all we want is the truth behind what happened on january 6th, and we will not have that unless we have an authorized commission right now. >> thank you so much for being with us ahead of what i know is a busy and important day for you on capitol hill. thank you very much. and thanks to all of you for watching this hour of this show. right now craig melvin picks it up. and a good tuesday morning to you. craig melvin here. this hour we're following a number of big stories with some equally big unanswered questions. as we speak president biden is in the air. he is set to land in michigan for the next 30 minutes. we expect to hear more about his $174 billion plan to invest in electric vehicles and an electric ford f-150. the president going to get a sneak peek of that.

that's right. it's an electric pickup truck. meanwhile, senate republicans set to give their counteroffer to biden's trillion dollar infrastructure plan today. the big question there, how high will republicans go? we're also closely watching the attacks in gaza and israel and president biden's response to the violence there. and also this hour my exclusive conversation with a man who wants to turn his test into quite the testament, yusef salaam, once known as a fifth of the central park five. we will talked about one of the darkest moments of his life, being falsely accused, serving prison time at 15 years old and the optimistic message of his new book. >> we had no idea we would be rebranded correctly as the exonerated five. right now, though, elizabeth city, north carolina, that's where we'll go because the district attorney is providing an update on the investigation

into the shooting death there. >> i have some prepared remarks -- >> first of all, i would like to thank everybody for being here today. once again, just as a form of introduction my name is andrew wumble, the elected district attorney for the seven counties of the northeast. we're going to have this conference today. i have some prepared remarks that i will be reading from. i have copies of those already prepared that you may pick up in the press packet. if you would like to have us email those to you, if you would supply us with an email, i would be happy to do so. on wednesday, april 21st, 2021, andrew brown jr. of elizabeth city, north carolina, was shot and killed by three deputies

with the paquotank sheriff's office located at 421 perry street in elizabeth city, north carolina. after reviewing the investigation conducted by the north carolina state bureau of investigation, mr. brown's death, while tragic, was justified because mr. brown's actions caused three deputies with the pasquotank sheriff's office to reasonably believe it was necessary to use deadly force to protect themselves and others. while the officer involved shooting that resulted in the death of andrew brown occurred on wednesday, april 21st, law enforcement involvement with mr. brown began in the weeks prior and put the wheels in motion that eventually led to the attempted service of arrest and search warrants on april 21, 2021. detective johnson with the

sheriff's office received information from a reliable confidential source that andrew brown jr. from elizabeth city was selling drugs in their county. detective johnson contacted pasquotank county and confirmed mr. brown's identity and that he is a known drug dealer. upon learning this information, detective johnson with the aid of the confidential informant made two undercover buys from brown on march 17, 2021, and march 29, 2021. those buys were of cocaine and heroin. a later lab analysis determined that the heroin was laced with fentanyl. arrest warrants were issued for brown's arrest. simultaneous with the activity of the sheriff's office pasquotank county sheriff's office began collecting their own intelligence on the drug activity of mr. brown and his residence at 421 perry street.

detective ryan meade applied for and obtained a search warrant for the residence and vehicles of mr. brown. on tuesday, april 20th, 2021, law enforcement now possessed two arrest warrants for the sale of controlled substances as well as a search warrant for the residence and vehicles of mr. brown. the drug task force was to provide surveillance and the officers present that day were detective johnson, sergeant ruth and detective langley. the pasquotank special operation and tactics team would serve the warrant and take mr. brown into custody. their team consisted of lieutenant jud, sergeant meade, deputy morgan, deputy bishop, deputy swindell, and deputy lunsford, morgan, lewellen, bishop and swindell were wearing

body cameras. the original plan was to serve warrants on the night of april 20, 2021. however, mr. brown was not at his residence and could not be located by the surveillance team. on the morning of april 21 at approximately 5:30 a.m. law enforcement held a briefing here at the pasquotank county sheriff's office and planned to serve the warrants on mr. brown. during the briefing the team was briefed on mr. brown and his past involvement with law enforcement. it was relaid to the team that mr. brown has multiple resist arrest charges and convictions dating back to 1995. additionally mr. brown has assault, assault with a deadly weapon and assault of inflicting serious injury convictions dating back to '95. further, mr. brown has barricaded doorways during previous home search warrant instances.

no children were believed to be at the location and the mother of mr. brown's minor children were seldom at his residence. at approximately 8:00 a.m. mr. brown was located on speed street here in elizabeth city by one of the members of the narcotics team. mr. brown then drove his vehicle to his residence at 421 perry street and remained in his vehicle until law enforcement arrived. upon receiving this information the pasquotank county team traveled to 421 perry street to serve the warrants in a clearly marked pasquotank county sheriff's office truck with blue lights and emergency lights flashing. detective langley drove the vehicle and deputy lunsford was in the passenger seat. the remaining passengers were in the truck bed as the truck --

the six members of the pasquotank county team approached brown's vehicle, identified themselves, shouted commands to show them his hands and to exit the vehicle. all members were wearing clearly marked pasquotank county sheriff's office gear and uniforms. deputy lunsford headed directly to the driver's door with his weapon drawn and attempted the . deputy swindell accompanied deputy lunsford to the driver's side of the car. deputy lewellen went around the pasquotank county truck and approached the vehicle from the front passenger side, and deputy

bishop -- would you like to do this manually? they approached the vehicle from the front passenger side and deputy bishop and sergeant meade were directly in front of brown's car. deputy morgan approached last and positioned himself between deputy bishop and sergeant meads.

nothing ever works the way it's supposed to, does it? be patient. i want you to have a full, complete, accurate view of what transpired, and what the deputies saw that particular day. right there, stop. once again, i will repeat, you're looking at deputy lewellen's body cam and he went around the pasquotank county truck. he approached from the passenger side.

deputy bishop and sergeant meads were in front of brown's vehicle and deputy morgan approached last and positioned himself between deputy bishop and sergeant meads. brown was holding his phone when law enforcement approached. can you back up? back up. all right. brown threw the phone down and began to rapidly back his car away from off theers. am i completely offline at this point?

you need to back up to about five slides. if you'll leave it right there, you're at photo 11. if you would back up to photo 6. all right. thank you. at this point i will give you the nod to move forward, okay.

brown threw the phone down and began to rapidly back his car away from the officers. deputy lunsford's hand was still on the driver's door handle as brown's car reversed and the handle was snatched out of his hand. at this moment deputy lunsford yelled out and was pulled over the hood of brown's vehicle where his body and his safety equipment were struck by the vehicle. defensementy lunsford's left arm was squarely on the hood. deputy lunsford took action to get out of the way of the left front tire of brown's vehicle and law enforcement commands became more heated with profanities shouted for brown to stop the car. brown ignored the officers'

commands and backed his car until he was blocked by the rear of his residence. continue. continue. right there. brown then put the car in drive and turned the steering wheel left directly at law enforcement officers who had now surrounded his vehicle. despite this tense situation and the aggressive driving by mr. brown no law enforcement officer fired a shot. as brown's car starts forward deputy lunsford was positioned directly in front of the vehicle and all officers were shouting commands to stop. brown ignored the commands and drove directly at deputy lunsford.

he used his left hand to push off of the hood. it was at this point the first shot was fired. deputy lunsford then spun out of the way to avoid being run over by brown's vehicle. according to reynolds, the first shot was fired by sergeant meads and entered the front windshield of mr. brown's car. let me say that again. it entered the front windshield of mr. brown's car. brown's car continued forward passing deputy lunsford, deputy

morgan and sergeant meads and several shots are heard. one shot entered the passenger window and struck brown in the shoulder. several more entered the rear passenger side door. and window. brown's vehicle then accelerated across the vacant lot and five additional shots entered the rear windshield and trunk of brown's vehicle. at this moment brown was driving at investigator johnson who was positioned in an unmarked white van. lieutenant judd was positioned on the corner of roanoke and perry in an unmarked white crown victoria. brown's car narrowly missed

striking the van operated by johnson who accelerated to avoid the decision. brown's vehicle struck a tree and the residence on roanoke avenue and came to rest. the pasquotank team gave chase, removed him from the driver's seat and lifesaving efforts were immediately begun. at 8:24 deputies notified dispatch of shots fired. emergency medical services were requested at 8:26 a.m. lieutenant judd of the supervising officer. others arrived including chief deputy fog who collected the weapons and cell phones of the officers who fired. all of the following is clearly depicted on the body cameras that were operational and functioning properly on april 21, 2021.

they were being warned by the aforementioned pasquotank county sheriff's officers. the total length of involvement with mr. brown from the time they ex intered the vehicle until mr. brown was removed from the vehicle is 44 seconds. i'm now going to show you the four body cam videos that depict law enforcement activity with mr. brown on that day. >> go, go, go, go! stop the -- car!

show me ir hands! >> let me see your hands. >> hey, let me see your hands! >> show me your hands!

>> go, go, go! stop! get out. stop the car! >> hey!

gunshot wound. >> get your hands up! get your hands up! get out of the car! stop! stop!

hands! hands! start ems. gunshot wound. >> at approximately 9:00 on april 21, 2021, i received a call from special agent in charge rogers with the north carolina state bureau of investigation informing me of the officer involved shooting. sheriff tommy wooten and i jointly requested a thorough investigation of the shooting. shortly after speaking with special agent rogers, i contacted district attorney investigator john young to meet me at our office here in elizabeth city and to proceed with me to the scene of the incident. we viewed the scene and later that day i met with sheriff wooten, special agent rogers, members of the sbi team that

would conduct the investigation. on may 11, 2021, the sbi lead case agent jason godfrey began releasing the report gathered to the district attorney's office. i immediately began review of the written sbi reports and other documents as investigated by the sbi. i reviewed the sbi investigation which included interviews of the deputies involved with the pasquotank county sheriff's office, interviews of civilian witnesses, interviews of dr. karen l. kelly, a forensic pathologist in greenville, photographs of the scene, ballistics and trajectory report, analysis of weapons and shell casings, the law enforcement records of the deputies involved, video footage of the body cameras at the scene, and the crime scene report.

in addition i have met or had telephone contact with jason godfrey practically every day since april 21, 2021. agent godfrey and i viewed the trajectory rod analysis performed by agent candace peagram and assisted by evans and style on april 22, 2021. further, i sought advice and counsel from numerous elected district attorneys around the state who have had recent experience with officer involved shooting cases. there are 14 houses near 421 perry street, and each location was canvassed for evidence and witnesses. four civilians provided statements to law enforcement. ms. williams stated she lived in the vicinity of 421 perry street and heard gunshots from inside of her residence. she further stated that after hearing the first shot, she exited her home, went down the

street and saw the remainder of the shots being fired. ms. williams' home is approximately 100 yards away from 421 perry street. the total elapsed time from the first shot to the last is five seconds. calling in question statements regarding the shooting. the second civilian was a person who said it occurred prior to 8:00 a.m. he stated he heard officers shouting commands, at which time he walked to his window. he stated the officers were firing into the car while they were giving brown commands to get out. the third civilian to give a statement was ashley becktell. she stated she heard the shots fired and went to her window and stated brown's car was heading over roanoke avenue and the officers were force ful when removing brown from the vehicle. she stated she heard additional shots after the vehicle truck

the tree. the fourth civilian was santiago who stated she was in a relationship with mr. brown and stated they had a telephone conversation the night before where brown stated he believed the police were following him. ms. santiago further stated brown said he was going to stay at a hotel rather than staying at his residence at 421 perry street. the weapons used by the three pasquotank county deputies who fired were two glock 17 handguns and an ar-15223 rifle. these weapons were seized and provided to the sbi. the sbi recovered 14 spent shell casings, nine from the glock 17 handguns and five from the ar-15 rifle. these 14 spent shell casings were recovered from the cement driveway and in the yard adjacent to 421 perry street. these 14 shell casings were consistent with the body cam videos and physical examination of brown's car as being fired by

the deputies. on april 21, 2021, mr. brown's body was transported to the medical examiner's office where an autopsy was performed. the autopsy was conducted by dr. karen kelly, a forensic pathologist of the medical examiner's office at the brodie school of medicine in greenville. that was done on thursday, april 22nd, 2021. the autopsy was witnessed by special agent cowan with the north carolina sbi and a written report was produced of the findings. although the autopsy and toxicology reports have not been finalized at this time, i had telephone contact with dr. kelly on may 12 at which time we discussed her findings. dr. kelly determined brown suffered two gunshot wounds. one to the right shoulder, upper

arm, that was nonlethal, and a second wound to the back of the head at the base of the skull near the hairline. there were three bullet fragments recovered from the wound to the back of the head. dr. kelly found multiple abrasions on brown's right arm, right leg and on his back. dr. kelly advised me these injuries were superficial and appeared to be made by shrapnel. additionally dr. kelly recovered a plastic baggy containing off white, rock like substance from inside mr. brown's mouth. the substance is consistent with crystal meth and was the size of a 50 cent piece and too large to swallow. dr. kelly determined the cause of death to be multiple gunshot wounds. the deputies involved in the shooting incident have no prior excessive force complaints. the law is clear and long

established. the united states supreme court, the fourth circuit court of appeals and the north carolina appellate courts have all held where officers are attempting to make an arrest, deadly force may be used if it appears to be reasonably necessary to, first, protect against deadly force, that the arrestee is use to go resist arrest or, two, to take into custody a person who presents an imminent threat of death or serious injury to others unless apprehended immediately. the north carolina general assembly has codified this case law in our general statutes, which i have attached to the press package. the united states supreme court has cautioned prosecutors may not employ the 2020 vision of hindsight but must make allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgment in

circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. the law authorizes an officer to take preemptive action and use deadly force to prevent death or serious injury to himself or herself. whenever officers use deadly force to defend themselves or to stop a dangerous fleeing felon the determination of whether they properly used that force are on the circumstances as they appeared to the officers at the time of the killing were sufficient to create a belief in a reasonable person standing in their shoes that such force was necessary. in short, assessing the reasonableness of the shooting requires examining the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. consequently my focus was on the relevant set of facts a reasonable officer in a deputy's

position would have experienced. when weighing the degree of force used a prosecutor must pay careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. using these parameters i find that the facts of this case clearly illustrate the officers who used deadly force on andrew brown jr. did so reasonably and only when a violent felon used a deadly weapon to place their lives in danger. first, when assessing the severity of the crime at issue andrew brown jr. was being served with two felony arrest warrants and a search warrant. the law enforcement officers were duty bound to stand their

ground, carry through on the performance of their duties, and take andrew brown into custody. they could not simply let him go as has been suggested. additionally brown engaged in dangerous felony level misconduct as he attempted to flee from law enforcement officers. the decision to flee, which brown made on his own, quickly escalated the situation from a show of force to an employment of force. brown's precise speed is uncertain but that he drove recklessly and endangered the officers is not uncertain. therefore, i find that brown's actions and conduct were indeed dangerous by the time of the shooting. second, brown was actively resisting arrest and attempt to go evade arrest by flight before, during, and after the shooting. all officers had been briefed on

brown's previous interaction with law enforcement including his propensity to resist and barricade himself. briefings informed the officers of brown's prior criminal history and the fact that he has obtained a habitual felon status. he actively resisted arrest and attempted to flee. third, and most importantly, brown posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers and others. mr. brown's conduct did not merely risk injuring officers by the time of the shooting. brown had made two aggressive driving moves which caused his vehicle to contact deputy lunsford on both occasions. when the officers approached brown with their guns drawn, his response was to maneuver his car and flee. brown was undeterred by the officers yelling for him to stop, show me your hands, or by deputy lunsford attempting to open the driver's door.

even after backing into a corner with no escape but to maneuver his vehicle directly at the officers, brown continued the felonious assault by using his vehicle as a deadly weapon and made contact a second time with deputy lunsford. law enforcement officers, particularly deputy lunsford, were on foot and directly in the path of the vehicle being operated by brown. lieutenant judd was located on the corner of roanoke avenue in an unmarked white crown victoria. all of these officers were potentially at risk from brown's operation of the vehicle. brown threatened the life and safety of the officers on the scene and any possible civilian bystanders giving a reasonable officer a compelling reason to end the situation.

they do not have to wait until the moment a suspect uses a deadly weapon to act to stop the suspect. the shooting of brown was justified to protect the deputies. law enforcement officers are required to instantaneously evaluate and employ force against potential criminal suspects to thwart apparent dangers to citizens and themselves. officers must perceive, evaluate, decide and then act often in a matter of seconds. the deputies in the case perceived a threat and immediately fired their weapon to neutralize the threat. the perceived danger to the officer must only be apparent not actual in order to justify the use of deadly force. apparent danger is such that it would cause a reasonable person to believe that he or others were in danger of death or great bodily harm. although there is evidence of

actual danger to the officers under the law there was also apparent danger. from the evidence it reasonably appeared to the deputies there was sufficient basis for self-defense and defense of others. the facts in this case demonstrate the presence of apparent danger to the officers. an officer may exercise such force if he believes it to be necessary and has reasonable grounds for such belief. an officer acting in self-defense is presumed to have acted in good faith. federal courts have held that the constitution simply does not require police to gamble with their lives in the face of a serious threat of harm. as the united states supreme court has observed, the calculus of reasonableness must allow for the fact officers are to make split second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. from a review of the body camera video there is evidence multiple shots were fired in rapid succession by three deputies.

there is no evidence that the number of shots fired by the deputies was excessive, but even if there are an excessive number of shots, the question is whether the perceived threat has been neutralized for the safety of law enforcement officers present. in this case the deputies used the amount of force deemed reasonably appropriate by them to neutralize a perceived threat. based upon mip review of the facts of this case i have determined the shooting of andrew brown on april 21, 2021, was justified to protect the safety and lives of the deputies on the scene. the deputies who fired the fatal shots perceived an actual and apparent threat, evaluated the situation in seconds, decided and acted. the deputies' actions appear reasonable under all the circumstances of the case. the deputies faced both actual and apparent danger as perceived by them on the scene. it was reinforced by brown's dangerous and felonious use of a deadly weapon. as tragic as this incident is with the loss of life, the

deputies on scene were nonetheless justified in defending themselves from death or great bodily injury. there is insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to show any acted in a manner inconsistent with their perception of an apparent threat. in fact, my review indicates there is no evidence that the deputies who fired the fatal shots acted in any manner that is inconsistent with the threat they perceived and certainly no evidence the deputies acted in any way contrary to or in violation of north carolina law. i appreciate the investigation by the north carolina state bureau of investigations district field office. i have shared this conclusion with sheriff tommy wooten, special agent in charge rogers that no officer will be criminally charged. the officers' actions were consistent with their training and fully supported under the law in protecting their lives and this community. confrontations between police

and citizens in which deadly force is used are among the most important cases the district attorney's office will ever handle. my prosecutors and i have a duty to objectively analyze the totality of the evidence and circumstances, and that means we must face difficult issues which have been discussed at length in this report. it is my sincere prayer that no one is ever killed by law enforcement. but i also pray that law enforcement are never placed in the position of having to make the decision to use lethal force to protect themselves or innocent lives around them. i want our community to understand that this office put significant effort into ensuring this decision was based on the facts, the evidence, and the law and not on public opinion.

in describing the legal analysis and the basis for the decision in this case, i find myself, unfortunately, in the position of correcting misinformation that has been shared both on social media and in the news media. people make claims on camera that were knowing falsehoods and were directly refuted by the body camera video. the public might then wonder why more information was not released to refute these untrue statements. i have always asserted that my office would strive towards transparency, but i need everyone to understand that among my highest priorities is also protecting the integrity of every investigation, releasing information before any investigation is complete can taint the case, preventing an objectively verifiable investigation and perhaps even

the possibility of prosecution. in an ongoing investigation details are closely guarded to measure the truthfulness of witnesses and should someone be charged preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial. i know that a lack of accurate information is frustrating to the public and the media that operate on a 24-hour news cycle, but in this age of instant media and the impulse to immediately form an opinion, i'm asking that as we move forward we remind ourselves that in these cases we should not jump to conclusions until all the facts are out. i will always be guided by my oath of office, by the united states and the north carolina constitution, and the north carolina general statutes. justice demands nothing less. thank you.

yes, sir? >> do you think all the facts are out? you told us you don't know how fast the car was going, whether the car was decelerating or accelerating, and that the still images you showed us show a different story before the first shot was fired. once up put the video in motion it looked like brown was turning away from the officer. >> i'm sorry. your question is? >> how do you respond to that? >> what was the question? >> are you sure all the facts are in? you said you don't know if the car was decelerating or accelerating. >> i know that all of the facts that i needed to make this decision are in. >> isn't that important? >> yes. >> if you look at the video, if you look at the video in motion it looks like he's turning away before the first shot is fired. that's important. >> sir, there are several

cases -- a litany of cases where shots are fired into still cars, cars that aren't moving, so the speed at which mr. brown is moving at the officers, there is one particular case robinson versus arageta. they found the car was moving 1 to 2 miles an hour at the officers. so the speed at which the car was moving not relevant in my determination. i'm going to move along, thank you. yes, sir? >> he is using the car as a weapon, it doesn't seem that clear that he's not trying to get away. he's not turning away from the officers. how can you be so certain that he's using that car as a vehicle -- >> as a weapon. >> using that car as a weapon,

i'm sorry. >> did you see the officers surrounding the vehicle? >> yes. >> there was no escape but at the officers. you're not allowed to drive over police officers. >> but he turned away -- >> yes, sir? >> i presume that the deputies were interviewed as part of this investigation? >> yes, they were. >> can you speak to what they told investigators -- >> about? what they perceived? >> correct. >> i will tell you this, that each one of the deputies that fired their weapons stated that they fired because they perceived a threat to deputy lunsford and deputy swindell who was on the other side of the vehicle. >> and if i may, there will be questions about the video and you releasing it in this format and your decision to release it now. did the judge approve this or technically how were you able to present this to the public now? >> all right. so this is actually a display. i'm not releasing the video.

i know that you have it at this point. but, yes, i did speak with the judge. we talked about that. i am not, once again, a custodian of the record. anything in my office is not public record by statute. so at this point because i have made the charging decision that i made, i can display the information. if i had decided to charge, i would have then had to release this to other people, that being the attorneys for the defendants in the case. >> can the media get the video you had in the presentation? >> any other release of this will be done through the courts. >> have you set a date, a hearing date, or spoke to the judge about a hearing date for when there might be a release or discussion of release? >> no. >> have you asked for that? >> i have not. no, sir.

>> are all seven deputies back on the job? >> i cannot answer that. i do not believe that all seven deputies are back on the job, but i cannot tell you that for sure. >> any internal reprimands for them? >> so you're asking me this question, for the benefit of everyone else, i don't have anything to do with the sheriff's office's internal investigation. i'm not responsible for whatever administrative and/or civil actions come after this. i'm only responsible for the criminal side. so i can't speak intelligently to the question that you're asking whether there will be any further administrative proceedings after this. >> tell me about falsehoods and the way the video was portrayed, why do you think that is? it is hard to look at these videos and see exactly what you're explaining unless you watched it multiple times and maybe somebody is actually explaining to you where everybody is located. >> sure. >> do you think it's perception? i mean, obviously that's

something you're very concerned about. >> do i think people can see what they want to see? absolutely. i would hope that licensed attorneys who are bound by the same oaths and the same rules of professional conduct that i am would conduct themselves a little differently. family members who are grieving, who deserve our sympathies, sure, everyone can perceive something differently. and until you break it down frame by frame, some of the actions are pretty hard to see. >> is your opinion, then, that the brown family attorneys deliberately or intentionally -- >> i'm not saying that. i'm saying there were falsehoods made. you can draw whatever inference you want. hang on one second. >> just to put a button on this. we saw the video, and it definitely appeared that mr. brown was trying to get away and

not going directly at any officer we just saw. is there something else maybe you have seen to help you come to that conclusion other than what you've shown us today? >> okay. let me ask you this -- >> he was turning away from the officer. >> did you see the officer put his hand, his left hand on the hood of that vehicle? >> yes. as the car was turning away. >> yes. did you see the tracks in the dirt? >> yes, sir. >> okay. if that car is on pavement, that officer is run over. >> can you replay the video? >> i'm not going to. >> what do you say -- >> i'm not going to replay it. >> -- these officers could have moved out of the way in this scenario? what do you say to them in this situation? >> that's not the officer's duty. the officer's duties were to take mr. brown into custody. they simply couldn't let him go.

>> people have seen people being let go and, you know, in this situation i know you're saying he couldn't be let go. could you have gotten him at another time in a less dangerous way by chance, do you believe? >> are we dealing in the theoretical at this point? >> no, we're just trying to make sure that -- i know you're trying to say what the officers did, they had to get him at this exact time and moment, but couldn't they have moved out of the way instead of getting hit by a vehicle? >> i think they did move out of the way, at least deputy lunsford moved out of the way, but he had to take evasive action to do so. >> i have a follow-up to that. you said earlier that they had a duty to carry out the warrant, they had to take him in. can you elaborate on that. why couldn't they have let him go in that moment? and followed up later?

>> law enforcement officers are duty bound the same way -- well, not exactly the same way but in the sort of same fashion that i'm duty bound by oath. that was their job on that particular day. they had a judicial warrant. they had an officer telling them to take mr. brown judicial warr. they had an officer telling them to take mr. brown into custody, so mr. brown's response to that was to flee. so what you are asking -- what you are asking is that law enforcement not act upon the judicial directions of a search warrant and give way to citizens when they decide they don't want to be taken into custody. >> why not -- >> why not take him in right then. >> why not catch up with him

later? also -- [ inaudible ] >> that's why they attempted to do it the night before and wanted to take him into custody when he was in the house. they anticipated when he left that mr. brown would go inside, but he never did. he stayed inside the car. [ question inaudible ] ed >> and i would say that mr. brown was putting everybody else in danger as well. >> if it hits the car or mr. brown or scattered across pavement? >> there were 14 -- there were a total of 14 on the vehicle. we believe there was one shot

that ricochetted and was found in a house. >> yeah, a house. >> did you ever consider calls from the attorney of the family of appointing a special prosecutor. were you concerned that you might be too close to these deputies, that you work with then on a regular basis, that you were competent to handle this? >> absolutely. i am elected by the people in this district to do exactly this job. a special prosecutor for outside council is not accountable to people of this judicial district, but i am. >> but an independent viewer -- >> sir? >> -- not of the public opinion that -- why bring that up? do you feel like public opinion is kurnd against you here? >> no. i want the community to

completely understand that the right to protest is certainly important. the need for information is important. the transparency aspect, accountability of my office, but in these particular cases, i am basing the decision on the facts, evidence and law, nothing else. >> have you spoken to the family about this decision? >> i have not and it's unfortunate. that's not the way i want to do this. >> why not? >> our immediate discussions after this occurred with mr. brown's attorneys did not go well. we tried -- there was a second meeting with the family in which the attorneys were not present. obviously any party that is represented by council i have to be careful in dealing with parties without attorneys. i was unable to do so.

at this point the relationship is constrained where i couldn't speak with them. i will be happy to talk with them when this is over. this man. >> the officers continued shooting. in your mind why is that justified, because the unmarked vehicle was across the street or they kept shooting because -- >> it is both. once a threat is perceived. and our case law is very cheer on this. once a threat is perceived and the officers fire the first shot, if the first shot is justified, the last shot is justified until the threat is extinguished, that's a case that's a united states supreme court case. in that case the officers fired three shots into a stationery

vehicle. the vehicle backed away and sped off and they fired 12 additional shots. there were no officers in the direct path of that vehicle. the supreme court found the officer's actions in that case were reasonable. they said they weren't even close to being unreasonable and they did not find even a fourth amendment violation. there has never, ever, in our american jurisprudence, the supreme court has never found a fourth amendment violation when a suspect uses a car as a deadly weapon. hold on. one more in the back. [ question inaudible ] >> yes, in my opinion at this

point it was employed as a deadly weapon. are you asking in other cases -- [ question inaudible ] >> there are several cases where officers have instructed drivers to shut the car off. the car is stationery. and the simple act of starting the car in violation of the officer's command makes the weapon a deadly weapon and officers can shoot. yes, ma'am, in the back? [ question inaudible ] >> so the officers in their comments did not talk about the extended school zone. certainly when i get the

leisure -- they are acting in the heat of the moment and i am looking at it in the cool of the night. i would think mr. brown driving this vehicle in this manner in this particular instance could put schoolchildren's lives in danger. >> did you get a court order -- >> no. >> isn't that in violation? >> statute applies to custodian -- i am not a custodian. >> could you -- >> hang on a second. yes, ma'am? [ question inaudible ] >> was his intention to threaten the officers with the car? that requires me to speculate as to mr. brown's intention.

i think mr. brown's intention was to get away. i think he was fleeing an arrest because he had drugs on his person and in his car. and i think he did not want to get caught with those. so that's why i think mr. brown was fleeing. the officers position around the car, he had no choice if he was going to attempt to flee, he had no choice but to drive towards the officers. when he did that, and he made that decision on his own, he put the officers in danger. >> so had he did that -- [ question inaudible ] >> once again, we are moving into a theoretical discussion. if there were no deputies in the path, i think i could have looked at this differently. if you will see when the car backs up and deputy lunsford is pulled off his feet and onto the

hood of the car, that aggressive driving right there, in my opinion; a threat to the officers. i believe they would have been within their rights to shoot at that point. >> mr. brown was -- >> using the car as a deadly weapon. >> when he backs up, were there any deputy officers behind the car in the direct path of the car? >> no. >> lunsford is the only deputy who makes contact when he backs up. >> that's correct. another deputy was to his right. >> you just said -- [ question inaudible ] he is trying to avoid the officer. >> you do understand he was going to be arrested and taken into custody that day. >> i am just going off what you are telling us here.

[ question inaudible ] >> when you employ a car in a manner that puts officers lives in danger, that is a threat. i don't care what direction you are going. forward, backwards, sideways. i don't care if you are stationery and neither do our courts and case law. >> i am just wondering -- [ question inaudible ] >> yes, they did, but not to me. i did not interview the officers. state bureau of investigation did the interviews. they allstated they were afraid of being run