tv CNN Newsroom With Ana Cabrera CNN November 17, 2021 10:00am-11:00am PST
when i say that, i don't mean to disparage this judge but the idea of neutrality, applying the facts, applying the law. just calling balls and strikes is the ideal judge. >> we'll continue watching in kenosha. thank you for being here. ana cabrera picks up on this very busy news day. have a good afternoon. hello, i'm ana cabrera in new york. we have a busy hour unfolding right now here in the newsroom. let's start with what's happening on capitol hill right now. a debate underway over rules to censure republican congressman paul gosar and strip him of his committee assignments over that video. he tweeted a little over a week ago appearing to depict him killing a fellow member of congress and attacking the president. cnn's lauren fox is on capitol
hill for us. lauren, where do things stand right now? >> reporter: this debate just getting underway on the house floor, and you are hearing a powerful rebuke from democrats who are arguing that if any chamber should know the dangers of talking or trying to encourage violence and what can happen, it should be members of the u.s. house of representatives. you heard that point from representative mary gay scanlon, a democrat from the state of pennsylvania, who was arguing, really, remember what happened during the insurrection, remember that talking about violence can always be taken seriously by followers of members of congress. that is what democrats are arguing on the floor today as they debate this resolution and the rule on this resolution to strip paul gosar of his two committee assignments as well as censure him. republicans on the other side of the aisle are talking about how this is unprecedented, how they are arguing this is setting a
dangerous future for the house of representatives in which one party can strip another party's members of their committee assignments, but democrats saying this is just so serious that this action had to be taken today. in fact, i asked the house speaker, nancy pelosi, about that earlier. she said any time you are talking about threatening members of congress, or in this case, potentially even the if the -- president of the united states, it warrants law enforcement attention. a serious debate unfolding on the floor. we expect in just a few hours that vote on censure and also stripping paul gosar of two committee assignments will pass the house of representatives. we also know there are at least two republicans that will cross the aisle and vote with democrats on that resolution, those two members, liz cheney and adam kinzinger, those who have defied their parties in the
past. ana? >> we have former congresswoman virginia comstock. virginia, paul gosar is not even condemning this. what kind of leadership is this? >> this is a sad day. it was sad when they had to strip marjorie greene of her committee assignments which i supported, and i certainly support this today. it just saddens me to see members who have to deal with this. instead of what happened before for steve king when he made outrageous statements. let's remember, these are very dangerous statements, really precedented. and to not call this out, it certainly warrants censure, it certainly warrants office committees. i certainly hope it will go to the ethics committee, because this needs to stop. after january 6, you still have donald trump out there egging
this kind of thing on, you have steve bannon this week who is egging this type of thing on and, really, his surly response to being indicted is certainly ugly, too, and we know there are dangerous people out there, and one of them, the shaman guy, was just sentenced three years. this is a dangerous situation that needs to be defused, and i really wish leadership would take that on. >> the shaman we're going to talk about in a moment, but he's not a sitting member of congress, remember. >> no, no. well, he's not too different from some of these guys in there right now. that's what's sad. >> so it just feels like the bar keeps getting lower and lower and lower. the thing is, ana, by day's end, it is expected gosar will be censured. he would be the first since 2010 for that to happen to and he would be stripped of two committee assignments, and yet
he has yet to show any kind of remorse or apology. in fact, he said he finds it hyperventilating and shrill accusations that this cartoon is dangerous to be laughable or intentionally hyperbolic. clearly he is not remorseful. >> what else do you need to know about him. his six siblings detest him and made an ad about him. these are people who know him best. i could see one or two siblings, but six? you talk about lowering the bar. i'm going to talk about kathy griffin who i know personally who went through all sorts of hell after she tweeted out that joke about donald trump which i thought was in poor taste and so many of her colleagues and friends condemned. she lost her job.
she was interrogated under oath. she was put through the wringer. and she is a comedian. this is paul gosar, a member of congress, pretending he is being funny and making a joke with a colleague who is not just one of the 435 congress members, she is also in the committee that he sits in, house oversight. so it is very appropriate for him to be stripped of that committee because alexandra ocasio-cortez should not have to endure a toxic workplace and sitting next to a man who is tweeting out these videos, joking that she's getting killed by him. if that's his idea of a joke, really, he doesn't belong in congress. but this is a symbolic censure. it's really up to the people of arizona, the people of his district, to decide whether this is the man they want representing them in congress. >> and by the way, he won his primary in 2020 with 63% of the vote there in arizona. i do want to take a step back,
though, for a second, because this is bigger than one man in congress, bigger than paul gosar. you have some republicans who would rather strip committee assignments from the 13 gop lawmakers who voted in favor of the bipartisan infrastructure bill than do this for gosar. you also have a leader, kevin mccarthy, who tried to put election deniers on the january 6 committee. other republicans are straight up stonewalling that committee. the republicans who are speaking out against election lies like liz cheney and adam kinzinger are in the minority. cheney lost her leadership in congress, was disa vowed by her own state party. kinzinger isn't running for reelection. you have former president trump who defended capitol rioters who were chanting, hang mike pence. then you have marjorie taylor greene who just admitted she is not vaccinated, has refused to wear a mask on the house floor,
and has spread conspiracy theories about life-saving vaccines and so much more. congresswoman, this is the gop today. this is your party. >> those aren't people that i have supported and i've actually actively worked against them. i think it's clear that anybody would be fired in the workplace or even taken out of a high school or college with similar type behavior. in some cases some of these things that these people do, you know, in the workplace you might recommend, you know, mental health help, because as i think mr. gosar's family has indicated. no, this is incredibly troubling. that's why i signed a letter with a bunch of former members about attacking those republicans who voted for the infrastructure project and trying to strip them of their leadership roles. i spoke out in favor of them, charlie dent, a former member also, had organized that. so we're trying, those of us who
want to have -- >> how could these voices become the loudest and most powerful? >> that's the problem, though. >> they are, but they're not necessarily -- sorry. >> one of the problems is, ana, the charlie dents and the barbara c-- and the congressmen have lost in their party or died. i woke up this morning thinking, where is the moral compass of the republican party? it's all this level of complicity and silence and cowardice because they want to keep their seats and their political positions at any cost. they have lost their identity as humans, as republicans, as statespeople, as statesmen and women in order to keep their post. we see it with people like lindsey graham.
i could sit here and spend the entire hour naming republicans who have compromised their principles. in the meantime you see people like rob portman from ohio who was one of the key voices in crafting that bipartisan infrastructure bill retiring. that is a huge loss to the country and to the republican party, because these republicans, these reasonable republicans, are getting replaced by the marjorie taylor greenes and the madison hawthornes of the world. >> exactly, and to that point, to these people who are not with the conspiracy theorists or the extreme element of the party choose not to speak out out of fear, congresswoman, where is their power? >> well, listen, you have people like fred upton who came on cnn and other shows explaining the death threats he got because of things marjorie taylor greene is out there calling them traitors. i'm working to help people like
fred upton and john katko who was attacked in conference this week. john and fred are very popular members, even among the current republicans, so they are not going to be stripped of their leadership roles, and i think the more those of us who can stand up for the john katkos and the fred uptons and liz cheney and adam kinzinger and those who are trying to get these things done, i think even though their voices are not the loudest invoices in the room, i do think they represent a lot of silent majority of republicans who would like to see sanity return and are sick of this sort of environment of republicans being like they're in a battered women's shelter and afraid to come out and say anything because donald trump will attack them. you have to stand up to bullies, and the more people do that, i think you will see people like john katko and fred upton rewarded by winning their primaries. and if they don't win their primaries, those seats will be lost, and republicans will not get the majority. so this effort by donald trump
to get these extreme, ridiculous people into office threatens the republican majority that kevin mccarthy and others want. >> i appreciate the thought that, you know, voters are going to boot them out if those extreme elements are the ones that are the last men standing in the gop -- after the gop primary, but you also have all this redistricting and engineer whe -- gerrymandering going on around the country that makes it difficult for one party to break through another party because of where the power is in those specific states which republicans have the advantage in a lot of these states because of some of these new election reforms that are limiting access to a lot of voters, primarily voters of color. and a lot of them democratic voters. >> that's right. look, republicans have 20 state legislatures, and they are gaming the system to give them
advantages. the reason adam kinzinger in illinois isn't running again partly is because he got redistricted out. he doesn't have a district to run in. so there's all these factors that are playing in. the fact that joe biden is in the white house, the party in the white house usually loses a seat. the fact that it is a je gerrymander year, redistricting year after a census. the fact they took up voting restriction laws after elections, all those things will be at play. ana, i want to go back to the question you asked. where do people like liz cheney, fred upton, anthony gonzalez, adam kinzinger get their strength? i think they have inner strength. it is that idea that you are being truthful and faithful to your own principles and conviction. it doesn't matter the external attacks you are getting when you know that you are believing and standing up for the right thing. it doesn't matter what's
happening outside because you've got that inner strength. and i see it on all these republicans who are willing to take the attacks and the conse consequences, you know, and be targeted because they are standing up for what they believe in. >> sure. >> i pity the cowards who are willing to compromise their principles and show that they have no
backbone. >> ana, who is going to be left if the adam kinzingers, if the anthony gonzalezs des don't stan the fight. in the midterms, what does that leave us with? >> it leaves us with a very dysfunctional congress. >> we're a long way away. let's trust the american people and the voters, and even in districts you may think are very red districts, look what happened in alabama with roy moore. look what happened when
republicans nominated chris kobach in kansas, a republican, he lost. if republicans nominate extreme, toxic candidates like donald trump, we did vote out donald trump. he lost. so have faith in the people. i do, i think we have to work hard. the harder we work, the luckier we'll get in that regard. but have faith that the american people will reject these toxic candidates and, you know, i think the people with courage, as
we've been talking about here, they inspire others, even those who may be quiet about it and will get people to come out and vote. so that's certainly what i am optimistic about, that those candidates who do have a backbone stand up for themselves and they're their own man and own woman, that there is a much more appealing candidate than the sycophant who bow to the retired guy down in florida. >> all right, got to leave it there. ladies, so great to talk to you, thank you so much.
ana navarro and barbara comstock. jacob chansley was sentenced to 41 months in prison. the prosecution asked for a big sentence here. >> a similar sentence to what they got last week. judge lamberth also sentenced scott farland last week. he was accused of punching a capitol hill police officer. jacob chansley, not being charged with a criminal act, also got 41 months in prison. judge lamberth thinks the impact
of these charges, one with violence, one with non-violence, were equal. moving forward chansley will more than likely serve 31 months because he already served 10 months in jail. the judge said he can subtract that from the total amount, and when he's out, he'll be on prison release. to put it simply, ana, this is ramping up, and we will very likely see more of these severe cases come forward, and we'll see where judges are landing on the severity of these cases and the impact of these actions, violent or non-violent. just to bring our viewers up to speed here, the qanon qanon sha
the most visible person in the insurrection, went up to the senate dias and left a note saying "justice is coming." that is significant. the department of justice in the sentencing hearing played previous video of chansley. he spoke for 31 minutes on his own behalf, ana, and in those 31 minutes spoke very broadly about the immense resolutions he's had in jail. he's had much peace since the he's been in jail. the judge was so moved and said was the most moving speech in his 43 years on the bench. clearly the judge accepted his remorse but still sentenced him to 41 months in prison, ana, so
a significant day here in court. we have breaking news right now. we're taking everyone to brunswick, georgia where travis mcmichael, the defendant in this trial for the killing of ahmaud arbery has taken the stand in his own defense. let's listen. >> anytime we walk by, people stop and talk to each other. >> was there any crime happening in this neighborhood that you're aware of going back to when you first moved in in september of 2019? >> there was. it was rare at first but it started to build up. >> when did it start to build up? >> i would say october, november. about the time i moved into stillshore. about october 2018 is when it started to unroll. >> what types of things were you aware of what was happening at that time? >> what i was hearing was there was car break-ins.
>> what's the point of this? >> how it impacted him and what he did. >> car break-ins, you would have -- you would hear of people in the yards, suspicious persons. i know there was a trailer stolen. just little stuff like that, but it was continuous. every couple months you would hear of something else. >> did you ever have anybody going through your things in the neighborhood or have any crime happening to you back in that september 18, october, november and moving into '19? >> yes. my truck was actually broken into. it was open, and you'd see stuff was scattered around. nothing was taken, i didn't think anything of it.
then by february -- >> of what year? >> -- of 2019, i bought a little car to drive back and forth to work, and it was broken into numerous times. i got to the point where i would just leave the thing unlocked because they broke the door handle and they broke the glove box. so i just kind of left it as -- let them have at it, leave everything else alone, but it was continuous. >> did you discuss this with your mother and father? >> i did. >> did you discuss this with your sister after she moved in? >> yes. >> did they share things with you about what they were hearing happening in the neighborhood about crime? >> they did. >> all right. did you discuss this generally with other people that you would see in the neighborhood? >> yes. it was going on so much in the neighborhood that that was usually the topic. if you'd stop by, hi, how have you been? down the road, they had their
car broken into. have you had your car broken into? by then it was a common occurrence, so there was a little discussion. >> were there other sources other than your own experience or talking to your mom and dad where you learned about crime going on in the neighborhood? >> yes. >> what was that? >> facebook. >> tell me about that. >> there was a page -- i don't know who set it up but there is a satilla shores neighborhood watch, a facebook page. i was either added on there, either way, i was on there scrolling through facebook. if you're not looking for it, if something is updated on there, it would pop up. in the evening i'm looking and a neighbor would pop up, hey, we just had -- police came through. the neighbor had somebody in their yard or something was broke sn into, something like that. my mother was also on there and
she would say, have you seen this? i would look at it or something like that. there is also exit 29 -- >> let me stop you there. how is exit 29 relevant as a location? >> that was the area we were at. exit 29 is the interstate exit which is a couple miles from the highway, and they had police scanners and stuff like that on there, too, so she would see them there as well. >> did you ever listen to police scanners or pay attention to notices from police scanners? >> no. i did download it. if there was something going on in the neighborhood, it would pop up. >> did you or your mother or father ever caution one another about how you left your cars or how you would leave your things around the house? >> constantly. >> like in what ways? >> she would constantly remind me and my father to lock our trucks, or we'd tell her to lock the trucks. hey, you need to lock your car. i saw where somebody has been -- somebody had their stuff broken
into or something like that. >> as we're moving from late '18 into early '19, which i think is the time period you're talking about, how did you feel about what you were learning about crime in the neighborhood? >> it was beginning to become a problem. it was definitely a problem because it was starting to be a common occurrence, like i said. >> did you take action at that time aside from locking the car and making sure things weren't in there that could be stolen? was that about it? >> that was about it, yes. >> what did you say to your mother and father about the crime? >> just to make sure things were secure. >> how old were you parents back in 2018-'19? >> about 76.
>> did you speak to neighbors in the neighborhood about crime in the neighborhood as we move forward from february 2019 into the summer? did you begin to speak to people about crime in the neighborhood? >> yes. we weren't searching it but he stopped by. yes, he saw this or heard this or read that. >> can you name some of the people you may have spoken to? >> i know one was matt benzi. he would see us in the yard. i am sure there is another neighbor. >> is kim balasteros another neighbor you spoke to? >> yes, kim had her purse stolen out of a vehicle. she told me about that, yes. >> do you know when that was supposed to have happened? >> it was summer. june, july, somewhere around there. >> how about matt? did you ever speak to him about crime? >> yes, i told him what was going on around there.
>> did you notice that your neighbors began to take certain actions around their homes based on the crime that was happening in the neighborhood? >> yes. about that time, around may, june, july, around there, you started noticing and hearing people starting to put cameras in their houses. i can't remember all the people, but you go down the road, you drive from my house and you see cameras starting to come up on every house. also people weren't coming out as much in the evening times, either. >> what do you mean? >> towards dusk, you used to see kids running around, older people walking dogs and stuff like that, and it started backing off. it started backing off and people talking about people in the neighborhood that are -- thighs break-ins of these people that are coming around these houses, they were concerned about it so they wouldn't come
out as much anymore. >> did you begin to notice whether police cars were driving through the neighborhood doing any patrols? >> yes. >> where would you notice that? >> you would see them. or you'd see on facebook, somebody would say, hey, police came through and their lights on, or they would be outside and see them. it was pretty obvious. >> did these types of activities give you any concern or cause you to worry in any way? >> it was concerning that nothing was done. they had to continue to be in the neighborhood. i was glad to see them in the neighborhood, but it's concerning that you have to have that constant presence. >> did you begin to get a sense about, in any way, the conduct of the people, the suspicious
people, and the frequency of their visiting, or did you begin to get a sense of their actions and whether those had become bolder or they had become frequent or whatnot? >> i'm not sure -- it was staying frequent, but yeah, there was more stuff. that was around the time that the purse was stolen. i heard that -- i won'tant to s heard a trailer was stolen or a boat was stolen. mom is telling me more frequently she's hearing of more things being taken, being stolen, or suspicious persons lurking around during that time. >> all right. i want to move to a different topic. have you ever had any law enforcement training? >> i have. >> where did you receive that training?
>> in the united states coast guard. >> and did you attend any kind of school to be trained for the coast guard for law enforcement purposes? >> yes. >> what's the name of the school that you attended? >> it was the basic boarding officer course, and then following extra classes with it but it was at the maritime law enforcement training center. >> where was that located? >> charleston, south carolina. >> did you serve in the coast guard? >> i did. >> what were your dates of active duty? >> march of 2007 to june or july of 2016. >> in general, did you have duties other than law enforcement type duties in the coast guard? >> yes. >> can you name the category of the type of duty that you had? >> yeah. so my rating, my average job was i was a machinery technician. i was a mechanic was my 9 to 5,
i guess you would call it. >> and other than going out and doing law enforcement type things, did you do any search or rescue type operations as well? >> yes. >> is that part of the coast guard practice that you had in addition to law enforcement and doing mechanic work? >> yeah, that was it, yeah. >> so let me ask you, what are the types of law enforcement things that you did in the coast guard? >> we did -- it was search and rescue. we would go in there and if something would arise to that, you know, if a rescue turned into a bui, we did an investigation on that. >> it may be obvious, but what's a bui? >> boating under the influence. guys on boats, mainly. we would encounter drugs, migration or immigration,
assists customs, administration, stuff like that. >> i'm sorry, who? >> assisting drug enforcement. >> did you ever work with local law enforcement when did you your law enforcement investigations on the water? >> yes, several times. >> what types of law enforcement agencies would you work with? >> we would work with local and state law enforcement, either the sheriff's department or -- yeah, the sheriff's department were the two stations i was at and also state agencies like florida wildlife commission or georgia parks of natural resources or mississippi parks of n -- mississippi department of natural resources. >> what is a vessel? >> a vessel would be like a cruise ship or a vessel with a kind of historic port. if somebody wanted to do harm,
they would shoot for that vessel which would make more news. there was also higher. >> what would you do? >> we would set up zones and make sure nothing would impede them, and we would make laws and make sure we could accomplish that mission. >> do you remember the name of the law enforcement course that you took at the law enforcement academy? >> yeah, basic board officer course. >> what essentially did that training authorize you to do? >> it allows to make -- it's
called seas 2. >> how do you break that down? >> it's an acronym. it's sea-e-as-e-a-s-i-i. >> it's search examinations, arrests, seize, inspect and inquire. >> okay. seasii. >> yes. >> can you tell us a little about the components of your training that you had under this seasii course. >> yeah, so -- i'll give you -- i guess it would be best if i give you the law. >> sure. what is the law, essentially, that authorize you to be a coast
guard law enforcement search powers. >> it gave us arrest powers. involved with that was 1489 eu alpha. which gave coast guard officers, petty officers, which i was, warrant officers and reserve of the same on active duty, the right to seize and examine arrests. >> so this here is the code section that allowed you to do all these things? >> and all vessels in u.s. territorial waters, yes, sir. >> did this course have a law component, like a legal component? >> it did. >> did the legal -- what did the legal component address? >> the fourth amendment.
>> and search is seizure, does that fall under fourth amendment? >> yes. >> arrest? >> yep. >> and in terms of -- did you also deal with the fifth amendment? >> we did. >> like due process, things of that nature? >> yes. >> did you learn terms like probable cause or reasonable suspicion? >> we did. >> and what was your training about probable cause? >> both probable cause definition that we received was le level of suspicion by a reasonable and prudent person. >> i'm going to write it down, so hold on. level of suspicion by a reasonable and prudent person. okay. >> given the overall
>> to believe a crime has been committed. >> there's no spell check on these things. okay. let me go back to a component, perhaps, of training. did you have a component of your training called use of force? >> yes did, yes. >> can you tell us what that is? >> yes, use of force is the level of force needed to compel compliance in the safest manner, and then we had acronyms and everything for that, too. we had a use of force continuum. >> hold on. so use of force. and you said you had a
continuum? >> yes. >> what does that mean? >> it was a -- it's levels 1 through 6. >> cont-o-n-tc-o-n-t-i-n-u-m? >> two u's. >> really, it has two u's? awesome. so use of force continuum. what is that? >> there's six levels. it goes from level 1, which is officer presence. i'll just go through all of them. >> what does that mean, officer presence? >> officer presence was what we called showing the flag, being throughout having the flag and blue lights. just like a cop pulling up, you have blue lights, the uniform, his presence, his demeanor, the badge, stuff like that.
going through level 1, seeing a police officer or seeing somebody that's an ah authoritative figure. >> compel compliance to do what? >> whatever is needed from the officer. >> does it include talking? >> yes. >> or making an arrest? >> yes, it can. >> what's the next level? >> level 2 is verbal commands. >> what does that mean? it sounds pretty obvious, but what does that mean? >> it was task direction and consequence. >> so give us just a little bit of a working example of that. >> you're in active duty, you're in a law enforcement function, i would say, mr. sheffield, you move to the side for me. if it didn't work to that, move to the side for me or i will have to remove you. >> is there a physical component of this or you're just talking.
>> so you can do what? >> so i can do my job safely and effectively. >> okay. all right. is it volume dependent, your voice? >> yeah. voice inflection and tone was definitely a key into it. being on a boat, shrimp boat or something like that, loud engines and everything. if i'm trying to talk to you like this and you can't hear me, you can get aggravated. but if i speak louder and my voice inflection is, hey, move over there, you might take it as i'm upset, and this can escalate into something we don't want. but if i take everything into consideration, hey, can you move over there for me? we use it every day. >> you used the word "escalate." is it your goal to have those
situations? >> we keep everybody calm and cool and be able to do everything at hand safely and effectively. >> what's the next level after verbal command? >> it's control techniques. >> what does that mean? >> it was anything hands on. we just had a low probability of causing connective tissue damage or injury. >> and what's the point of it? >> if verbal commands didn't work, i would have to remove you. i'll get you safely to point a or point b, or the use of handcuffs is to control you, the subject, without any harm to myself or to you. >> okay of. what's the next level?
>> level 4 was aggressive response techniques. >> what does that mean? >> kicks, stuns and the use of pepper spray. >> at what point did something like this become necessary? >> we had two types of subjects. level 1 through 3 would be -- so you have passive and aggressive. you have passive compliant and active aggressor. >> you're talking about you or the person you're dealing with? >> the person you're dealing with. >> say it again, please. the person you're dealing with you have levels. >> yes. >> and you categorize them as? >> there's passive and aggressive.
broken into level 1 and 2, level 1 is passive compliant. anything i ask you to do, you do it. >> that would be me. >> and passive resistor would be -- could go into level 2, level 3. can you move over there for me? you don't. can you move over there or i'll have to move you. that could be a passive resistor. >> like me with the judge sometimes? >> yes. and then if i have to put hands on you, it's a passive resistor. level 4, it would be the kicks and punches would be active aggressor at that point. >> someone who is -- >> that is trying to cause you harm. >> what's the next level after 4? >> intermediate weapons. >> okay. what does that mean?
>> with what we carried daily was the expandable baton. >> to be used -- >> for level 5. if you're coming at me -- if you're trying to harm me, doing kicks and all that, i'll probably use the baton. hitting certain parts of the body to cause you to stop harming me or others. >> level 6? >> daily force . >> are you always moving from
le level 1 to level 6? is this always moving through that progression? >> yes, it's fluid, nonstop, depending on what you walk into, what occurs there in a situation. it can go from level 1 to level 6 or level 1 to level 4 or 4 back to 1. it's constantly flowing. it depends on the situation and how whoever you're talking to reacts, pretty much. >> i want to talk about the physical side of your training and experience that you had with this type of thing. okay? before i do that, i want to ask you again about de-escalation. so make sure -- de-escalation. as it relates to that continuum, do you have any goals as it relates to de-escalation, as it relates to this use of force continuum?
>> you want to keep it as minimal as possible. you don't want anything to esc escalate. >> you want the absence of escalation? >> that's correct. >> let's talk about, do you -- when you were with the coast guard, did you work with a team of others? >> yes. >> and did you and your team ever do training as it related to these types of use of force continuums and search and seizure and arrest? >> we did. >> okay. when would you do this? >> we had -- it was required -- minimally it was required quarterly, which was four times a year. yeah, four times a year. but we had so many people which were e-1s to e-3s would be our boarding team members, and the
training i went to in charleston, i was also a trainer to trainer. i was authorized to teach other coast guardsmen how to assist into boardings. so we would have new coast guards coming to these boats and stations, so we were constantly training. it was probably minimal once a week, sometimes two, three times a week. sometimes we would dedicate a whole week to training. and it went from physical levels 1 through 5 to 6, obviously. >> would you practice level 1, officer presence? >> yes. any time that we were on the water was obviously level 1. >> so i guess my question is, would you practice these various levels? >> yes. >> how would you practice some of these levels that start to get into physicality or higher verbal acuity? >> in training?
>> yeah. >> so in training we would -- going into level 4 or whatever, we would have a thing called red man's suit. we would -- fridays usually we bring everybody together and then we would teach the techniques of the proper way to do it. to take a baton and hit somebody in the head, we didn't want that to happen. we had to teach striking the right portion of the body, and the best way to do is it to get out there and do it. so we would do red man training, which these guys would exercise this on each other. level 4, level 5, we would do handcuffs. and then the entire time we're also doing level 1 and level 2. take me and you were in a scenario, it depended on, if you're the boarding officer, how you interacted with me would be how i would interact back with you. if you came in without another
>> if you went onto a boat, you might get somebody who is very upset. instead of saying calm down, you might say, what happened? they explain to you what happened. my dog just died. and you go to empathize. >> you're saying empathize. you just said emphasize. maybe it was a slip. but you would try to share with them. >> yes. ask questions, find out what's going on with them. calming them down. you want to always deescalate, keep things from rising. >> can this lead to
de-escalation? >> yes, absolutely. . >> okay. have you ever had to use officer presence on the job? >> yes. every day. every day i've ever done it. >> did you ever use verbal command on the job? >> very much so, yes. >> did you use control techniques on the job? >> i've had to. >> okay. did you ever have to use one of your aggressive response techniques, using a baton to hit somebody? >> never had. >> did you ever have to use intermediate -- >> i did not. >> -- or deadly force? >> no. >> did you have any training on hand-to-hand combat? >> yes. >> did you have any training on how to retain your weapon?
>> yes. >> can you talk a little bit about that? >> so, we carried -- there was regular boardings like an hva -- >> hva being -- >> high value asset. which we stayed on the boat. we had automatic weapons for that. we had crew mounted weapons that didn't pertain. for weapons retention, we were trained on the personal defense, which is a pistol. we carried an m-16 and a small 14 inch barrel shotgun. >> okay. and did you -- what was the type of training that you had about weapon retention? what was it that you were training one another to do? it's kind of obvious but -- >> yes, it's how to keep your weapon from going into the hands of somebody that's trying to take it from you. >> is this something that you would practice? >> i was -- yes, absolutely.
>> okay. what is the concern about not retaining your weapon? that it would -- one, you would not be able to protect yourself in a deadly force situation and also that somebody taking it away from you would use it on you or others. >> did you have any special training with the shotgun? >> yes. >> did it include how to retain it? >> yes. >> did it include how to deescalate a situation? >> yes, with any weapon. it was the same with the other weapons. >> explain that. how do you use a weapon to deescalate a situation? >> a situation we consider a level one, which was officers' presence. in certain situations. if you came on a boat and you had unaccounted for personnel or known safety hazards, which were to have your weapon drawn, and sometimes a third eye, which was
right here or -- it was easily -- it was readily accessible where you didn't have to take it out of the holster. in that situation, that was still level one. it's officer presence, you see somebody with that weapon, that's officer presence. also if you had to draw your weapon on someone other than that was -- there was a reasonable possibility that use of deadly force may be authorized, which was another key component on that. >> all right. a reasonable possibility -- >> yes. >> -- that deadly force what? >> may be authorized. >> okay. and what does that mean to you? >> means from the training we had that if you go into a situation that you are not aware of that you don't know if someone's armed or have made threats or made threatening gestures and you have a weapon,
it's obviously holstered, and they come towards you and make threatening gestures, which is closing the deadly force triangle or the attack triangle, then you are authorized to draw that weapon. >> all right. what is the attack triangle? >> it's a subject's actions, weapon and opportunity. >> okay. action, weapon -- >> yes. >> -- and opportunity. and how does that work? >> so, say a scenario where you threaten me -- so, you're threatening me, subject of action. weapon, what we're taught, everybody has a weapon. hands, fists, our weapon. so, in an attack situation, an attack triangle, would be you're threatening me, you are close enough to attack, which is the opportunity, and then obviously you make the threat or you make the gesture that you're going to attack me, throw the fist back.
that is at that point an attack. the attack triangle the closed, and i could use -- which would be level four or level five in that situation. there's also a deadly force triangle which is subject's actions -- >> yes, go ahead. >> -- weapon and opportunity. and under weapons, maximal effective range. and if it's readily accessible. >> you talk about range. what do you mean by that? >> if you -- if you have a baseball bat and you're 50 yards away from me, the weapon is no longer -- it doesn't close the triangle because the maximum effect of range is no longer there. you're not going to harm me with that bat at 50 yards. if you are 50 yards away from me with a -- if i could see a gun on you and you're making the threats, the gestures, then
deadly force triangle is closed. >> okay. i asked you earlier if you ever been trained to use a firearm to deescalate a situation. is that something you have trained to do, to use it to deescalate but not to actually shoot somebody with it? >> yeah, that was it. under level one, doing the -- having it -- having it out of holster or having to draw down if need be if you thought that deadly force may be authorized. >> you say draw down, what do you mean? >> to actually have it pointed at you or at the subject or anybody that is causing the threat or that may be a threat at that time. >> and when you say draw down and point it at somebody, does that mean that you are, in fact, going to pull the trigger? >> the possibility is there. but obviously you're trying to deescalate the situation. >> in your experience can pointing a gun at somebody deescalate a situation? >> yes. >> how so?
>> if you pull a gun on someone, they realize that this is -- if this threat or if you don't know what's going on in a situation and you pull a weapon on someone, from what i've learned in my training, usually that causes people to back off or to realize what's happening, deal with compliance. >> outside of your coast guard life and your coast guard work, did you carry firearms? >> yes. >> did you ever have to use those firearms before for protection? >> yes, i have. >> all right. can you tell me about that?
>> objection. relevancy? >> it's relevant because he is carrying a gun in this case. he is carrying a gun, i believe, and the testimony will establish why. and the fact that he's had experiences with having to do this before informs him and informs the decisions that he makes as a person under the circumstances. so, the fact that he's been in situations where he's had to use his gun to protect himself before informs his decisions on also february 23rd. >> relevance to what he did under these circumstances. >> you're talking about something he was doing in the coast guard. >> no, i'm talking about him as a private citizen where he's been out with a firearm carrying a firearm before, where he's had to use it to protect himself.
>> could you take a step into the jury room, please. >> hello, everyone. >> thank you for joining us. we, of course, watching the testimony in the arbery trial here, the three men on trial for killing ahmaud arbery. we're taking just a break here as the jury is out of the courtroom. martin, travis mcmichael, first, is on the stand. was that something that he was going to testify in his own defense? >> no. it was not. and what is surprising here is not only the fact that travis mcmichael takes the stand. he is the very first witness the
defense calls after the state has rested. and of course he's not just any witness. he is the man who killed ahmaud arbery. that's not an allegation on my part. that is not in contest here. we know it happened because millions of people have witnessed the altercation, which was that video that was taken by one of the defendants, william "roddie" bryan, on his cell phone, which a struggle ensues over the shotgun. in are three blasts, two of which we know struck arbery and killed him. what we have been hearing so far is number one, the element of concern of crime in the neighborhood. this is something that the state has not wanted to bring up. it's an essential element the defense says to understand the mindset of these three men as to why they were so conceed