat there. if you believe the martin family version george zimmerman shot him in cold blood, there is no duty to retreat there either. either way, there is no duty t retreat. >> and you have mentioned the provisions of the statute in florida. we have just heard his view of the world is that he does not believe there is an application of the law within the context of

what we believe we know about the trayvon martin shooting. if george zimmean was the initiator of whatever the contact was between them, what he have the protection -- would he have the protection of the stand your ground law? >> assuming that geor zimmerman itiated contact, as i read for the's first aggressor law, because if you believe

george zimmerman's version of it, he does not have an avenue of retreat, even though he was the first aggressor, he would be entitled to use deadly force. there is one other potential exception, if george zimmerman was engaged inelonious conduct. i do think he could claim some sort of self-defense for that first punch as well. that is one way in which the law could be implicated. >> i want to get a piece of this, as you can imagine.

the first thing is that mr. morales and i agree on one thing and stand your ground should not have been applied to george zimmerman. but it was applied right there on the scene and that is why he was not arrested that night. that is the reason why it had to change. law enforcement offics on the street should not -- who do not have law degrees, they should not be making judgments on the street. those should only be made by prosecutors, judges, and juries. the fact that he was not arrested that night because of stand your ground said that it was applied and now the question is, willie florida jury unapply is, willie florida jury unapply