roorda, should the prosecutor always use that process, yes or no?, he shouldn't have used in this case. he should have said there's not enough evidence to pursue here. should never have taken it to the grand jury. >> we'll be right back. over 200,000 people are hospitalized every year with flu complications. lysol disinfectant spray is approved to kill 80 germs, including viruses that can live on surfaces for over 4 weeks. so help keep your family healthy with lysol. >>> a standoff between protesters and police on the west side highway. the response of the decision of the grand jury not to indict the police officer who put a choke hold or arm around the neck of eric garner as he said i can't breathe 11 times before dying. joining me now is senior editor for "the atlantic." what was your reaction today when you heard the news? >> i was -- i would like to say i was surprised, i was not surprised. i was not shocked at all. we expect our grand juries to operate outside of the ways that affect ordinary citizens. laws, grand juries, our hallowed instituti

roorda, do you agree with that? >> give me a break. put their lives on the line for these communities every single day. >> do you think it's true that police officers don't cover for each other, they don't ever spin things or say false things for each other? >> i think it's fun to say that and to perpetuate this distrust of police, but let's not forget that both in the garner case and the brown case, that if either of them had complied with the police, that these might have had different outcomes. not that the outcomes are not tragic and that other than a police officer dying, the worst outcome that could come from these interactions. but let's not lay all the blame at law enforcement -- >> mr. claxton, you're talking about compliance in the case of mr. garner. mr. claxton is a former new york city police detective. what's your response to that? >> i think what mr. roorda is doing is what a lot of people make the mistake of doing and presupposing things as facts when they haven't been established by facts neither in the grand jury or i

>> between roorda, jay nixon and mccullough, you've got to love those st. louis politicians.dare you call the name of my team racist. what roorda doesn't understand is what masses of people are finding offensive is the fact that michael brown is dead and another unarmed black male teenager has an interaction with a police officer which ends with one of them dead and a lot of unanswered questions. that's the thing people find so offensive about this moment. they find mccullough's actions as a prosecutor offensive. if roorda doesn't realize that, if the police don't realize that, we may have more healing to do than the most pessimistic among us believe. >> one more piece from that statement because one thing that came up in my social media feeds, was the question of whether or not these players, as employees of the national football league, have first amendment rights, which of course as americans they do. this is part of the statement roorda went on to say, i know there are those who will say they're simply exercising their first amendment rights. cops have first amendment rig

jeff roorda is the business manager for the st. louis police officer association and a st. louis representative. what else can police look at in deciding whether to charge anyone with incitement to riot. what are the other things besides the tape that police will be looking at? >> well, i think, jake, the standard at law is whether their actions actually resulted in rioting behavior, unlawful behavior. and as you pointed out, there's law enforcement authorities and prosecutors looking at this case, it sounds like, as we speak. >> does it matter if mr. head had intent to cause a riot or is that irrelevant? >> i think there is a requirement of law that they intend to cause it. i don't think that -- i don't think the standard is so strict that merely saying something in anger or frustration would result in the criminal charge. and i hesitate to criticize mr. head. he has to be responsible for his own statements. i do understand that that family is mourning and that he may say things in the emotion of that morning that he regrets. but remember, there's people in the crowd that

louis rams and the aggressive statement by roorda, i want to read a bit of it.t the first amendment means. he writes, i know that there are those that will say that these players are simply exsizing their first amendment rights. then he went on to say the only thing protecting the rams are the very police officers he described as the elements of the real fan base. that struck a lot of people as improper because it was sort of almost threatening in a veiled sort of way. what did you make of that statement? >> it was implicit threat with that statement. and that's commonly a tactic used by police departments. oftentimes, the false option is either you want the police and will support and endure whatever it is the police bring forward or you'll have no police protection. that's really -- that is the underlying threat that exists. not only in this particular case, but in other cases as well. >> nick, i really wanted to have you here today, because this is one of those issues that isn't ideological. it isn't partisan. it's an issue for any american that understands t