>> has the tea party been crushed? >> look, the tea party means different things in different places. spending, s less apprehensive energy policy, then there is not anybody at the us chamber who disagrees with any of that. what matters is that you have the ability to govern and the courage. we have always dealt with the big issuesin this town. we are hopeful and encouraged hear and bate that we we're confident that we'll have the courage to govern. ask about one

specific thing. considerable t a amount of money in north carolina, colorado, arkansas -- there is one noticeable why are you not there for david purdue? about the st point republican primaries in finding ways against folks who are aggressively flexible. regards to the democratic party first, they walked away at the federal level. that has led to our involvement in the republican primaries. in georgia, we backed kingston in the primary. we surveyed our members in the

state of georgia and advice to neutral in we stay this race. will going to reflect the more r membership, who has board members than any other state. >> there's a possibility that georgia could go to a runoff. do you see any chance of not to ing a decision endorse purdue? at each race individually, whether it is a primary or runoff. sit with her membership and get their views go to a ions should runoff. >> you mentioned louisiana. you endorsed mary landrieu in 2008. reports over the

summer that you might endorse her again this year. what happened? >> the threshold for incumbents is at 70%. rating landrieu 73% with the chamber, she slid to 68%. below our threshold. if you look at georgia and louisiana, it is an example of we do not ured what was nd the direction to us to stay neutral. about the ed louisiana race, he talked about decline of the democratic endorsements. has your increased involvement on behalf of republicans affected your ability to work with democrats? >> what is clear is that this administration -- senator reid former speaker pelosi --

have pushed the democratic party far to the left. like fixing health care law. there are very few days that i up in the morning and but e with senator warren, with this issue, the medical device tax, we have a commonality on that particular issue. party, under atic this administration and under harry reid and his obstruction of the senate, have led us to this place. which is hold is 70%, i went to school, and we're hopeful that they will take a lesson from president bill clinton. the library ng at last week and the theme of my speech was reestablishing the middle in the u.s. senate and house. that is the way it needs to be. when newt gingrich and president clinton got together tax do big things, and

issues as well -- i hope that the direction the democratic party chooses to take as we get past the selection -- because american people are tired are his in the senate and ready to send a clear message on november 4. on can i clarify your point noted to re law? you fix it. you want to fix part of it that that is your goal? >> right. unrealistic at this time to say that the president will repeal. it is deeply flawed. the look of the number of keep e who are promised to website, the the rollout -- has been a disaster. with ree that people

existing positions be -- condition should be protected. in a place where democrats and this is ans agree that an onerous commitment. needs to be t tax repealed. not only have we had some time live with the law, the public opinion will move to a place where we can fix this law. >> can you work with senator elizabeth warren, for example, and being in favor of repealing so s tax when you have aggressively gone after not only your colleagues, but her? >> our goal is to work with members of both parties to get things done for, from our perspective, the american public. we're also going to aggressively hold members of congress accountable that impact our membership. that ms. praising folks from both political parties.

we have endorsed, probably, six democrats in the house. but actions, not words is what matter. to send a message and we believe the american people members of both parties will demand this gets fixed. more nk there will be agreement and people that will like the keystone pipeline as a bipartisan issue. come together to support, which translates to specific jobs. agreement ipartisan -- the oversight committee. that is the start

to begin to reestablish a bipartisan approach towards government. that is the central tenet and theme of our political effort. but the political effort at the chamber is not an appendage, it of our ntegral part to rall goal which is reestablish the middle so we can get things done in anticipation of the presidential election in 2016. >> i hate to dwell on this one particular thing, but senator elizabeth warren is talking -- she and other democrats who your align with particular issue -- have they you willing to work with despite this real, sort of, you rontational issue that have towards them? value their role in the public debate.

whatever money we're going to to be a fraction mr. stiers what this spending, but we believe, fundamentally, that we are on the right side of the issues. are going an people to speak plainly and clearly and senate and house races. we think they have done that to the course of the primary elections. we have been fortunate with the board of the directors to be successful and 14 out of the 15 elections, including two special elections in alabama and florida. we believe that the people have in ken with the plane voice the primary season, and that will be two in november, but by cess is not only defined winning an election. it is determined by democrat to king come n the dust settles -- can come together when the

dust settles. you talked about reestablishing and governing the middle. republicans and democrats coming together. one of the few examples in in this at occurred recent congress was in the senate on a bipartisan copperheads of immigration bill. that bill stalled in the house. a number candidates that you have endorsed by strongly to that immigration bill. how do you see that playing out? the fact is, today, with regards to our immigration system, we have amnesty. i have been to 68 press conferences across the country and a number of different house races, as well. and what i believe

discussions with 150 candidates is that there is a recognition from both we have l parties that a problem and it is to be fixed. there are different solutions, there are different there are es, different constituencies, but is simple and straightforward. us the constitution requires to address it, and the first issue is to secure the border. democrats and republicans agree that we must secure the border. second, we need to begin to retain the talent that we are in the ng right here united states. expand the number of h1 visas. and we need to roll up our with the tough l issues that do not lend a 32nd ves neatly to television ad.

would make one point, imagine if the inverse is true. imagine if america was an amended that you people to better their circumstance, to live a better life and have a better education for themselves. many serving military and we respect that deeply. is an issue that we need we are confident that will continue to advocate strongly for immigration reform. >> the bill came out last june. strong bipartisan support. you ed about issues that just mentioned -- dealing with the 11 million that are here illegally. end of ll died at the the session and everybody has to start all over again. people who are coming in, if

to the senate ed races, are strongly opposed to it. how do see that getting done in 2015? >> that bill is going to perhaps die. there are over 40 jobs bills, by my last count, that have died in the senate. situation in reason why we have identified the need to back republican primaries that have the ability to win an election and are encouraged to do something when they get there. we're not going to waiver from support from immigration reform. of will work with a number different coalition partners on both sides of the aisle. chamber president tom donahue said that if republicans do not get behind immigration reform in a very way and act now,

then they, essentially, risk presidential election in 2016 because they up on the issue to democrats. that is the case? democrats have to do? as donna sort of lame-duck for this session to end. tom is a fierce advocate for the policy. has is why the chamber seen unprecedented growth and we don't walk away from our fundamental beliefs that the immigration system in this needs to be fixed, but also need to measure that priorities like approach to american energy.

cover over 300 issues, so it is finding the opportunity with the right elected officials in the house and senate that have the courage to govern on these issues. i believe that immigration will be a significant component of the presidential primary season. will see nk that you us -- even though we don't get involved in presidential politics, we do get involved in presidential policy -- we will for the rcely advocate other issues that i have outlined this morning. a republican candidate -- in your judgment, would it thing for a republican the presidency n in 2016 who opposes immigration reform? >> i think the president has to do with this issue. thomas been very on this forward particular issue, and we stand by that. those on o called upon

the left to come to the table like i have es discussed -- the healthcare policy, the labor policy. these are issues that have to be dealt with. you re you move forward, effects mitigate the that has been coming. over the course of the last several years, it has taken in the regulatory arena with a massive over regulation. so let's establish certainty first. that is a short-term goal. then we begin to address these but let's start with areas we have commonality. immigration fit in that category. important is mitch mcconnell to this though you've laid out? we are up right

now. i think we have run five ads, so a massive digital footprint has been the and erpiece of our digital social media efforts. he is somebody that fits squarely into the category of to eone who has the ability win an election and the courage do something, you know, in his new role as majority leader. he is a friend and someone that for to working with. >> why is that race is tight as it is? >> kentucky is a state that is very competitive and there are several issues at play. races look at the top 10 in the country, i saw that mcconnell was up. all of the ed about

races and i gather that you are optimistic that republicans will take the senate. what would you like to see in the first hundred days of an all republican congress? >> i think there needs to be a sequenced approach to government. i think some of the things going to support have are areas where we do that commonality -- support early on our areas where we have that commonality. mitigating the regulatory the rapid act issue towards the front of the list in my judgment. with the ld start healthcare law in areas where there are agreement. if we are able to gain some momentum. for able to have an reestablish a governing middle -- the american people are going to speak with a clear if we can demanded --

gain momentum on those issues, then it will be more likely that we can bring issues like immigration reform into the mix. i think we can also deal with tax reform. complex as it is, it is competitive around the world. to become more competitive because 95% of the world's consumers live somewhere else. to be more d aggressive with our trade policy. that is something that president clinton got right. where democrats and republicans come together, representing america, and selling of goods and services across this is a bipartisan issue. trade could also be an issue. legal reform as well. can move to comprehensive tax reform. -- do not deal as a country

republicans and democrats -- entitlements will consume the entire federal budget and 30 years. so let's start where we agree. especially as we move into a election where, i think, it will be the most consequential election in a generation. >> we have talked a lot about the amount of money that you guys are spending in these races. is the wonder -- this first time that you have played big in primaries. is there any chance you would in the bigger role presidential race in 2016 or beyond? >> four 102 years, our board has been very clear with us. are going to have a united front on these issues, so our to take a as been not role in presidential elections, be rigorous with our

views on respects to these issues we have discussed here today. we will continue to do that in the context of a presidential election. i was with the clinton library last week. romney, paul, governor all opposed our campaign because they are messengers on ourselves find discussing and debating. we're going to focus on the impacts, the federal issues, and work with members of both political parties to help move that agenda. if we can gain momentum, we believe that in the first of the next president, we have an unprecedented opportunity to and we start hat this engine of economic growth.

>> you talked about the of the bank -- what happened? >> i have been vocal in the press conferences. jody earns in iowa is also of one example that has of that in support particular bill. to talk ll continue about that and there will be continuity between the footprint and the political space. are it means is that we moving towards governing in the first hundred days. align a es do not partisan basis, such as issues we have noted here this morning. american people will demand by person in the elections.

we're going to vigorously push in the first hundred days, as well. >> talking about all the money you spent in the electoral states, there has been a lot of focus on the shift in money and power away from the political parties on both sides to these independent groups. do you think -- do think that is occurring? and how has it affected our politics and governing? >> i think that the us chamber growth we ount of 1997 experienced since with mr. donahue is reflective of the will of our membership to get back on offense and create jobs for this country. we think it is a good thing to t the voters are going the polls with information and facts. a lot of candidates claim to be pro-business, our job is to help validate that. we think that the american where the wing candidates stand is very healthy.

>> do think the party has lost power? have been aggressively involved in the elections. both the rnc and the dnc are vigorous and aggressive in various ways in this election i think, you know, the role in the public debate is to be valued. >> as campaign 2014 enters its final days, thank you very much for joining us. >> think you for having me. >> newsmakers is back. week was rob s engstrom. on track to be s an estimated $4 billion-$5 billion in campaign spending. we have a snapshot of one of these groups that are spending a lot of money.

and what can public take away from this? >> one of the things he tried to get was the shift in power. there is all this money being spent. what's new is that the share of by spending being done these outside groups is quickly some cases , and in even surpassing these expenditures by the candidates themselves. is reasonable to assume that the chamber and other groups in e it will have great sway the next congress in sort of affecting the government. about the debt 2013 government shutdown.

they were unable to rally the votes necessary to pass a billto a raise the debt ceiling. the chamber was sitting on the very upset by this, but do not really have the to draw these members, to help broker the compromise. now we will see, after a cycle in which they have been very active, if they do have the clout. >> 10 makes a very good point with their spending -- with the outside spending. think the outside groups have to define allison grimes -- mitch mcconnell's opponent. gone a long way in determining the outcome of that particular election. leading up to this, the chamber's clout had been in question on the hill. a lot of the business groups a number of ing was on hether it

immigration or treaty. be interesting to see now after they now after they have invested some 15 million dollars and primaries, in the million as well general election -- whether that business agenda will carry into the next congress. >> we should note that there are spending as much if not more in republican in the general election were conservative, but take a very different position on a number of key issues. the fight is not necessarily between republicans and primaries, but outside groups and tea party groups. on the other side, we will see tension headed into 2016.

the more business friendly interest that are already aligning behind clinton. had you see the democrats willingness to listen to the chamber agenda. collect but is going to be interesting to see. there were a number of democrats who are targets of the chamber and survived. they are going to follow their constituents and their own interest. that may overlap with the chamber agenda. it may not. >> any thoughts on that? >> i think it will be difficult for the chamber to work with some of these liberal democrats.

moran -- warren has made her political reputation out of challenging big business and wall street. when the chamber comes out and aggressively goes after to colleagues, it is going make her even less inclined to come to the table on things like the medical device tax. >> i want to say thank you for being here this week. for your questions for our guests and thank you for your time. >> tonight, c-span's coverage of campaign 2014 continues with a live debate in the georgia governors debate. this is live beginning at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span.

here are just a few of the e-mail suite of recently received from our viewers.

continue to us know what you think about the programs you are watching. you can send us a tweet. the c-span at conversation. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. held in institute institute on thursday looking into police misconduct. it discussed if body cameras can make police more accountable and how to ensure the police respect civil liberties. this is an hour and 20 minutes.

>> hello. welcome to the cato institute. you are at our new media lunch. it is a regular series. our panelists here today will be discussing the policy and privacy concerns surrounding filming active duty police officers, as well as touching upon body camera programs and what this could potentially do to mitigate the problems of police misconduct. for those of you in our online audience and watching on c-span, our hashtag is #medialunch. steve silverman is a cato internship alum. he is the creator of the immensely popular education movies-- "10 rules for dealing with police."

his channels have seen over 35 million views. >> thank you. how many of you have seen the movie "the matrix." a show of hands. pretty much everybody. what i want to try to do is the same thing with you that happened to neo when he said, i know kung fu. i want to try to do the same thing with you but i want is for you to say, i know how to record the police. i have broken this down into flex your rights, five rules for

recording the police. rule number one, know the law. the law is, you have the right to openly record the police in public. you notice i emphasize openly here and i will explain why. this first rule is probably the most important but it is also the most confusing. we have all seen videos where people are getting arrested for openly recording the police in public. we see these every day. police intimidating people, or even arresting people who do nothing more than film the police. this is happening despite the fact that every state and federal circuit court to rule on this question has concluded that filming the police in public is first amendment protected. you might ask, what about the 12 states who have all party

consent laws that require all parties to agree to be recorded. the courts in the states ruled that those laws do not apply to citizens who are openly recording the police in public. the most obvious and effective way to avoid running afoul of these laws, is to use your camera like you are a reporter, not like a spy. you want to be always openly recording. some of you who know a little bit about these laws might be saying, wait a second, what about massachusetts and illinois, two states that have statues on their book that make it illegal to record the police in public? again, there is good news. in 2011, the first circuit court of appeals declared their law to be unconstitutional. in 2012, illinois did the exact

same thing. the laws have been invalidated. therefore, in the u.s., citizens always have the right to openly record the police in public. so, if you are recording the police and police tell you to put your camera way, that is an unlawful order. i would argue that it is ok to inform the police of your law by saying something like, officer, i am familiar with the law that it does not apply to recording on-duty police. i generally don't advise in favor of educating the police about the law in other sorts of encounters. i think it is advisable. rule number two, know your technology. how many of you have a smart phone? by a show of smartphones? that is great.

how many of you who have a smart phone, password protect your phone? who of you does not password protect your phone? you can easily secure it by installing a passcode section. highly recommended. the supreme court recently passed a very excellent ruling requiring police to obtain a warrant before searching your smart phone, but in the meantime, it is always a good time to get it -- to keep it locked down the guests sometimes people -- to keep it locked down because sometimes police do not get the memo. how many of you have a streaming video according app on the home screen on your phone? for those of you who do not have it, i'm going to show you the benefits of keeping a streaming video on your home screen. i am tapping the streaming

recording video app. bamboozer has the best streaming app. i'm streaming you all live to an off-site server. the benefit to this is that if a police officer unlawfully tries to snatch, confiscate, or destroy your phone, what you have recorded will be saved securely offsite. also, if you use it or another live streaming video app-- it has a feature if you tap the sleep feature, the screen goes blank. this can be additional security and protection for your data, because the passcode goes to sleep.

but if they try to unlock it, if they turn it on, he will get a passcode. of course you're not going to give them your passcode. it is an extra layer of protection. rule number three, respond to things cops say. we're on c-span here, so i'll keep it to things cops say. if you are recording an arrest, suddenly you might see a situation where one of the police officers will break off from that and suddenly approach you and say, hey what are you doing? sometimes people make the mistake of responding with something like, i'm recording you to make sure you are doing your job right. or, i am recording you because i do not trust the police. there is a better way to say this. a better way to approach this is to say, officer, i am not interfering, i am asserting my

first amendment right. you are being documented and recorded off-site. that is why it is a good idea to use the live streaming video. cops might say, please stop recording me, that is against the law. police who are in those 12 states, might actually use this, misunderstanding of the law, in order to get you to stop recording. again, i think it is ok to say, officer, i am familiar with the law but the courts have ruled that the law does not apply to recording on-duty police. another thing, they might scream at you, stand back, i need you to step back. the good response to this is to step back. i think it is ok to be a little bit flexible in a situation. say something like, officer i am not interfering. i am exercising my first amendment right. rule number four, do not point your camera at the police like it is a gun. i have seen lots of videos where

people kind of get aggressive and shove it in their face. a better way to do it--you can avoid the vertical video syndrome where you see the black borders and it is ugly and it looks like you're looking at the video through a crack in the door. make sure you go horizontal. i think it is a good idea to record like this. when you hold the phone at waist level, it is less confrontational. you do not have to frame it like a cinematographer. it is better than pointing your camera like a gun. you can avoid the vertical video. rule number five, final rule. prepare to be arrested. i've been telling you the whole time, this is perfectly legal

behavior. yet, if you're brave enough to record the police you must look at this activity as a potential act of civil disobedience that can lead to your arrest. it is troubling that citizens for not breaking the law should be prepared to be arrested but if the officer says to shut it off or i will arrest you, you should take him or her at their word. it is up to you if you want to consider testing the boundaries. you may comply by saying officer, ok, i am turning the camera off under protest. or, if you keep recording, brace yourself for arrest. hit the sleep button to prevent the police from deleting your footage. do not physically resist. as of any arrest, you have the right to remain silent.

you should use this right by shutting up. be confident that any frivolous charges will be dropped and you will have deserved evidence of an illegal arrest that may become the basis of a potentially lucrative lawsuit. but more importantly than that, is that your brave stand could affect citizens. congratulations, you have all been upgraded, you now know how to record the police. >> thank you steve. next presenter is jonathan blank. he's a research associate for cato center and a blog editor with cato. his research interests include police misconduct. his work has been published on online outlets. he also maintains a personal blog, blank slate.

and you can follow him on twitter. >> i want to apologize. tim lynch was originally scheduled to be here. i'm happy to be here because it is something i am passionate about. police misconduct.net is a cato resource that we used to disseminate the instances of police abuse and crime throughout the country. i will take this moment to thank katie randall who does so much work behind the scenes. the website is not meant to shame police as a whole or be anti-cop in any real way. we believe that police officers are trying to do their best. this often leads to rights violations against both the

guilty and innocent. we see this in daily roundups of the daily news. police misconduct tends to be thought of as sort of a rare, bad apples sort of incident where it is just one cop and it is not representative of the entire department. that is often true. it only takes one cop to give the rest of the cops a bad example. though they may resent the bad ones, they feel they must remain quiet to support them. that is a long story for some other time. because of this reputation and balance, misconduct often goes unnoted. they are dismissed as a bad apple situation. we feel that police misconduct is something that requires more attention.

sunlight is the best disinfectant. the more we know about police misconduct, the better we know how to deal with bad apples and the better we can stop bad management. from an internal police perspective and citizens. there is reason to be optimistic about the future of policing. as steve explained, most all of us have cell phones with recording technology. likewise, dashcams has been standard in patrol cars for a very long time. now, the technology allows police officers to wear cameras. they can record any instance in which they come into contact with the public.

it allows for neutral observers. they sometimes are shown to abuse their authority. it also works to protect the police. for example, an officer was accused of sexual assault by someone he stopped. the camera showed he did absolutely nothing wrong. it exonerated him. how does a portable and accessible technology--it may have brought us closer to finally answering the question, who watches the watchers? we all do. as many few probably know, the official autopsy results of the michael brown case in ferguson were released yesterday along with leaked grand jury evidence. if officer wilson was wearing a body camera, perhaps we would have had--i say perhaps because

we know technology is only as good as the people who use it and share it. cameras are not a cure all. there are instances caught on film where police are violating the rights of others but they escape punishment. two years ago, there was a young man in prince george's county who was assaulted by a police officer. the man's crime was essentially walking away from a police officer who wanted his attention. the police officer started running after him and he turns around, hearing the footsteps, the officer was not yelling or anything, he turns around and gets hit in the face with a gun. the gun goes off. luckily, no one was shot. but this man, was assaulted by a police officer. luckily there was footage. he was charged and spent a month in jail for for being physically assaulted. but this officer was

charged, he won. there is video evidence but it did not get him off. he was also not fired. he was allowed to retire, which usually means a pension. video evidence is sometimes withheld by police departments. a woman was pulled over by the police and she claimed she was injured during that stop. backup police cams stopped working. it was her word against seven police officers. people's word against the police.

it is usually not good without video evidence. part of this is because people want to believe police officers. they're people just like us. people lie and they have incentives to lie. this is where the public comes in. like steve was saying, if you follow the right rules, his roles, you can get evidence in your own neighborhoods. but i must caution, this is still a dangerous endeavor. some of you probably saw, in ferguson, there was a large moving protest and a police officer was in the middle of it. he pointed his assault weapon at individuals and threatened to kill one of them. this was caught on tape and the videographer asked him, did you threaten to kill me, what is your name? the officer responded with something i am not going to say on c-span.

it went viral. as of the video, the officer was found and fired. that is very rare. if that police officer got too scared, if someone bumped into him or something went wrong, the person with the video could have been shot. please be very careful. i'm not saying don't do it, please do. be as careful as you possibly can. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> thank you, jonathan. our final panelist here today is matthew fogg. he's a retired chief deputy of the u.s. federal marshals service and a member of law enforcement against prohibition. he received the highest law-enforcement reward for tracking down over 300 of america's most wanted and dangerous fugitives. after 30 years of service, he retired.

matthew held leadership positions in three government on what -- nongovernment watchdog organizations. you can find him on twitter. >> thank you very much, it is good to be here and thank you for the introduction. i agree wholeheartedly with my two colleagues, steven and jonathan. i present a law enforcement perspective. some of the things that i have observed. one of the things that you--they said they were improprieties, a lot of things going wrong with the inside. the one thing i always remember when i came out of the academy and arrived at my duty station. i remember, the management told me i was a young recruit and wanted to learn how to shoot and

use the amendment rights and what your rights were and how to implement the law. what is very exciting about it,--i know you learn all that stuff at the academy. listen, this is how we do it here. i will always remember him saying that. this is how we do it here. but i want to say about this, when we look at the body cameras and say, what kinds of solutions we can come up with to help us understand police better and maybe get a better understanding of the situation, we have to understand, when i am on that street as a law enforcement officer, i have a lot of discretion. i have a network behind me that is going to back me up, the good old boys network. it includes police officers, judges, it is a whole network. even those at the grand jury.

i remember the close relationship that the u.s. attorneys had with the jurists, talking to them every day, communicating, joking together, coming together. that had a major influence on the cases that they brought before the grand jury, whether they were going to get indictments are not. what i am saying to you is that there is a network. how do we build and get into that network? being a member of officers against prohibition, we are a powerful organization because nationally across the whole country, we send a message out. the war on drugs is bad policy. not only is it bad policy, it is probably one of the most racist policies that has been instituted since slavery. that is pretty powerful. we begin to look at the disparities in the numbers,--i was a member of amnesty international, we did a racial

profiling report that indicated that more people have been profiled since 9/11 than the population of canada. i have seen so many reports that shows that the disparity is not closed. . we look and we see what happened in ferguson a. when we see what happened in new york with the chokehold. we see this on television. we saw this man being choked to death while he was saying i can't breathe and he was ultimately killed. we sought rodney king get eaten with a stick. isrybody is saying that crazy. the officers don't get convicted. you saysork behind this is how we do it here. this,'m trying to say is

body cameras are good. , when thatt know information is in front of a jury and that officer is allowed to go back and rethink everything. the law is different when officers are involved. they don't have to give a statement right away. back, you don't want to say this. you want to be careful how you put this forward. all of this is real. what i am saying to you is once that begins to happen, you take a year or two years for a to come up, that jerry is hearing the offers say that i thought he had a gun and i was threatened for my life and i remembered one of my partners was killed a six months ago. i felt a threat when he turned around and he looked at me with

his hands up a saying don't shoot. i still felt a threat. people will sit on that jerry and i know -- jury. is there is ang lot in law enforcement that is wrong. we need protection. when i won my case, everybody said to me don't take on the justice department. don't go forward. you know what happens the cops when they blow the whistle and they speak at. your career will be destroyed and they will probably kill you. that happened. my backup left me in a stakeout. who also raised a discrimination complaint wound up dead. they don't know who killed him.

the marshall that spoke up, he lost his job. that is what they gave him in the squad bay. what i am saying to you is we have got these situations going on in ferguson and down in sanford, florida. mainly because it is an issue with cameras and so forth, but this death has been going on forever. it has been out there, trust me. a lot of questionable incidents and i had to tell officers then and there, you will not do that in front of me here. when i work with other departments, i would work with seattle, miami, lapd, and i saw some of the most egregious