of us have a zealous tear. it turns out all the studies show that you invest a little time in another person's life, often a young person, and all of us have the capacity to do it, and you will have tremendous differences in a kid's life over a lifetime. >> you were 20, michael was 7, you were white, he is black. around what issues did you bond? >> sports, fishing. he had not learned how to read. he was left behind by the school system. i was having a second shot and a childhood. we really became brothers as opposed to big brother, little brother just hanging around and doing stuff. we have never really thought about the racial element as something that was anything but a binder. tavis: it was not just a relationship between you and michael but you ended up bringing on -- let me put it this way, his immediate family ended up being your extended family. they came to live with you at a certain point. >> a year after i met him, social services was considering taking the kids away from their mom. there was all kind

when they say murder one, aggravated child abuse, they did not look -- i think they were over zealous wrong? i agree with all due respect to the prosecution, i understand they wanted a prosecution. the facts and the evidence didn't add up to murder in the first degree. and the jury is thinking, oh god that would mean possible death. i can't take that chance. that's what -- >> where is the motive?2+zç she such a will having mother. look at these pictures, playing with her child, wonderful. no one said child protective services has been around. she has been abusing this child. >> sean: i don't get this, 31 days, if your child is missing what are you going to do? >> that was before. that's why the jury struggled. wait a minute, all the history prior to her disappearance, everyone spoke even on the prosecution side the witnesses said she loved her daughter, adored her daughter. the bottom line even baez said my client might be a slut, liar, she is not a murderer. >> sean: i had my doubts about him. i thought his opening comments were way off base. he closed along with cheney mason, just a

the second thing this was such an over zealous prosecution by first degree by going for the death penaltyot something lower as the high mark. the entire time the jury is thinking, not only do we have to go beyond a reasonable. when we do, she might die. that's in their mind. they've been prequalified as jurors, can you convict someone and sentence them to death? there was a two-fold prong to pass to be on this jury. i think there's not solid, direct evidence linking her. they are looking for an out and doing their job. the prosecution raised just as many questions as the defense. i agree with susan, when there's unanswered questions, how do you say beyond a reasonable doubt there's no other explanation? that's the problem. >> sean: that's why i think this jury is being attacked. as somebody who watched much of this trial susan, in particular, i thought the closing arguments by the defense extraordinarily effective. this notion of fantasy forensic. you are the first ones in the state of florida to hear and go through a list of forensic science, newly created for this case, never brought up

i mean, what happens with people when they have a right -- or some people -- is that they become zealous, and this man has brought over 2,000 lawsuits. he brought a lawsuit to stop a school dance where his daughter went because he couldn't get into the facility because it didn't have the appropriate ramps, and so they had to move where the dance was. but what's happened as a result, the institutions of our country, things like schools, have been so weighed down by legal requirements, disabled laws only being perhaps the smallest of them, that things like elementary schools rebuilding toilets and showers that are perfectly functional for people in wheelchairs who may not even exist in that age group in that town, it just doesn't make sense. c-span: would you feel differently, do you think, if you had to ride around in a wheelchair all day? >> guest: no, i would not -- at least i hope i would not. i never have, so i can't... c-span: have you ever talked to anybody? >> guest: sure, i have friends in wheelchairs. c-span: and do they agree with you? >> guest: no, they don't. the plight of som

order to make sure their careers are not interrupted by making mistakes are no doubt being overly zealous and really creating a self-fulfilling prophesy around our country and i think you'll work to end that? >> senator, i'll have no higher priority than the community bank responsibilities and we will work with our examiners to ensure examinations are done in a balanced and fair way as possible. >> just so i have a few seconds. do you, mr. curry, i think we all are concerned about this federal preemption issue. and, you know, i know that you were commissioner of -- state commissioner banking from massachusetts back in 2000. and made a quote and i just want you to reaffirm that this is not where you are but we suggest that -- we suggest that federal preemption itself has the unintended consequence of limiting state regulator's ability to protect consumers and ensure a healthy banking and lending industry. many states responded through statute or regulation to protect consumers from predatory practices. however, it's been perhaps the unintended consequence of federal preemption that has mad

to make sure that their careers are not interrupted by making mistakes are no doubt being overly zealous creating a prophecy around the country i think you are aware of that and hope you will work to end that. >> i have no higher priority in the community responsibilities and we will work with our examiners to ensure that examinations are done in the house balanced and fairly as possible. >> a few seconds to you, mr. curry. i think we all are concerned about the federal preemption issue and, you know, i know that you were the commissioner for the banking of massachusetts back in 2000 and made a quote i want you to reaffirm this is not where you are but we suggested while the federal preemption itself sometimes have the unintended consequences of the ability to protect consumers and ensure a healthy banking lending industry ministates responded to the statute or regulation to protect consumers from predatory practices. however, they're has been the unintended consequence of federal preemption that has made it difficult for states to offer the protection of the consumer's demand. so you wi

sure their careers are not interrupted by making their -- making mistakes are no doubt being overly zealous and are creating a self-fulfilling process around our country. i think you are aware of that and will work to and that. >> senator, i will have no higher priority than community bank responsibilities, and we will work with our examiners to make sure that examinations are dumb and as balanced and fair a way as possible. >> pecan -- mr. curry. state you're a commissioner for banking back in 2000 and made a quote, and i just want you to reaffirm that this is not where you are. we suggest that federal preemption has the unintended consequence of limiting states' ability to ensure a healthy banking industry. many states responded to the statute or regulation to protect consumers from predatory practices. however, it has been perhaps the unintended consequence that federal preemption has made it difficult for states to offer the protection of their consumers, so you will be in a position, obviously, of making sure that we have uniform national standards, and yet seem to have in the past ind