policing and race relations in the u.s. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ >> president writing on wednesday -- president biden on wednesday in a joint session of congress. many states working on more restrictive voting measures. the top of his priority list is passing several voting reform. welcome to "washington journal." we will spend the first hour asking you about voting measures, voting efforts across the country in the federal

voting effort and your recommendations for that. if you think voting in the u.s. should be made easier, (202) 748-8000. if you think more rules and more laws are needed in the states across the country and at the federal level, (202) 748-8001. if you feel that no changes are needed, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text at (202) 748-8003. we welcome your comments on facebook as well. as often in these cases, pew research has a poll about how americans are feeling on voting.

republicans and democrats move further apart in their views of voting access. in the months since the 2020 election, partisan conflicts over election rules and procedures at the state and federal levels have increasingly become contentious. among u.s. adults overall, the majority of americans favor several policies to ease voting. pew research asks a number of questions of people in terms of specifics on voting reform and some of those -- we will show those two now. the majority of americans say -- favor several policies to ease voting. among folks who lean republican and lean democrat, 38% republicans are favorable of that and 82% of democrats are in

favor of that. allowing people convicted of felonies to vote after serving their sentences. making early in person voting available prior to election day -- making election day a national holiday, 59% of republicans say yes and 78% of democrats. it is pretty much even on this question. requiring electronic voting machines to print a paper ballot backup. some of the questions pew research asked of people in their latest poll on voting.

we are asking you this morning your recommendations. if you think they should make it easier, (202) 748-8000. if used sit -- if you say more rules are needed, (202) 748-8001 . if you are of the feeling that no changes are needed, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text as well. one of the main pieces of legislation that has already passed in the house is hr one. here is what it would do. hr 1 would call for automatic voter registration, would strengthen early and absentee, protect against flawed purchase of voter rolls, it would create small dollar non-taxpayer public financing system for federal offices. it would prohibit coordination between super pac's and

candidates. it would require states to use independent redistricting commit -- committees -- commissions. the issue of voting loss, state voting laws, and georgia was most prominently featured, was part of a hearing in the senate this week. senators debate federal voting laws, recognize -- voting laws. senator lindsey graham questioning stacey abrams. here is a look. >> do you support voter identification laws? >> yes. >> ok.

>> every state requires some form of identification. >> the answer is yes. do you support the idea that voting should be limited to american citizens? >> yes. >> do support that we should have -- ballot harvesting? are you familiar with the term? >> in native american reservations, i do believe it is appropriate for tribal elders to collect ballots. >> do you support it beyond native american voters?

>> it depends on the situation. each of the behaviors should be examined. all of that hearing held at c-span.org. the question for you this morning on voting, your recommendations. if you think it should be made easier, (202) 748-8000. if you say more rules are needed, (202) 748-8001. for those of you who think things are good the way they are, (202) 748-8002. the opening of those questions with senator graham and stacey abrams, she was asked about voter identification. we will go back to the pew research study. requiring all voters to show

government issued photo id, 61% of democrats approved of that and 93% of republicans approved of that. let's get to your calls and comments. rocky in florida. caller: i think more rules are needed, you know. a lot of people vote and they are probably dead, a lot of people. i am from florida. ron desantis came up with a good rule about this rioting and stuff. host: back to voting, on your comment. do you feel people -- you said dead people vote. people that are dead on the voting rolls, a lot of those

votes counted? caller: i think a lot of them counted. people had family who died -- host: is there evidence of that in florida? caller: i think some evidence of that. they caught a couple of people. they have to check the people who died. host: frank is next. caller: i do think voting should be made easier. the best way to make voting easier is going to be giving you the option of voting by mail. you can do at the same way you register for a driver's license. you go to the courthouse and you provide your identification and you give them your address and they mail you the ballot. they mail you the option to get the ballot. host: in 2020, we saw a great deal of mail-in voting largely due to the pandemic.

you do not think that opened the floodgates for many states to say, let's make this a permanent policy? caller: i am really hoping it did. i cannot get over how many people had access simply because they could mail a ballot in. host: what was the rule in florida? caller: it seemed like everybody had the option. i got the request mail to my home. i said yeah, and they kept mailing me ballots over the two election cycles. host: did they send you an email saying, we got your ballot? you are good to go? caller: they had a website i could check. i could go on the website and verify. host: let's hear from colleen in massachusetts. caller: good morning.

i think the voting laws should stay the same. i do not believe in the mail-in ballot because they do not verify the signature when they put the mail-in ballot in the machine. host: what about the previous caller's comments on providing id, going down to the courthouse and confirming your signature? ahead of time, obviously. caller: that would be useful. i think that defeats the whole purpose of why people are supporting mail-in ballots. here in newton, i knew several people who did not live at the address that they received a mail-in ballot for and they should not have been voting here. that is my concern.

the people who use them live in the area. host: the focus is on voting laws across the country. raphael warnock said many of the laws being considered are designed to be more restrictive. >> we have seen voter suppression build since the election in november and january all across this country. 360 voter suppression bills in 47 states, increase of 100 bills since i highlighted this issue on the senate floor a month ago. as of today, five of these bills, including in my own state of georgia, have been signed into law. these efforts vary in how they

suppress voting. some new laws, like in georgia, will make it harder to vote by mail. some will make lines that are already too long longer. harder to cast a provisional vote. the new law gives state politicians, some of the politicians today who refused to acknowledge president biden's victory, the power to override election officials. we may be tempted to dissect these bills to make them more rational, but that narrow analysis only obscures the larger unmistakable picture. this is a full-fledged assault on voting rights, unlike we have ever seen since the era of jim crow. host: the hearing this week. the john lewis voting rights act

picks up steam. it has approximately zero chance of passage in the senate thanks to provisions that republicans argue are remote from voting rights. the bill preempts a vast array of state voting laws in favor of highly prescriptive federal procedures, including automatic and same-day voter registration, and third-party ballot collections and restrictions on voting role purchase. -- roll purchase. such advice is being advanced by the more morally compelling

voices. it was passed last session by the u.s. house. it would require certain areas of federal preapproval before making election changes. it will establish a process for reviewing voting changes in jurisdictions nationwide. it would give the attorney general power to place observers where there is a serious threat of racial discrimination. it would increase accessibility for native american and alaska native voters. back to your calls on voting recommendations. bruce in cleveland, go ahead. caller: how are you doing today? host: fine, thanks.

caller: i have a hard problem with this whole situation because voter registration cards -- i have never had any problem. the only time -- they sent me a mailed and ballot -- mail-in ballot. the envelope sealed itself and i was unable to mail it back. it should be made much easier. you have to show some type of id. that is on the problem. i am a veteran. the whole thing that these republicans are trying to pull to take us back to jim crow,

they do not want people to vote. they are mad because they lost the election. they lost the house and senate and presidency. this whole thing, to me, is ridiculous. republicans have no plans on anything in the last 10 years. they have no policies. they say they will give us health care. we had the aca. republicans fought it and keep fighting. host: back to your voting experience. you said the mail-in ballot showed up and it was raining that day and the envelope was already sealed. your fear that if you had opened that somehow, sent it in taped, they would not have counted the ballot? caller: right. i do not believe they would have

counted it. i filled it out. there was no way for me to send it in as it was. i would've had to cut, cut, cut the envelope. host: let's hear from mark in philadelphia. caller: i do not think it should be more difficult. i want to bring up the point about h.r. 1 and how important passing those bills will be come 2024. right now, the pennsylvania governor is term limited in 2022. same with gretchen whitmer. governor evers in wisconsin. here is the nightmare scenario. we get three republican governors with republican state legislatures.

the bills that passed in georgia will pass in those three states. biden will not be president without pennsylvania, wisconsin, and michigan. the dems have to get rid of the filibuster and get those bills passed. host: appreciate that. the counting is over. it is still an issue in arizona. the story from arizona central. the election audit -- you are seeing that counting continues on saturday. someone is handling your presidential ballots. the recounting of maricopa county ballots continues saturday and here's a breakdown of what the cameras might see.

neither the arizona senate nor cyber ninjas has agreed to allow journalists inside. there are nine cameras set up inside the coliseum. former president donald trump has weighed in on the audit. this is a statement released by the former president's office yesterday on arizona. the republican party demanded the governor provide large-scale security for the brave american patriots doing the forensic audit of the 2020 presidential election. the governor will be held responsible for the safety of those involved. state police or national guard must be immediately sent out for protection.

the democrats do not want to have this information revealed. in jefferson township, pennsylvania, we hear from bill. caller: good morning. i think -- i do not have any problem with voting. nobody wants to see it harder for people to vote. host: you are breaking up a bit. big creek, mississippi, steve. caller: i have been blind since 2005. in 2010, i paid $10 to get a

photo id from the highway patrol that lasted 10 years. in 2020, i went back to renew it and i had to bring a note from my doctor to prove that i was blind. i believe everybody ought to have a photo id to be able to vote. host: ok. iowa, pete, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to point out some misconceptions about mail-in voting. i worked in the election office for about 10 years. anyway, mail-in voting, and the same is true in most states, but they sent you a request or an

application if you want to mail-in voting. -- vote. then they send you a valid -- a ballot to vote. they do not just send out ballots randomly. you have to request a ballot. when you mail in your ballot, you sign a voter affidavit. you do not sign the ballot. the voter affidavit guarantees your signature by penalty of -- in other words -- host: it is a legally binding document. as opposed to the ballot, as you pointed out. caller: exactly.

it is under penalty of law if you are falsifying that information. how many people do you think are going to break the law to vote? to do that substantially to influence the election, it is next to impossible. it just does not happen. i do not think a lot of people understand that, even the former president. host: thank you for clarifying that. some comments on social media. on facebook, id is essential for many aspects of life. i see no reason why something so important as voting would be any different. voter idea should be law in every state. rebecca says make election day a

national holiday to make it easier for people to vote. joe on facebook says voting should be as easy as buying a gun. in the judiciary committee, the hearing on voting issues, discussed the voting rights act passed by congress and changes made by the supreme court. here is dick durbin. >> what we have today is the party of lincoln, which is refusing to join us and extend the voting rights act. that used to be a bipartisan exercise. democrats support the extension of the voting rights act. i would concede the historical point.

>> if i can respond to that -- republicans never ceased to be the party that believes the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments matter and the inherent dignity of the immortal human soul is such that it should never be denigrated -- it is not fair or accurate to portray the two parties as having somehow -- it is not accurate. southern democrats later became republicans, that is true. host: article in this morning's new york times on efforts to change voting laws in texas. republicans target voter access in texas.

in the article, they talk about the bills in texas. it would make texas one of the hardest states in the country to cast a ballot in. bills in several states create -- are creating a two-pronged approach to urban and rural areas that raises questions about the disparate treatment of cities in the large number of voters of color who live in the. that is helping to fuel opposition from corporations that are based in or have workforces in those places. let's hear from robert in maryland. caller: good morning. how are you today?

i remember back in -- john kennedy and lyndon johnson stopped this. lyndon johnson said, the dixie crats --i remember that just as clearly, and that is exactly what happened. from that point on, nixon said the silent majority and reagan said -- they played this race thing.

let's have the white people take the boat back like they want to -- vote back like they want to. that is what is going on in the republican party in the south now. so that our people cannot vote. that is what is going on. keep up the good work, republicans. caller: good morning, i believe there should be automatic voting registration when a person reaches 18 and they should not be purged from the rolls until they are personally contacted. what is going on seems to be from people not happy with the outcome of the election.

that is my comments, thank you. host: windsor, connecticut, kevin. your thoughts on voting laws? caller: i can see the big lie is still going on. just like when gore like the -- lost the election with bush, i do not like it but i took it because that is how democracy works. there should be rules for senators to tell the truth to the people who put them into office. when a congressman tells lies to

their people, they should be removed. we cannot go through the scrap - - this crap anymore. host: richard blumenthal was talking to one of the witnesses about the house passage of the voter expelled. >> we are here because -- voting rights bill. >> we are here because of the supreme court's decision in shelby county and the current torrent of voter suppression bills. i think we must act and we should act on the john lewis voting rights act. let me ask you how, in fact, with a combined to protect voting rights in georgia and other states? >> thank you, senator blumenthal.

those that relate to automatic voter registration, equality voting, absentee voting, they go right to the heart to the provisions we have been spending the morning talking about. and the provisions being t up in other states. the voting rights advancement act would require that jurisdictions want to make changes to voting, where they want to impose new laws, those laws have to go through scrutiny of a federal authority. one aspect would create a regime that would immediately provide greater access to voters across the country and the other would

protect voters against discriminatory voting changes. we need both of those elements. host: a bit more detail on the pew research they released on voting laws. this is one of the findings. since 20, sharp decline in the share of republicans -- any voter should have the option to vote early or absentee without having to document a reason. 36% of republicans and 62% republicans saying a voter should only be able to vote early or absentee if they have a documented reason for not voting on election day. democrats, 84% support anyone having the option of voting early.

our question, we are talking about voting across the country, your recommendations. should it be made easier? (202) 748-8000. if you say more rules are needed, (202) 748-8001. if you think things are pretty good the way they are, (202) 748-8002. we welcome your comments on social media as well. trump should only be allowed to participate in any election until -- should not be allowed to participate in any election until he pays all of his debts. in person voting should be on three consecutive days, saturday, sunday, and federal holiday monday. if i use of a photo id is racist, why has there never been a proposal in congress to ban them altogether?

randy in michigan says remember when you only needed a utility bill or phone bill to prove you are a resident of a township to vote? i do, and so do a lot of these older callers. david, ohio, up next. caller: good morning. the reason we are even having this debate, we should not even be having this debate in a democracy. it should be easier to vote. the reason we are having this debate is not because of voter fraud. it is because of power. changing demographics in america are making more and more elections win by more progressive forces and democratic forces. the conservatives do not want to lose power, which is why they want to limit voting. that is obvious. we should not be fooled by that.

all the supreme court cases, court cases everywhere where people were bringing voter fraud cases, none of them found any significant voter fraud. they found it on the others, if i am not mistaken. people have the right to vote -- we waste billions on the defense budget and that could be used on communities. reducing the amount of drop boxes, especially in minority areas, longer lines. if you are 65 years old or older and you have to wait 10 hours, that is ridiculous. it is obvious that this is all about power. that is my comment. host: cindy in englewood, new

jersey. caller: all i can say is that had donald trump won, we would not be having this conversation. georgia, arizona flipping blue. republicans are absent about this. -- upset about this. had he won, we would not be having this conversation. we are having it because he lost. host: president biden will be addressing congress this wednesday, his first address to a joint session of congress. we will have live coverage for you here on c-span, streaming online at c-span.org, and on c-span radio. you can find the coverage on the c-span radio app app live wednesday at 9:00 eastern. we will follow that with your phone call reaction. there is a new poll out, the

political director at abc has this tweet this morning. biden approval at 52%, 10 points higher than trump at 100 days. for the 14 presidents from truman to biden, the 100 day average is 66%. in new york, this is george. caller: i just wanted to say that i have been heavily involved with the voting process. i have been in charge of voting districts and voting locations. a lot of people who are calling in do not know how the system works. there are hundreds of thousands of people millions -- people in

the u.s. who go out of their way to make sure every single person gets to vote. i have always been able to work with everybody. however, the problems people are citing for the next election, for the people who worked the election, there are problems we have known about since day one. we need to have a voting system where people have to prove their citizenship first. in order to register to vote, you have check a little box that says i am a citizen. i do not think that is efficient. you need to be able to prove that you live where you live because one of our problems is people will move from one town to another and i've had people

try to vote and they come in and we ask them and they say, i moved 10 years ago but i always have voted here. host: what do you do in those cases? are they allowed to vote in that precinct? caller: you cannot vote in that precinct. why do you get to vote for the dogcatcher in this town when you're are living in another town? -- you are living in another town? assembly members, state senators. you have to vote in the district you are assigned to. there is a lot of work that we can do. if trump had won, we would be

talking about the same thing. except it would be democrats asking for the same thanks. our system -- same things. our system is pretty good, but it is not 100%. i thought it was humorous, the earlier comments, the person said we should make voting as easy as buying a gun. you have to call up the federal government when you go to the voting location and you have to get approval? host: are you still there? caller: yes. host: one of our first callers said dead people voted. have you ever seen someone try to vote as a person who was

dead? caller: everyone should call up their local board of elections and get a copy of the people on the registered voter list. that will show who voted. when i checked my local -- there was a person who was 16-year-old who voted in the last election. there were multiple people who were way over the 100-year-old mark. host: that happened in the 2020 election? caller: yes. i think there are people who are out there doing that. unfortunately, the verification of the signature has to be stricter, i think that we have it right now, which has been one of the common complaints forever. host: thank you for your

experience. mikey, virginia. caller: good morning. there is no voter fraud. there is voter depression -- voter suppression. when you dismantle the machines on the post office, remove the drop boxes, when you want to change the votes, there is massive voter suppression in texas, in atlanta. they know they will lose if it stays like this. trump is a sore loser. we have never had this problem except when trump came.

he made people doubt democracy all around the world. if you want to have a true democracy, we should abolish lobbyists, united decision in the supreme court. i do not know what to do. many things have to change. if republicans -- a lot people cannot afford voter ids cannot

afford to take off from work to wait eight hours to get there idea the dmv. most democratic governments mandate that people go to vote. the republicans know they are going to lose if they don't change this. host: there was an election yesterday in louisiana. the minority leader of louisiana state senate won the race on saturday to serve out the remainder of the term. senator richmond working for the widen -- the biden white house. there will before hundred 31 house voting members, 219 democrats and 212 republicans.

there are four vacancies. four open seats. newington, connecticut, thank you for waiting period -- waiting. caller: i have been wanting to call c-span about this problem ever since the election. my first vote was for dwight david eisenhower and i have voted in every election since then. i went to the polls this year in newington, connecticut. connecticut is a total democratic state with mr. blumenthal. there is no hope for republicans

here. anyway, i went to the polls in newington and i handed my license to the two teenagers who were sitting at the table. she says, i do not need that. you don't want my license? we do not need it. do you want to know where i live? i said, i live on willard avenue . they never asked me my apartment number. eight families in this place that could have voted. they did not ask me my apartment. i walked over and got a ballot. i filled it out and i put it in the slot and i walked out. do you think my vote was counted? i have been voting since 1954. i have never in my whole time of

voting been treated like that. usually, you walk over to the table and they ask you for your identification. this is in newington, connecticut. i mean, are you telling me that this election was not rigged? i went to bed at night. there is no hope. joe biden was going to win this presidency if there was no other way. host: the issue of voter id came up a number of times this week. here is a comment from burgess owens who testified about his experiences growing up under jim crow laws in florida. >> my father allowed me to demonstrate in a demonstration with college students.

i was the youngest participant. in the seventh grade, my school never received new books. at service stations, there were white men only restrooms and white women only restrooms. jim crow laws made it impossible for black americans to vote. a section of the georgia law that has brought so much outrage from the left requires someone -- a voter to show identification.

if a voter cannot produce one of these forms of id, they will cast a provisional ballot. 97% of georgia voters already have a government issued id. i find it offensive, the narrative on the left that black people are not smart enough to get an id. host: here is the headline in the washington post. the mass killing of armenians was genocide. a designation u.s. president long avoided for fear of damaging the u.s.-turkey relationship.

the american people honor all of those armenians who perished in the genocide that began 106 years ago. let us renew our shared resolve to prevent future atrocities from occurring anywhere in the world and let us pursue healing and reconciliation for all the people in the world. historians estimate that 1.5 million armenians were killed in a campaign of forced marches and mass killings born out of ottoman concerns that christian armenians would align with russia during world war i. 10 more minutes of our opening question for you this morning. should voting laws be made easier? should rules be added? on social media, a couple of comments. i agree with the fellow who wants to remove society with the

filibuster. people in the parties like it because it is an easy scapegoat. he also says voting has become the non-essential. when you vote, you vote for people who you think can get things done but nothing can be done with the filibuster in the way. look at all the issues across the political structure that are mega popular but never even get it to the senate floor -- political spectrum that are mega popular but never even get it to the senate floor. william says voting should be encouraged and granted as a right not a minefield each voter should negotiate successfully. politicians happen picking their voters. now they are trying to pick

which votes count. massachusetts, william. caller: the caller a few calls ago about voter suppression and the caller you were just reading , right on the money. there is lobbying going on and it costs a lot of money to run. 750,000 constituents per house rep alone. how do you fix this? alcee hastings and his resolution, the commission to uncap house representatives. when have you talked to your house rep? you do not know the person. how can you run? it costs millions of dollars.

alex morris was backed by the democrats and he had no chance because how do you feet -- defeat someone in office for 40 years? if you increase the house members, you have smaller districts. you know the person who is running. and more people can vote and you will end voter suppression and gerrymandering. you guys are focusing on the wrong issue. ask nancy pelosi, do you support alcee -- alcee hastings? host: article about the upcoming release of data from the census. why your state might lose or

gain clout in congress. the government will release state populations from the 2020 census and estimates suggest rhode islanders will lose one of their two seats in the chamber. this is a once in a decade reshuffling of the 435 house seats among the states. some states will gain clout, while others will lose. this is brian in selleck city. -- salt lake city. caller: thank you for taking my call. everybody, call your governor. we need 38 governors to put term limits on these fools. if everybody calls your governor and says, 38 governors can

change it. we are not a democracy. i hate hearing that. i wish you announcers would say, we are not a democracy. we are a constitutional republic. there is no mention of democracy and the bill of rights, the constitution, the declaration of independence. those three documents make america strong. i do not think we will survive the biden administration. 250 years, the rome dynasty fell. we are going to do the same thing the way things are going. all of this debt they are putting on us, we are going to collapse. you could not tell the boys from the girls. host: john, good morning.

caller: good morning. i agree with a lot of your previous callers. i agree with the term limits. it was not supposed to be a career in politics, like joe biden and nancy pelosi. you can go to the grocery store and pay with your palm print. in wisconsin, you can vote with 13 different forms of id. i think the system needs to be kept the way it is.

if we put it on a single system, it would make it easier for outside forces to hack into one specific system. host: one more call from missouri. caller: are you serious? host: you are on the air. caller: i had to wait all this time? host: you are on the air. caller: i think we need more voter laws, too. we did not -- we would not need them of people will just bring their id to start with. a piece of mail from your home is not an id. anybody can take anybody's mail and pretend it is them.

let's get real about this matter. as far as joe biden goes, you guys said 52% of the population is approving of him and i do not believe that for a minute because everybody i talk to cannot stand joe biden and joe biden has not even been to the southern border to check on the crisis he has created. trying to say that trump administration left it, and we know it is a light. host: the approval poll is from the washington post and the abc news. we will talk about the topic of police reform in the light of the derek chauvin verdict this week. later, we will be joined to talk about the derek chauvin verdict and race relations in the u.s. ♪

♪ >> book tv on c-span two has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. tonight at 9:00 eastern, in his book "children under fire," john woodrow cox looks at the effect of gun violence on children in america and is interviewed by the columbia university epidemiology professor. tonight at 10:00 eastern, john boehner talks about his book, "on the house," a washington memoir, recounting his time in the house of representatives and his future in the republican party. tonight, amanda ripley on his -- her book "high conflict," looking at how people can engage in healthy conflict resolution.

tonight on c-span2. ♪ >> monday night on "the communicators," a look at content moderation in social media with the director for the tech -- director for technology and innovation at the enterprise institute. >> republicans tend to be upset about content moderation being too much and that it seems to them to be politically motivated and putting conservative voices at a disadvantage online, where a lot of the democratic members of congress seem upset that more content isn't being taken down. they feel that dangerous or untrue things are being left out that are creating all sorts of other problems that spill into our off-line world. a lot of washington can agree that content moderation is upset about this, they come at it from two different ways.

>> monday night on "the communicators," on c-span2. >> listen to "the weekly," a c-span podcast. this week, research and tying the coronavirus death of george floyd to social inequities. >> looking at leadership institutions, academic institutions, large companies and ceos, how many of the leaders are individuals of color? not many. it's an issue and it is a pipeline issue that we need to look at infix and not think that the problem is solved because we do have a black vice president. >> find "the weekly," where you get your podcast. -- podcasts. ♪

>> "washington journal" continues. host: rafael mangual is with us. he's with the manhattan institute and with us this morning to talk about police reform efforts. good morning, welcome to "washington journal." guest: thanks for having me on. host: in the aftermath of the derek chauvin trial, the verdict this past week, the nation, still unsettled. even overnight. "the new york post" wrote about

a protest last night where traffic was blocked and they included video where in the several days since the trial there have been reports of additional police shootings. what is your take on the state of the nation in the days after the show been verdict -- derek chauvin verdict? guest: we are in a precarious situation. specifically because one of the things that the s was it retrenched the conversation about race reform in this toxic idea that police pose an existential threat to black americans. we are seeing data on this now, recent studies show that eight in 10 african americans believe that young black men are more likely to be killed by police

then to diana in a car accident. of course the odds are 10 to one in the other direction. we are at this point in which chauvin the -- in which the chauvin incident set a narrative that reinforced a misperception about race in america and it's that misperception driving the reform conversation. pushback gets characterized as insensitive to the concern of certain communities. i think also the misperception feeds these overreactions to other incidents. i'm thinking here of the mckay brian shooting where the facts were much more ambiguous than they were in the derek chauvin incident, yet we are still seeing those kinds of incidents drive protests. host: i will ask you about the response of police departments across the country. there are several incidents that

we could talk about in the past couple of days, but in general how have, what is your perception of how police departments have responded to allegations of police shootings that have come up, not just allegations, but incidents that have come up in the past couple of days? guest: yeah, i think the responses are reflecting a sense that police are under fire, and they are, in this country. which is interesting, the police response in general to the chauvin verdict and incident was actually pretty universal in its condemnation of derek chauvin's conduct on that day. i think what we are going to start to see is a split between departments that will start to support their officers involved in the incidents with more ambiguous facts or the opposite in that's one of the big worries of the rank and file. host: you are joining us this morning from new york, as we

mentioned at the top of the segment. a conflict this morning with clash with cops on the brooklyn bridge last night in new york. just a little video from "the new york post" on that. [video clip] >> [yelling] [indiscernible] >> all right, go, come on. [indiscernible] >> you got called out. >> you've got to come this way.

host: you may not be seeing the video but what is clearly president is the evidence, the presence of phones and what a vital and central park they were to the derek chauvin trial. they are in new york city and what guidance have policeman given in handling situations like this, protests on matters like this? guest: i can't claim to be familiar with specific guidance that officers have been given but generally speaking the nypd does a pretty good job trying to keep traffic moving and keeping protesters and communities safe. unfortunately, a lot more of these events are getting out of hand at higher rate and that's largely because of the anger that has been fomented within police critic circles. again, i think it is largely driven by misperception. unfortunately, and we can get into this during the

conversation, but it is not a good place to be and one that i am somewhat, i guess i am surprised and more disappointed in us reaching. the reality is, there has been a lot of effort to move in the direction of reform over the last two years, here in new york and other parts of the country. governor cuomo cited 10 police reform bills about a month ago passing another package of police reforms, discounting the things that have been happening in new york, just incredible in terms of the d carson ration taking place. the reductions in arrests and in police stops. the new imposition of restrictions on police. the diaphragm law pays -- places restrictions on grappling techniques that officers can use while making arrests, yet none of it seems to have appeased the

police critic crowd. this needs to get us to a point where police supporters and departments stop engaging with reformers because they don't think giving an inch will be worth it because the reformers will then try to take 10 yards. host: i want to ask you about the legislation proposed in congress, the two of them. one of them passed, called the george floyd justice in policing act, it passed early on in the house and that measure waiting action in the senate would do the following, prohibit racial profiling by law enforcement, banning chokeholds and no-knock warrants, limit transfers of literary grade equipment, require body cameras, making it easier to prosecute officers and making it easier to recover damages in civil court and limit the use of qualified immunity as a defense in civil court.

rafael mangual, your thoughts on that particular legislation? i will read the proposal on the senate side of things by tim scott. what are your thoughts on the house passed measure? guest: i think it goes way too far on a few things. we can talk in more depth about a couple of them and, if you like, but look, on the racial profiling point, the big question is how is that defined? if we are going to assume racial profiling based on a top line disparity, that's extremely problematic. the reality is that different racial groups vary compared to those involved in violent criminality with how police deploy resources, affecting the rate at which they have encounters with people who have different demographic profiles.

to assume that there should be an equal number of police interactions based on race across all racial groups is ignorant of the reality of crime in the united states, which is hyper concentrated in a very, very small number of geographical areas and deity -- geographically concentrated when you talk about violent crime in -- among young black men. there's no getting around it, if we want police to serve the communities that are most in need, that have the biggest violent crime problems, that's going to mean getting, having those interactions that will disproportionately involve young black men. that's one part. i think the data portion of that is good. there are also a lot of good data requirements. as you mentioned, the blanket ban on chokeholds, for example, could turn out to be problematic and have some unintended

consequences. obviously, neck restraint's can be particularly dangerous if they are overused or applied for too long, but the reality is that it is an effective grappling technique that could prevent suspects from resisting into devolving to a point where more serious force gets used. what i think will happen is if police officers cannot control suspects who resist, they will go more often to have opportunities escalating their resistance. and on the qualified immunity point, both sides of this debate , qualified immunity based on the data does not seem to be a particularly common basis for claimants not being able to recover for damages. one study was done in the law journal showing that qualified

immunity being the basis for dismissal or summary judgment is 3% to 4% of all police engagements. of course that doesn't mean that it doesn't get abused and i think it should get reformed. host: the other piece of legislation was introduced last year by tim scott of south carolina and was cosponsored in the house by a former police officer and it is called the justice act of 2000 20, increasing body cameras, emphasizing police departments more closely resembling the communities they serve, restoring investment on community policing and refocusing on de-escalation techniques and a need to intervene. one of the things that became evident in the eric show in trial was that training techniques evolve over time and that various moves and procedures in terms of

restraining a subject -- suspect have changed over time. what are your thoughts on that? guest: police training is probably one of the biggest issues in this country and if you asked every police executive across america, they would tell you they want more resources for training and not fewer. unfortunately that will be hard to achieve given the popularity of the defund movement, looking to take resources away from departments, which get less training and a lowered ability to attract high quality candidates to the profession that will ultimately translate to worse results in the field. host: there was a piece published by "the denver news," colorado university, a new study on the way the police can reduce shooting errors. they did this research paper, published by "police quarterly,"

officers can significantly improve shoot no shoot decisions by simply lowering the position of the firearm. they looked at 313 law enforcement officers in a randomized control experiment and after it was completed it was proven that when officers had firearms in the low ready position below their navel they cut their chance of making a misdiagnosed shooting errors by more than half and it costs them 11 one hundredths of a second and they believe this time gives them a chance to check the swing and enables them to reassess what they see. guest: i'm not familiar with that study. it does sound interesting and worth pursuing and seeing if it can be replicated on a larger scale in those departments. certainly worth it. again, i think it's also difficult to, you know, incorporate those things into the situations into which police draw their weapons, very fraught situations in which adrenaline

and the level of fear is at its highest. the american public need to be more understanding about what police are experiencing in those moments as they try to put themselves in those shoes a little bit but that's an interesting result that ought to be explored more. host: rafael mangual is our guest, of the manhattan institute, we are talking about police reform efforts in the wake of the chauvin verdict. our lines are (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 free democrats, and independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. rafael mangual, i want to play you the comments of the vice president from the night of the verdict. here's what she said at the white house. [video clip] >> today we feel a sigh of relief. syl -- still, it cannot take away the pain.

a measure of justice is not the same as equal justice. this verdict brings us a step closer and the fact is we still have work to do. we must still reform the system. last summer, together with cory booker and karen bass, i introduced the george floyd justice for policing act. it would hold law enforcement accountable and help build trust between law enforcement and our communities. this bill is part of george floyd's legacy. the president and i will continue to urge the senate to pass this legislation. not as a panacea for every problem, but as a start. this work is long overdue. america has a long history of systemic racism.

black americans, black men in particular, have been treated throughout the course of our history as less than human. black men are fathers. brothers. sons. uncles. grandfathers. friends. neighbors. their lives must be valued. in our education system, in our health care system, in our housing system, in our economic system and are criminal justice system, in our nation. . -- full stop. host: rafael mangual, the vice president talking about systemic racism. do you think that there is persistent racial bias in police departments in terms of how they treat potential suspects? guest: i do not, i do not, and i think it is he responsible for the vice president to use that

kind of rhetoric. here is what we know. we know that violent crime is ultra-concentrated in the united states and demographically concentrated among black men. here in new york, black and latino makes up 95% of all shooting victims going back to at least 2008, every single year since the nypd started to document that. that's one thing we know. we know that policing has significant crime reduction effects there. the trove of studies documenting this go on and on. one of the things i find problematic with rhetoric like this is that it drives the tension away from crime reduction and the effects of policing and the criminal justice system more broadly and focuses on reform and you lose sight of your mission to preventing the suffering of the people most vulnerable, places

that already live in areas struggling with violent crime. it only looks at one side of the ledger, right? systemic racism focuses on disparities in enforcement outcomes. arrest rates and search rates, use of force rates, etc., but it never looks at the other side of the ledger, looking at who benefits when crime declines. as stated by those advocate the health of the system, we know that reductions disproportionately affect and benefit black americans more than anything else. over the course of the 1990's the united states saw one of the most significant homicide declines in urban american history. if you look at who benefited from that, what you see is an extremely lopsided outcome. on the life expectancy of black men, it added a full year to

that life expectancy number. it added .1 for years to white men. multiple times you had differential benefits. my question for someone like the vice president is how is it you can argue that a system that produced such a disproportionate benefits to low income minority communities especially can so easily be called systemically racist? of course this is a complicated question. there are problems with policing in america, with the criminal justice system, inefficiencies and instance and these will you -- where you will find racially driven malevolence, but to characterize the whole system with this smear is irresponsible and not reflective of the data. host: we have calls waiting for rafael mangual. (202) 748-8003 is a line for those of you in law enforcement.

let's get to the first call here from north alina. matthew, good morning. caller: how are you doing today? guest: doing caller: well, how are you? -- well, how are you? caller: i find it interesting. i totally think you are spot on and i wanted to say thanks for speaking out for the law enforcement in our country. i think they have been under the microscope for a while with the research institutes. if you notice, back when rank or -- rand core was talking about police research into 20/20 and i know that myself being a previously retired military member, i used to do research and i worked with research institutes fellows. what we would do is target, you know, basically bad people in the military.

looking for someone who maybe got a dui or something like that and was still on active duty and we would identify that this guy is no longer qualified. maybe a weinberg situation, may domestic violence. he can't carry a firearm. we got to kind of get rid of him . but i find it highly prejudicial when you have got suchr member like the vice president, as you say, standing there talking using divisive language. saying that, you know, our country is systemically racist and then they call for bills that say hey, we want, we don't want racial profiling, but we want to treat -- teach critical racial theories in your schools. how do you feel? how does that make you feel? you can understand that i

understand just by talking to me , when you look at data, you can take a data and you can leverage that data to tell you anything you wanted to say. so, it seems like they are trying to either disrupt our policing efforts in our country and it's very discouraging. i just wanted to know what you felt about that. guest: yeah, i think that sense of discouragement is a natural consequence of the kind of rhetoric that the vice president used, especially given all the progress that has been made not just in the context of law enforcement more broadly, but in the country generally. this is something that i brought up earlier with respect to all reform of you recent years -- of the recent years, when that happens i think that what you

end up with incentivize's entrenchment. it's not good for anyone. particularly given the problems that can arise if bad cops stay on the force. what we don't want to do is diss incentivize that kind of, you know, sort of self policing by creating a sense of, i guess, one sidedness by loving these smears across institutions when it is just driving bad apples. host: holly, good morning. caller: good morning, rafael. love what you are having to say. the one thing that i notice that none of us really get to hear except maybe at the trial for george floyd, which i think was right, my husband was in the

federal court system and was one of the ones in the court with the u.s. chief justice, who he worked with, and the rest of the people in the courtroom. in 1994, somebody put a contract out on their lives. apparently someone not happy with their case. par for the course. anyway, one friday afternoon my husband had been out of town on another case. they had almost totally forgotten about that. some man came to the front of our house and broke out the window and had a gun and he was climbing in. we had a german shepherd that thought everybody came over to see her and we didn't know if she would go into action or not, but she did. i just wonder, i truly do, i

can't even remember it. i was pumping adrenaline so bad. what do the police do when they hear these 911 calls? the news doesn't tell people so that they can form an honest opinion. what do they do, you know? they are hearing one thing and now at their computers and such on board their vehicles, a lot of times they know that this person might have a long criminal record or whatever. they don't really know what they are coming too. now, i know that there are some bad policemen out there and with the state federal system when you hire, it's very difficult to get rid of a bad employee. they have to have done things over and over to get rid of them. but for the most part i think the police are very honest,

decent people that have a calling and go into this. host: thanks, holly. rafael mangual? guest: i think you are exactly right to say that police by and large are good people heating a call for public service, but you also brought up a good point, it does involve the discipline of bad public employees with police officers that means change because no one is helped on either side of the debate when bad cops are allowed to stay on the job. it shouldn't happen and one of the reasons it does right now is unfortunately a lot of municipalities have argued away that power in exchange for lower pay. that's my assessment. you see a lot of provisions in collective bargaining agreements in which the police officer's job has been made extreme lead difficult in which transactions have been moderated away throughout -- beyond the point of reason.

it's clearly a problem. it's clearly one that we ought to address more closely than perhaps others because police officers have powers that public employees don't have and ultimately in the end it will help supporters of law enforcement when it's easier to get rid of bad cops. host: let me ask you to your reaction to this comment on twitter. the big element in the room as the war on drugs and the desire to incarcerate. more arrests, leading to a lot of arrests, leading to more probabilities of bad traffic stops. guest: i think it's a little misguided. if you look at the data on incarceration in the united states, drug and -- drug offenses don't play a particularly large role. they are less than 15% of the prison population. of course, within that 15% you

have people who are serving time for drug offenses and other serious offenses or had other charges dropped in a plea bargain. so the only thing reflected is the drug offenses. one of the things you have to understand about the drug war in the united states is that it is often used as a pretext to attack more serious violent crime. you will see disparities in terms of drug enforcement levels depending on underlying violent crime rates in certain areas. you will see a lot more drug enforcement in violent crime areas because there is a pretty significant overlap between the people involved in the drug trade and the people driving the more serious gun violence that you are dealing with. it's like that in baltimore, where in 2017, for example, seven out of 10 murder suspects had one drug prior. it's not that simple. it would be likely some unintended consequences if we

were to end the drug war entirely. host: going next to shaker heights, ohio. caller: this is to the both of you, i want you both to respond to it, please. i believe strongly that the following two things should come into play nationwide in order to get out of the police academy, wherever it is that you are, you have to be part of a team driven civic minded problem-solving project that is firmly it -- firmly established in the curriculum of the cadet academy in order to become a police officer. taxpayers have to accept that this will run up the costs of training police officers because it will turn -- extend time in the academy and in addition i believe that every fiscal quarter, police officers should have to also participate in a civic minded problem-solving project for seven to 14 days in

order for them to maintain themselves as police officers. this should all be done in the area where they patrol or may patrol, reflecting back to what i said about the academy. i believe that this would tone down a lot of aggressiveness from police officers on duty because they would be working in the community to some degree and it would act as a repellent to a lot of people who have ambitions of being police officers but don't want to be a part of that, but i just described, to be clear, this would also drive up the costs of paying police officers because you have, you are going to need more police officers on the street while these other officers are in these civic minded projects and it would drive up the costa pension, but this would be a starter for the community about what the police officer is supposed to do and the taxpayers would have to accept it. what do you guys think about this? host: thanks, todd.

your thoughts, manwell? guest: there's a thread there that i agree with, producing better police officers involves investment. we have to decide as a country whether or not that is an investment we want to make. right now there is an emphasis on defunding departments across the country, straining their ability to attract and train officers and i think we all want people who are civic minded. we want people who have a strong desire to serve their community. i do think that the public picture about how aggressive police officers are when they deal with the people that they serve is skewed in part because all that they see are the things that go viral, incidents that become newsworthy. there are dozens and dozens of conversations around great interactions police officers have on a daily basis in the community. that's problematic.

one of the things that it does is that cell phones do is make -- one of the things that cell phones do is make things more transparent but it also has heightened this sensation. host: any evidence in the last year since the george floyd shooting that the efforts have been harder for local and state police departments? guest: certainly. lots of cities, minneapolis included, philadelphia, baltimore, new york city, reporting significant recruitment challenges. this is a problem because it is compounding an issue that predated 2000 20, predating everything that happened with george floyd, building up the anti-police rhetoric that defined the more recent difficulties. 2019 a research firm published a

report in september of that year on what they called a workforce crisis. just 12% of responding departments surveyed for the research conducted found that they hadn't had any trouble with recruitment or retention in the five years prior. a plurality said that the problem had gotten worse over the previous five years and nationally we have seen a decline in the number of officers on the beat and that is going to continue as a trend in part because of police rhetoric and one of the things that the biden administration forgets is that president biden was involved in the 1994 crime bill and use to tout that as a success and i think it was in many ways and one of the things that it did was it gave money for the hiring of 100,000 new police officers across the country and those officers that came up in the mid-90's are eligible for retirement and are leaving the job, meaning that they are going to need another

federal intervention to incentivize good people, good recruit to want to take this job and that's a challenge now more than ever. host: a look at the reforms passed across the last year in states across the country, keep police reforms since may of 2020, limiting officer immunity, four states have passed such laws. mandating or funding body cameras. and a particular neck restraint legislation, 16 states have passed legislation. restricting no-knock warrants, five states. you made a comment about qualified immunity. ending that nationwide, correct me if i'm wrong, you said it's not an issue that comes up in a lot of incidents? guest: that's right, that's right. the majority of police litigation that didn't resolve itself by qualified immunity favored police officers.

here in new york city the legal aid facet -- legal aid society published litigation on 2400 cases filed between 2016 and 2018 and just 74 of those cases were resolved in favor of police officers. even if they were all involved -- resolved in favor of the cops, that would represent a tiny slice. another study was done by a professor out of ucla that looked at a significant pool of police litigation across multiple jurisdictions in which qualified immunity was the basis for a summary judgment. 3% to 4% of those cases could be waived and the cases that do get resolved in favor of police are resolved in favor of a number of police and again, it doesn't mean that there aren't instances that we can point to that are misused or misapplied, acquired

in bad faith to protect officers who knew that what they were doing was wrong. i think that both sides overstate the case. the theory of why qualified immunity is so important to address, becoming more likely to misbehave, they know that they won't be held financially viable and they won't have to come out of pocket for the harm that results but getting rid of qualified immunity won't necessarily change that because it is so rarely used as a basis -- as a basis for denying coverage -- denying recovery and they are indemnified because of a provision in collective bargaining or because for the vast majority of cops even if you got rid of qualified immunity, they still won't foot the bill. you might see a change in the infrastructure where departments

start to fight notification clauses more often. assuming risk against that kind of liability, it's so rare. those programs will not be responsive to verdicts and settlements. host: next up is caroline, west plains, missouri. good morning. caller: hope you guys have a great day, today. good morning. i've been watching a lot of this on police reform ever since george floyd was killed. i cried that day when he was killed, watching what that police officer did. i don't even want to repeat his name. but when i get down to it they keep talking about racial disparity and the kind of bothers me because of black

lives matter steps in and calls it police brutality to black men . i was against it myself. but i want to know why the police can't do more in these inner cities to help the blacks. i don't see why some more can't be done because i think that would help the police department. i've got a couple of relatives who are officers and they literally say, they don't even want to respond to a call if there are black people involved because they don't know what's going to happen to them. that's bad when they say this. my thing is, maybe they should have 911 calls ask people your race, that is what joe biden and kamala harris were pushing for. what's your race, black or

hispanic? then they can send officers to take care of the problem. the racial brutality against these people, that's the only way i can see things. white officer sees a black person doing something in the road, call for a backup to make sure there is a black person there to help. host: rafael mangual, the issue seems to be more than just race as the officers involved in the derek chauvin incident were of several races and likewise seemed to be the same in other cases involving officer shootings. guest: that's exactly right and we see the same kind of misconduct highlighted in cases involving black suspects happening to white people as well. thinking of what happened to george floyd, there's a case that didn't get a lot of media attention that involves a man named tony in dallas, who was held in the prone position with a knee on his back or neck for

more -- for maybe 13 minutes before he died. those officers were not prosecuted and i'm not sure what happened to any civil litigation in that case. you know, the idea that only black men in particular who are suffering from police misconduct is misguided. i think it skews the conversation analyze -- and all ies any new once in the debate. host: matt, new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. thank you for the intelligent discussion. the major cities that were mentioned, philly, new york where i am, baltimore, they are democrat-controlled and are now

eliminating in the case of new york, with de blasio, eliminating cash bail, criticizing or defunding the police. they now find, surprise, that the crime rates are going up in these cities across the country. murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, etc. and they are also finding that people are voting with their feet, leaving by the tens of thousands in the case of i know, new york, which is in our area, and moving out because they most people want to be safe. by the way, these politicians like miss harris and others in these cities are hurting the folks that live in these cities. host: all right, rafael mangual on that box headline, 20 -- vox

headline, 2020's and murders explained, what is showing the violent rise in this cut -- behind the violent rise in this country? guest: for the first time in 2020 we will see the numbers rising, murders surpassing the 20,000 mark for the first time since 1995, which is a disappointing figure. there is an ongoing debate about why this is. one of the more popular expo nations is that it is driven by pandemic economic effects. i think that's misguided. there's not a particularly strong connection between employment and violent crime, which is the category of crime that has gone up. if you just look at the great recession, that's a relatively recent time in which the unemployment rate moved very far

in the wrong direction and the national homicide rate climbed 50%, but the civilian unemployment rate rose during that time. looking at new york in 1989, the year before new york city saw its record high homicide rate, the property rate was slightly lower than it was in 2000 in new york city, the year before we saw record low homicide rates in 2017. so, i don't think that explanation gets us all the way there. i do think that there are some aspects of the pandemic that may drive this, making it harder to identify suspects caught on camera and as a result we saw courthouses shut down and slow down, leaving major suspects on

the street while their cases were pending. we saw prisons and jail releases as a result of covid concerns that otherwise wouldn't have happened but we have also seen a lot of reform levers being pulled in the lead up to 20 as well as a significant decline in the number of police on the beat. i think that both of those things need to be looked at as potential sources of, you know, the crime rise. your previous guest issued bail reform -- discuss bail reform and i think that what we are seeing when we look at the numbers is that jet -- is that those jurisdictions are not better off. looking at new york city, for example, data published by the criminal justice system shows that between january and september of 2019, only 19% of those arrested for violent felony offenses had an open case

at the time of the arrest and 2020, january of 2020, by the end of that january through september, the number one to two 24%. at 7% increase in that percentage that gives us an indication around the other reform numbers that have pushed us in the wrong direction. host: rafael mangual is the deputy director of legal policy at the manhattan institute. thanks for being with us this morning. guest: thanks so much for having me. host: more on police reform and the aftermath of the chauvin trial verdict. we are joined now by elie mystal -- next by elie mystal, justice correspondent for "the nation magazine." that's ahead. ♪ >> tonight on "q&a," a

conversation with susan page about her biography, madame speaker, on the political career of nancy pelosi. >> not many people know this, she was planning after hillary clinton was elected, after so many people thought this, was elected, put myself in that camp, she was planning on stepping down, nine grandchildren, she had other things she wanted to do but that night was a shock for her and so many others and she said that once she realized donald trump was going to win the election it was like a mule was kicking her. physically, she said. not metaphorically. it felt like a mule was kicking her over and over, she decided by the end of the night that she was going to stay, not go anywhere, stand up to donald trump and protect democratic priorities, including the affordable care act.

>> susan page, on her biography "madame speaker," on "q&a." you can also listen as a podcast where you get your podcasts. >> as he approaches his 100th day in office, president biden will give his first address to a joint session of congress wednesday night. live coverage begins at 8 p.m. first and -- eastern or listen live on the c-span radio app. >> sunday, may 2 on "in-depth," a discussion with ross doubt that. >> progress has been seated back into a larger pattern of decadence because it leads people to spend more and more time in virtual simulations of

reality and retreat from, you know, certain kinds of economic activity but also to bring us to another force, retreat from family or nation, romance, sex, childbearing, which is the aspect of decadence that i call sterility. >> his latest book is called "the decadent society." join in the conversation on sunday, may 2, noon eastern on "in-depth," on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: next with us is elie mystal, justice correspondent for "the nation," with us this morning to discuss the chauvin verdict. how are you this morning? guest:

well, how are you? host: doing well. you wrote this, "the chauvin verdict shows the absolute minimum of justice." why do you refer to it that way? guest: look at how difficult it was for us to get this one cop convicted of this one murder. we needed a video that played uninterrupted for 10 minutes of a murder. we needed months of protest and years of activism to put the infrastructure in for the protest. we needed a democratic attorney general who brought and a team of prosecutors to bear. we need a three-week trial. we needed 10 cops to testify against derek chauvin and needed in controversial medical evidence that chauvin was the factor that killed george floyd to get one cop and that's great, i'm happy, i'm happy that he was

brought to justice and happy he's off the streets. i would have preferred that he was taken off the streets after one of the other 18 complaints was lodged against him for excessive violence, but find, -- fine, i'm glad to, but what about the next guy after that? the concept of justice is that it is repeatable and reliable. but that is not what we saw in the derek chauvin trial. we saw a moonshot, a one-off situation where multiple factors coalesced and combined to put us in the situation where we could get justice for george floyd and the others and the others and the others are still waiting their turn and nothing we saw over the last three weeks gives me any hope that we are any closer to true police reform and accountability. host: in terms of in the courts, aside from the massive

undertaking of infrastructure that you talked about, are there lessons learned in that process and the ultimate verdict for other departments and individuals across the country seeking justice in a police involved shooting like this? guest: there, there are. keith ellison, who helped put this together with me, he went after derek chauvin the way that people usually go after goldman sachs. this is the kind of legal firepower that prosecutors bring when they are prosecuting multibillion dollar companies, right? it was a 14 lawyer team. he brought in career prosecutors and defense attorneys. i think a lot of people saw the amazing close by attorney blackwell. a defense attorney that was brought in specifically for his skills, his trial lawyer skills

in the case. behind the scenes we have people like the former acting solicitor general, one of the most argument winners -- someone who has won the most arguments before the court. issues on appeal, it's a 14 lawyer dream team to get this one guy. the lesson here is that if you want to get a cup, you have got to go all out. you can't put this happened to be my attorney on the case. bringing everything to bear on police to be held accountable. host: in the days after there were more police involved incidents in north carolina, spotsylvania, virginia. your reaction? guest: this proves the point, right?

of police haven't changed, the police aren't fair, they are not changing their ways. we don't even count all the people who may have been brutalized or harassed, who may be have been arrested inappropriately. i have a friend on twitter whose neighbor was, was, inappropriately arrested this weekend. the reality is that the police have learned nothing from either the chauvin case or general calls for police reform in general. they are entrenched, they are retrenching. they don't think that they are the problem. in fact, they are using all of their political firepower that they can to retard the progress of police reform and fighting

against the laws that would make them more accountable and they happen to have an entire political party on their side. the george floyd justice in policing act is one avenue of reform, one possibility of reform and you can't find, you can't rub two republicans together who are going to agree that we need some of these changes desperately. so, i don't know that anything we have seen, despite the media attention, again, despite the years of protests and desperation to get some relief from police violence, i don't know that we have seen anything that says the police are heating that call. host: we will talk a little bit more about those federal efforts, the george floyd policing act, which has passed in the house. we welcome your calls and comments. republicans, it's (202) 748-8001

. democrats, (202) 748-8000. s independent independent -- independents and others, (202) 748-8002. law enforcement and others, (202) 748-8003. i wanted to play a piece put together by "the new york times," the aftermath of the death of george floyd, here's a look at that. [video clip] >> the call is quickly upgraded to code-3, emergency medical assistance. >> hello? [indiscernible] >> by now, another bystander, 17-year-old darnella frazier is filming from a different angle. her footage shows that despite calls for medical help, chauvin keeps floyd pinned down for another seven minutes. we cannot see if the others are still upfront -- still applying

pressure. >> what do you want? >> i can't breathe. i can't breathe. >> get up and get in the car. >> i will. i can't move. >> get up and get in the car. >> mama. mama. i can't. >> in the videos he can be heard telling officers that he can't breathe at least 15 times in three minutes. chauvin never takes his knee off of floyd, even as he goes host: very familiar video with this verdict ever have been reached without that video? guest: no. straight up no. george flied is not the first person to have died after police encounter where the

people on the scene told us that death was unnecessary and shouldn't have happened. most of the time people don't pleever the buy standers. i am talking about white people because black people in our communities have been trying to talk about this forever, i'm 42 so i can remember back to rodney king and shawn spell, you know there was a history here of this where black people have said have trade to tell you all how the police treat us in our own communities. it is white people who for the most part did not believe us. now with the advent of the camera phone there are more and more white people starting to see what plaque people have been talking about this entire time. and yes it's only in the situation like this where the victim is so submissive he is so not a threat and the actions

tick so -- is murdered happens over such a long period of time that we had for a moment a majority of white people all right this one cop he has to be held accountable. that nothing happens without that video. and then nothing happens without the months and months of protest. don't forget how important the protests were in bringing this man to justice because the protest not only made him get arrested and charged relatively quickly which i don't think happens without the protests but all that stuff they talk about, i don't know that happens without protest either. i don't know that the entire legal apparatus of the state of minnesota understands how important it is to bring this cop to justice if we don't have months and months of activism during a pandemic. so it's none of this happens normally. and that's my problem. it should be normal, it should

be a normal application of law and justice to hold accountable officers who murder. that should be normal and it's totally not. host: headline from "washington post." this past week the day after the announcement and the verdict the attorney general announcing that the justice department will open a probe of the minneapolis police and possibly other police departments. does that encourage you at all? >> ok, so it is important to have federal oversight of local police forces. i think one of the reasons why we have the problems that we do with policing is that we don't have one police ssms, we don't even have 50 police systems, we have a bunch of localities and it's kind of doing what they want. so like your level of police treatment, just the standards

under which the police operate are going to change would change for me if i drive six blocks north of my house versus if i drive six blocks south of my house. that's two different police districts for me and the third one is -- all those three districts are going to have different standards of what they can do to my body. so we definitely need federal oversight and these pattern and practice they're called investigations that have been open by the attorney general. that's one way to do it. i think that the weakness here is that we see that this is really attorney general specific, right? bill barr and jeff sessions were about opening and practice investigations into local police forces. in fact jeff sessions ended the practice of doing pattern and practice investigations and refused to enforce the consent

decrees, kind of the decisions made by previous pattern and practice investigation. so we can be sure that whatever joe biden, merit garland want to do now to bring mps to heal or at least put a spotlight on the policing practices the minnesota we can be pretty sure that the moment republicans are in power again all of those restrictions come off, all of those rea forms go away. again, one of our problems is the that we have one party who is not just not committed to police reform but actually against getting the police off our necks. host: call next to paul calling from the u.k. watching this morning on the bmp bbc parliament channel. wveragetsdz the issue of c-span

of course and my television. the question i want to z your guest is they -- [inaudible] guest: not even a little bit. the racism -- the racism is systemic. what do we mean by that. it means -- and this is a key point for white people to understand. it's not an issue of one cop or one individual harboring racist thoughts deep in their hearts and seak rhettly i hate black people. that's not what we're talking about. maybe some feel like that but most probably don't and it doesn't matter because the race ysm is systematic into the system. it comes from buy ases like they see an african american and they assume the that african american is commiting a crime or is being threatening or is doing something untoward. they assume that as part of

their kind of -- as when they wake up in the morning that's how they regard, that's how they scan african americans as potentially dangerous, where they scan white americans as probably ok like that's an impolicist factor but then it falls in on itself because you have issues when it comes to economics dirnses in exick opportunities that disproportionately affect african americans, the overpolicing of our communities is a huge thing. so like there are all these other factors that result in racist decisions, right? so it's not exactly -- i think shauven's almost a bad example because to me he seems to be such an evil -- he has no empathy in him and i almost want to think that he literally is a bad apple. the thing that i'm more concerned about is that you've got so many cops who make these

snap decisions. again we've seen it repeatedly since the verdict. cops making snap decisions about whether or not black and brown people are behaving correctly and shooting based on those snap decisions in situations where they wouldn't have shot where i don't believe they would have shot a white person. and that's getting at that problem is not something that i think is going to happen in my lifetime. what i think could happen are different standards on who this cop is going to shoot. so different standards across the board restricting who cops can shoot and why would result in less black deaths even without changing some of the internal systemic racial factors. host: here in the u.s. bob in illinois good morning. caller: good morning. i have an observation to make and then i would like to ask a question. i live on the south suburb near

chicago and there's over 900 shootings so far this year we're going to surpass a thousand in 2016 and 2017 we almost hit a thousand. everybody knows cook county, chicago have been governed over 75 years by democrats. it appears to me nobody seems to care about these young men in these inner cities. they just ravaged -- it's worse than afghanistan or iraq. any how my question is, i'm a follower of alandesh wits. i would like to ask your guest if he were that officer arriving on that scene and saw a young lady with a knife about to plunge it into the other young lady what would he have done? thank you. guest: ok so let's start with this. chicago is not fallujaha. number two, it seems like we

agree that overpolicing and police brootality and police violence does not actually do a lot to stop gun violence because we had this what i would call violent police force all this time and they haven't actually solved the gun problem that last caller alluded to. so what we're doing isn't going to work. i have an idea. let's go get the guns. let's go reform our gun laws so there are less guns on the streets. would the caller agree with that? because that would be more effective than having brutal police on the streets. number three his question about i think he was referring to mack ia bryant who was shot as the verdict was being released. this is a 15-year-old girl in columbus, ohio body camera footage showed that she had a knife. what i want in that situation is for the officer not to hop out of his car guns blazing which is what he did. if you watch the body camera footage you don't see the

officer assess the situation, you don't see him ask the woman to put down the knife. he gets out of the car with his guns drawn. first points it on an older man whose a jerk who i don't understand how the man didn't get arrested. he points the gun at the girl. he's standing scanning for the knife. you know from reports that he was told there was a knife. you can see the cop is scanning for the knife and has predetermined that when he sees the knife whoever has the knife is getting shot. and that's what i don't want. i promise you that if that 15-year-old girl had looked like britney spears or layton measter she wouldn't have been shot like that. he would have given her a second he would have said put down your knife. there were three other cops on the scene. that cop was the last cop on the scene. there were three other people on the scene who weren't -- who did not see the need to shoot anybody. so when we're talking about --

i'm not talking about perfect victims all the time. george floyd i hate to put it was in many ways a perfect victim. again, he was smidssmissive he was crying out for help he was asking for his mother. what more do you want? george flied was the perfect victim. not every victim is going to be perfect. i'm not sheaing she acted perfectly. what i am saying is that black teenagers shouldn't be shot to debts and it shouldn't be too hard to get most people to agree that if there's anything the police can do to not shoot a black teenager should not do it. i would extend it to not shoot a teenager. a person. the police should do it. but i can't get people to agree with me on that fundamental point so then they start going into all of these basically victim blaming arguments about how this person or that person

in that situation or this situation probablyday serves to be shot to death with no trial no jury and no accountability. host: let's hear from mike, massachusetts. independent line. caller: good morning. i forget who this guest is but i listened the last time you were on and every word you say i am so happy that you're on here and i'm grateful. i'll try to go quick. i wrote this out from the top i think that the issue here is that law enforcement in this country is a good old boys club. that's for sure. we need federal body cams, we need federal external investigations. when these guys commit these things yo want them to investigate themselves. the idea that's even possible is off the charts insanity. i don't know how anybody can defend that. these guys know it and they run

the show in shop in their own houses. and i have so much adrenaline. my experience is that set up, i'm some white guy and i'm not impressed in any way but i've had my fair share of experience with these guys. from being pulled over and having them come in the car and literally rip the keys out of my transmission screaming at me for nothing other than a minor civil traffic violation to when i go to court and they lie to my face in front of the judge. when i go to court and the police chief actively ignores all my letters for freedom of information act to get simple stuff like a police report so i have to go to court three times. and i'm not some criminal.

i'm a six-figure salaried person up here and i -- those kind of were my old days but i've seen it. and i don't think these people are lying and the video camera evidence isn't lying and i have friends who i grew up with in cop families who are corrections facilities officers now and i know how they talk, i know how they view these people that have different skin colors than them that they joke about inspecting their body cavities you know. i know these people. host: we'll let you go there and hear from our guest guest: thanks for your cal. i think there was two things that you said that i want to bring out. one is the need for better transparency through all of this. the police are notoriously opaque about their own

procedures, about their own stats, about their own numbers. we need more transparency throughout the system. look, a cop who has multiple complaints on him about excessive force shouldn't be on the streets. true justice for george floyd would have been taking shaufen off the street before he killed anybody. and we could have done that because we saw in him a profile of a cop who was building his way up to murder. this -- there are a lot of cops this that situation. there are a lot of cops who should be on desk duty if they're on the force at all but the police are nor tort yussly opaque. in new york like, they're really focused on bringing transparency to the police force, i think that's a huge issue number one. the second thing that mike kind of was speaking to is the

culture of policing. and this kind of goes back to your u.k. caller, i don't see how that changes. i don't see how the culture of policing changes in my lifetime. so when you hear like arguments for defund the police or reorganize the funding of police, understand that's where that's coming from. understand that's coming from a position where people are saying you can't reform the culture here. right? they don't want reform, you can't force them to, you can't force them to think differently and behave differently so you have to pull their money and put people who don't think like that on noncriminal duty. so one of my suggestions, i wrote about this, is that we take armed cops off of traffic duty because they clearly can't handle it. too many violent and deadly

encounters start with a broken taillight missed turn signal expired license plate. that's not appropriate for the police. they should lose those privileges. they've proven they can't handle it. instead we need unarmed officers unarm officials handing out minor traffic offenses or as i've argued we could let the robots do it. host: how do you think that culture persists across departments that are certainly multiracial? guest: the race of a cop is cop, right? i don't have a lot of faith or -- yob what the word is -- that just by putting officers of color on the force you are getting a better officer, a better quality officer, a less racist officer. in my personal experience and in the data i haven't seen it. something about being a cop

that makes you think that you can be casual with with people's lives and be casual with people's rights. i understand that you can't have all cops go through some legal training although i don't see why not, i understand that you can't have all cops go through constitutional law training, but the culture is not one of respecting constitutional protections, and that goes across race. so i've been stopped by white cops and black cops and latino cops and i never -- all i see is cop and all they see is black guy. i never feel like because i got stopped from a black cop i'm less likely to die. no i assume that going to cop and that i have no defense once i'm stopped but my only hope is to be very scared and move very slowly and comply comply comply as they say.

i turn on the radio so my classical music station i try to be model minority dude when i pull over regardless of the race of the cop. host: let's go to pennsylvania, good morning. caller: i just want to say that i think you're being a little hard on the police. and maybe if the police want to do something about it they just stop going when somebody is going to be killed and go after . clean up the mess. don't help anybody. that's what you're saying. guest: one, i love this argument. it's always like if it's going to be hard i'm going too take my ball and go home. that the police are doing us a favor by doing their job that they're paid for out of taxpayer dollars. and we make it too hard from

them well then they're not going to help. fine. if you're a cop who is so unsure of how to go into a community of color and not kill anybody by all means stay your behind home. that's what i want. so absolutely if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen where you are burning people. number one. number two, quite frankly i'm not saying that the police have an easy job. it's a hard job. they should have money and training and funding to do their hard job. but they have to do it well. in no other profession is the fact that the job is hard an excuse for doing the job poorly. all right? a surgeon cannot say heart surgery. no. if you're a heart surgeon you've got to successfully complete heart surgery. and if you fail 20% of the time you'll get to be a heart surgeon.

you're fire fighter you can't show up and throw gasoline on it and be i thought it was water. that's not acceptable. the cop who pulled the tazer who pulled the gun and thought it was a tazer that's not an acceptable solution. we don't accept it from anybody else except cops and that's unacceptable to me. host: john next up in parkville, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to be a little more specific on the conversation that just occurred with your guest because i do think it's important. so i have a question for your guest. how would you define the duty of a police officer? guest: i think about this constitutionally so i what -- caller: well use the analogy of a heart surgeon. that's why i want to be more specific. a heart surgeon has a duty to

practice up to a standard of care. and if something goes wrong and yet he practiced up to the standard of care he is effectively immune from the consequences. if you are a doctor and you see evidence of child abuse you are duty bound to report that. if you do so and you are wrong, you are immune from subsequent action against you. so my question is i think we spend a lot of time on the authority of police officers which i agree is quite broad and but we spend not much time on trying to define what is the duty of a police officer. i think the woman before me was getting to that point a little inartfully which is how do you -- so i'm going to ask you the question directly how do you define the duty of a police officer? guest: i think i see where you're going. first let me -- look i know a

gang of malcolm x lawyers who would agree. doctors can be sued if they make tiss takes. police officers can't because they have qualified immunity. literally the police officers have a legal different standard of when you can sue them for mistake than you do a doctor which is one thing that we should reform. at a general level i think you want me to say that the duty of an office ser to protect and serve the community and i don't have a problem with that as the kind of avenger duty of captain protect and serve. ok, fine that's what they're supposed to do. what those duties are bound by is the u.s. constitution. so the police officer is not like a private actor they are an agent of the state and as such they must be bound within constitutional limits. so the fourth amendment of the constitution says that we are protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

now we've determined seizure to mean shooting people and searches are somewhat self-evident but we haven't defined unreasonable. right now the legal standard is that reasonable is in the eye of the cop. not the reasonable person, not me not the victim not the citizen not the mayor not the governor but reasonableness is defined in the eyes of another cop on the scene. and that has done to me that has done like 90% of the damage because it takes the cop outside of the constitutional box that they're supposed to stay in and lets them kind of act on their own and lets them act based on their own biases fears experience whatever you want to call it. some of that experience is good some is racist some of that bias is good gut they have a good gut some of that is prejudice. we don't want cops acting on their own outside of constitutional restriction because they are agents of the state. the cop and that's the thing i

think i always remember in these mass shootings, in these police shooting situations and i hope some i don't have you do too. that cop represents us. i funded the kneeling on george floyd in that way. these cops are our voice on the streets and when they kill that's on all of us. they must be bound by the constitution, they must be brought to heal within a box of reasonable use of force. and too often too many times we don't see that. host: north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. hey, you know i love you to death. i have a couple of things to say. these people they didn't have anything to say when the people

ran up in the capital they were hollering about they love cops. but yet that he beat them and ran over top of the capitol. they beat the cops. you didn't hear none of these pink people saying oh blue lives matter. it was all about the sin insurrection. i want to know why that cop about the little 16-year-old girl he jumped out of the car didn't assess the situation seen the knife and shot that little girl. nothing was said before the cop got there. how many of those girls were fighting that one girl with the knife? and that grown man at least 180 pounds kicked that dead girl's head twice. i see why she had a knife. you've got two or more girls on her, a grown man and this cop jumps out of the car and shoots this girl. host: you commented on that

shooting in columbus ohio the other day. the day of the verdict. guest: like i said, what i want in that situation is for the cop to assess the situation. not come out of the car guns blazing. he shot that girl within 20 seconds. that's too quick. i wanted him to hesitate. i wanted him to hesitate and figure out what was going on. there were other cops on the scene. yes, it's fast moving but again if that's your job if that's your job you have to do it at a higher qualty. but i want to go back to what the caller said about the insurrection. if you look at what happened on the capitol insurrection one person was shot by law enforcement and climbing through the window she got shot. one of the things that we see there is a restraint by law enforcement even in the midst of an insurrection.

look at how what ashley bab ott was doing at the time where she was tragically killed versus what we see black people doing at the time that they were tragically killed number one. number two, one shot. that officer fired one shot at that woman. unfortunately, it killed her. cops need to be able to justify every single shot they fire. if we go back to michael brown if you look at the michael brown situation, the man shot six times by darren wilson in missouri five years ago, we saw that darren wilson shot him -- the cop shot him six times and forensics say it's the sixth shot that killed him. so arguably michael brown would have been alive if darren wilson had been satisfied with four shots. this cop that we saw in columbus shot the 16-year-old four times. we don't know which shot killed her but we know he shot four

times. maybe he could have gotten awe with shooting once. maybe he could have shot a warning shot. maybe he could have done something other than plug her with four bullets. maybe she could have survived one. that's the flip in mentality that we need to make in this country. the cops are -- the feeling is that the cops are looking for an excuse for reason for situation where it's ok to open fire. it should never be ok to open fire. this is not war. again, we are not in fallujaha. it should never be ok to open fire. one shot should really do all that you are trying to do. and if you have to be able to jussfiss that one shot and take a second one, i need to hear -- the arch angel gabriel needs to come down and explain why you

need two or three or four or six. host: brad, minnesota. caller: good morning. i think that your guest is just kind of off the wall in a race -- you know tell me about george floyd and that's wrong on george floyd's -- he took no responsibility, zero. you know what? i kind of wish that this gentleman here it would have been his wife or his daughter that got pistol whipped by old george floyd while they were pregnant and went to the clink for it. but they don't ever talk about his past george floyd's past. what's even worse is that you're using color in here. and that's if you really want to look -- guest: why are we looking at the past of the victim? what george floyd doing anything wrong at the time where he was choked out?

caller: absolutely. guest: which minute was george floyd commiting this crime that caused him to die during his murder? was he still commiting crimes? caller: george floyd did not listen. resisting arrest. guest: that's a capital offense only for black people. it's a capital offense only for black people. only black people are killed for not listening. host: justice correspondent for the nation magazine has always thanks for joining us here on "washington journal." coming up in just a moment we'll continue with your phone calls here in "washington journal."

>> monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. american's for prosperity versus rodriguez. concerning california's donor disclosure requirements. listen live monday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. go to c-span.org/coronavirus

for the federal response. if you miss our live coverage it's easy to quickly find the layest briefings. use the interactive gallery of map to follow the cases in the u.s. and worldwide. >> "washington journal" continues. host: since the year 2015 the "washington post" has been keeping track of police involved shootings across the country in an ongoing piece they call fatal force. and this is the latest update. 988 people have been shot and killed by police in the past year. the "washington post" reports that although half the people shot and killed by police are white, black americans are shot at disproportionate rate. they account for less than 13% of the u.s. population but are killed by police at more than twice the rate at white americans. hispanic americans are also killed by police at a

disproportionate rate and a majority are male over 95%, more than half the victims between 20 and 40 years old. you'll find that report at "washington post".com. and again it's their fatele force rorp. we're asking you about their specific reporting and continuing our conversation this morning in the wake of the george floyd verdict and our discussion on police reform. the phone numbers are on your screen. another shooting was in southern virginia in spot sillvania county. an nbc news report they say authorities have release add disturbing body camera video of a deputy shooting a black man who was holding a cordless

phone and who had just received a ride home by the same law enforcement officer. isaiah brown survived more than six rounds fired at him wednesday and in the hospital fighting for his life. the deputy was not named by sheriffs. brown was holding a house phone when he was shot. the deputy who responded to the call the same one who had given brown a ride home appears to believe that the phone to his ear is a firearm. the deputy is heard saying he's got a gun to his head. this is a look at some of the body cam footage released and broadcast on local wusa here in the nation's capital. >> it'sia, what's gone? >> he won't let me get the in my mom's room? >> why is that an emergency?

host: again part of the call in virginia asking you this hour about police involved shootings, police reform.

the issue of federal action on police reform was the topic of discussion this morning on fox news sunday. the ranking member on the judiciary committee this morning lindsey graham on with chris wallace. here's what he had to say. >> well number one we had police rea form in the last congress but chuck schumer and kamala harris made a conscious effort bringing up tim scott's reform bill. they filibustered because they didn't want them to get credit for it. there's no reason we shouldn't have done it last time. we'll try it again. qualified immunity is a big deal if you want to destroy policing make sure every cop can be sued when they leave the house. there's a way to find qualified immunity reform. my idea is you can't sue the bliss officer you sue the department if there's an

allegation of civil rights abecause or constitutional right abuse. we can solve that problem. we can solve the issues if there's will to get there and i think there's will to get there on the part of both parties now. host: continuing our conversation with you this morning the headline from u.s. news. one verdict and six police killings across america. at least six people were fatally shot by officers in the united states in the 24 hours after jurors reached the verdict in the murder case against former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin. let's get to decalling from new orleans. [inaudible] host: there you are. caller: good morning. the issue of police reform across the country and qualified immunity for protection of the officers is already in place as cities are already paying millions i think

last decade chicago alone has paid almost a half a billion dollar in wrongful lawsuits against law enforcement police in particular. local police. so but i'm more concerned with the issue of immunity of this immunity qualified immunity. i mean, shauven definitely was commiting impunity. he can go up fifth avenue and shoot someone and nothing happens. and i think that's a bigger issue than we are addressing locally nationally and even internationally when we talk about the impunity. no one is being held accountable for these atrocities and these beyond the job description. no doubt that law enforcement

has a very serious occupation and it is a calling and but if we look at pro sports professional sports or sports in general they have made the national football league there's no more clothes lining tactics they reduce it had viciousness of professional football. even in baseball you don't use the metal spikes, you don't pitch at the batter's head and all that. and even in basketball they widend the lane and cut down on the physicality. and boxing is even safer if you will because they removed violence out of the mental temperament of engagement. so with the law enforcement we should remove the violence and the mental temperament of the police against the community. host: thanks for that moving on to greensboro, north carolina.

go ahead. caller: good morning thank you for taking the call. it's really a simple matter where i think a lot of training, a lot of evaluation that comes towards the applicants that are applying. and it's really direct interaction human to human. you don't have to necessarily escalate a situation, responding on scene. and that's where african americans is somewhat important is dividing this good cops bad cops because that's all we see is straight aggression or more of the aggression towards them instead of from a simple call to deescalate and krlings as human beings should respect one another. you're not receiving that, you're just seeing the brunt of violence and aggression and i just feel a lot of officers

that witness these unfortunately circumstances that get high profile, they're just as responsible because they didn't take an oath to say i'm going to watch my fellow officer assault or unfortunately take someone's life. and then the not even documented truthfully. so it's a whole collective of people involved that starting at the top that see these that are going to finally be corrected that everyone should be held accountable. host: what do you think the quickest way or the best method is to deesclaste a situation in your experience? >> deescalating a situation comes from your basic one-on-one. going into the community and being able to socially address people say hello. a common just interaction. because no one is going to reject an hour kindness. and if you show me some type of

respect and kindness by injecting yourself in the community where you're going to be patrolling people will have a different perspective of you because you can't say these officers are ok but that one guy i don't like him. that's because he's doing something to have people judge him on that matter. host: it's me i get pulled over and automatically i'm just tense. the police have pulled me over and obviously i'm a white guy. how do you as an officer approach this knowing that the person whatever they are, they're probably nervous and tense to begin with. how do you begin, how does the deescalation begin? caller: great point. it will be based on every call is a response. whether dealing with a driver or firearm or high felony you can deescalate that by calmly,

the approach or just the contact now they're going to be in contact with. to reassure that knowing that you've given someone a fair opportunity, you're going to talk to them hello how are you doing? and approach at an angle where you approach themselves or feel like not as unyou believe. and then address them hello how are you doing? once they hear that it's going to take them down a little bit and you can have that one-on-one. whatever transpires after that you started the professional standard hopefully it is the same way. these are actions every day that are not taking place throughout the united states. host: we appreciate your insight. thanks for calling in the police line. stafford, virginia, go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. my comment just i know that the same officers they rea act

depends on the zip codes. if they send police officers to the nice zip code they react nicely. if the officer responds to a zip code where they know it's -- it's nasty. for that comment for that spotsylvania police officers reaction, i live in stafford so not far from spotsylvania. it's a different area. it's to look at it as a racial because spotsylvania i can tell that trump area red neck area. so anybody there will not be intclation with the police officers unless you are white. if you are white you will go well past you don't get any tickets. like i said just police officer they should start acting with

zip codes. that's all i can say thank you. host: the house pass it had george floyd policing act earlier this year, it has passed the house. it is not taken up yet by the u.s. senate. karen bass of california was on abc's this week a and was asked about that measure. and also about the potential compromise between democrats and republicans on this. >> most important is that we come up with ways to hold police officers accountable so we will stop seeing these videos. so ending qualified immunity, decreasing the standard that is needed to prosecute an officer so we won't see so many times when we know that a person has been killed or brutalized and then we find that they're not even prosecuteded. and that's because the standard to prosecute officers is so high. we also need to raise -- >> you just hit on the biggest sticking point. senator tim scott whose leading the republican side says

lowering that standard for prosecution is not on the table. >> well you know we still have to talk about it. oftentimes people say there are red lines, i won't cross them. in negotiation we find a pathway forward. i'm hoping that we will be able to do that. but also about raising the standard of policing in the united states. we have 18,000 police departments and no national standards which is why you see some practices legal in some areas and illegal in other areas. and so i think that is critical. host: republican alternative legislation written last year by senator tim scott of south carolina who will this week deliver the republican response to president biden's address to a joint session of congress coming up this wednesday 9:00 eastern we'll have live coverage here on c-span we'll stream it live at c-span.org and radio. available on the c-span radio

app. we'll follow that with your calls and comments talking about police shootings over the past week since the trial and over the past year, headline again from u.s.a. today. one verdict and six police killings even as the derek chauvin case was fresh in memory the reading of the verdict the shackling of the former police officer the jubilation at what many saw as justice in the death of george floyd even then blood flowed on america's streets and even then some of that blood was shed at the hands of law enforcement. at least six people were fatally shot by officers across the united states in the 24 hours after jurors reached a verdict in the murder case. the roll call of the dead is distressing. a 16-year-old girl in columbus, ohio, an aust arrested man, and a the 42-year-old man in eastern north carolina. the deaths in some cases sparked new cries for suss cities. some say they reflect an urget

need for change in american policing. for other it is shoot rgs a tragic reminder of the difficult and dangerous decisions lalmt face daily. here's rose an in wisconsin. caller: i'm baffled at how the police are all unionized. i am totally baffled that they have not taken on the nra. i mean, they're out there in the trenches every day with weapons let's call them of mass destruction that are capable of killing so many people at one time. and not once have i ever heard the police stand up to the nra and be for let's get these crazy guns off the streets. let's really go for background checks. i have not heard anybody from the police even weigh in on this. host: mike is next in houston,

texas. welcome. wiveragetsdz i wonder about your last guest. how many times in his life he's ridden in a cruiser at nighttime. i wonder if he has any information from the police perspective. you have a statistic on your screen about the 998 killed. how many millions of encounters have police had when they helped people? 998 shot but they probably have tens of thousands of people out of burning cars and traffic accidents and disturbances at home which is the most dangerous environment they could be in. i just think that there's so wildly and spectacularly unfair to have this program designed to assign guilt to every police officer and as far as mr. mistle goes i have a solution from the republican party just put him down on the border. we can solve our border problems because he can keep

everybody coming in. he would save ause lot of money down on the border don't come here police are going to kill you. and i just really bothers me that we can solve a lot of problems if you tell young people especially minority kids 20 years old whatever don't resist arrest. so how many times can we point to the number of times resist arrest, when they arrist arrest bad things happen. you, the person resisting arrest escalates the situation. michael brown, george floyd, and the kid the 20-year-old kid , tragic. i wouldn't want to see them dead and george floyd should not have died. that police officer should have been fired months before because he had 18 written citations against him or something like that but you can't resist arrest. you cannot escalate. and bad things happen when you do that. but why are police assigned guilt across the board? it is so unfair.

i'm so grateful for police. thank god we have them. host: and that figure is from the "washington post" they're reporting on police shootings. doing this in their report since 2015, 988 people have been shot and killed by police in the past year. on twitter. larry in los angeles up next. caller: good day. i had a couple of things that i was going to mention. for one i was wondering was there ever the $20 bill produced and put on public display for the public to see

to say that this was what he was arrested for or tried to be arrested for? another thing, i understand that was a misdemeaner. why didn't they just give him a ticket and send him on his way? and one other thing. i was stopped on the freeway here in los angeles by a california highway patrolman. i had my dog tags on, i had my fatigue jacket over the back over my driver's seat and the officer he the first thing he asked me he said do you know what kind of car this is. you know? it was just a plain old car. maybe he was trying to see if i was coheernlt or if it was my car. and i understand that. and my setting was on for three people instead of one. the night before i had gone to din we are my wife and my father-in-law to send my -- seeing my grandson off to a university in sthrute. and i was real polite to the

officer. real polite. and i said officer couldn't you have just given me a warning? he said you know what really got me he said i would have given you a warning but had already started writing the ticket. and that was ok and i went to court and i talked to the judge, i explained to the judge he said i've come out of my house and i've had my setting on the wrong number. i didn't ask the judge did you get a ticket or did you get a warning? but sometimes you can be as polite and -- host: when did that incident happen? caller: it happened last year and i went to court and believe it or not i was assigned community service to do i think five or ten hours of community service. but every time i tried to do my community service they kept putting it off because of covid and they were going to charge me $356 for that incident and

it was only going to cost me $40 to pay for getting the process done to do my community service. but you can be disarming -- and i've worked with law enforcement 28 years in the military i've worked physical security, computer security, information security, and it's just that sometimes you can be as disarming as polite as you can and sometimes it still doesn't work. to be told i would have given you a warning but had already started writing the ticket it was just kind of disheartening to me. host: frank in jackson, tennessee wk. caller: hey, bill. here's the whole problem. they're vile ating what john adams wrote years ago it is more important to the community that innocent should be protected than it is that zpwilt be punished. -- guilt be punished.

our police here kill more people -- more of our citizens in one year than some of these other countries have in 20, 30, 40 years. think about that. some -- i looked it up you can go to the guardian. some of these countries kill about four or five people in 20, 30 years. for example germany one year fired 85 rounds for the entire year. i think the new york police shot his last name was bail at his bachelor party in new york i think he was unarmed they fired over 100 rounds just one person. these other countries do not do it. and to say i go back to, what john adams said and also bill what the show ends, we can have justice when those who have not been injured by injustice are as outraged by it as those who have been. host: thank you.

this is roy in texas. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm calling because this whole narrative what the media's doing is just totally disrespectful to every race out there because according to statistics in 2021 there were 50 whites killed and only 30 blacks killed. and i know there's a percentage and proportional thing but what we don't hear is about the 50 whites that got killed. like the white honor student with an air soft gun that was killed by police recently which i found out thraw friend of mine is a police officer, was not in mainstream media. it's a disjustice to our society what mainstream media is doing. and as far as george floyd goes to the previous guest you had on there when asked about his history. george floyd pass add fake bill, george floyd had drugs on

him and in him and he failed to comply. if you looked at these incidents where these young men are getting killed, they don't comply. what we need to go do is go into the houses where they're raised and find out what they're being taught and maybe hold parents accountsable for the youth actions because it's bringing about the downfall of our society as a people. host: one more call in our topic. next up, pennsylvania. caller: i would like to make a few comments. i think that police brutality is designed. i remember years ago i dated a lady and she had some questions. and when she finished she told me all about myself. so what i'm saying is they know they're far more advanced than they let us know. they know that some of these policemen are too aggressive

and they also know that many of them are racist. and that's why they hire them to keep racism going on. host: we will do one more call this time from the u.k. greetings to giles, clinics hello. you had a note that a 16-year-old girl was killed. i saw the body footage. that girl was carrying a gun and was a second away from killing another black girl. the police officer had no opportunity to do anything other than shoot her, otherwise the other girl would have been killed. i am not defending the police. i think things have to change.

i think the derek chauvin incident will create a watershed that will change the way policing happens in the usa and u.k. >> may carry the bbc -- every day on c-span2 at 7:00 a.m. thank you for joining us. washington journal will be back tomorrow at 7:00. we hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] ♪

>> tonight on q&a, a conversation with usa today washington bureau chief susan page about her biography, madame speaker, on the political career of nancy pelosi. >> not many people knew this but, she was planning, once hillary clinton was elected in 20 16, nancy pelosi was making stan -- plans --2016, nancy pelosi was making plans to step

down. that election night was a shock for her and many others. she said once she realized donald trump was going to win the election, it was like a mule was kicking her. by the end of the night, she decided she was not going anywhere. she was going to stay and try to stand up to donald trump and protect dime -- democratic priorities. >> susan page on her biography on c-span's queue. you can listen to q as a podcast , anywhere you get your podcast. >> as he approaches his 100 day and congress, president biden will give his address. we began with the president's address on c-span,