Skip to main content

tv   Public Affairs Events  CSPAN  November 22, 2016 7:30pm-9:10pm EST

7:30 pm
area of work that i'm invested in with a number people is wanting to understand the industries that still survive today, that profited off of labor in the post- civil war air and in particular so the sugar that is right for the labor and the south. also thinking about j.p. morgan, that is from the labor the cell. that's where the money actually comes from. so once you trace the processes and the hope for some working in the area with these corporations holding them accountable for los altos happen before then. i know there's a business area that a number of insurance companies, add no would be one of him. insured slaveholders and poor
7:31 pm
slaves and what is owed is always an important question to ask. moving forward i think we have this moment in the 80s and 90s were people really guess amended 2008 they're like yes were good. in the now it's not that were like low there's these deeply entrenched issues. i think a lot of people have been there's never been a period in time where they've not been murdered by police officers, is a it crazy, i don't remember a time. i think people are engaged in the long history more than they did before. i think it will take time but it's an important discussion to have. >> all had one thing to that and that is the notion that even there's more terrorism today than there has been before i tweeted out after the events in orlando and others made similar comments at that was by far the
7:32 pm
most violent or highest number of citizens killed by a terrorist. if we go back and go to chicago in 1919 in the mississippi delta before that rosewood in huge numbers of people killed. in some of those issues became part of the big reparation discussion prior to 2001. net was largely directed by -- at the law school. in fact i was with doctor ogletree in july or late august 2001 at one at the un conference on racism interurban south africa. controversial to the time of the bush administration barred secretary paul for taking delegation to the conference. that was the peak of the reparations movement that so fertile at that time. i usedo joke that until that movement no one had ever said the word reparation in america. anybody who is in any fascia mainstream was scoffed at the
7:33 pm
idea, it was a serious conversation happening. interurban during interurban during that meeting there is a meeting in the durban city hall, a memory of mine, the entire membership of the black caucus was there, a remarkable constellation of leaders and others in the room to discuss reparations topic, ogletree was trying to an ever more leaders and jesse jackson makes a surprise appearance and walks into the room and if you know this history reverend jackson is very post to the notion of reparations and viewed it as a great distraction for the movement as in many important civirights leaders and he walks in the room and asked as always he took over the space completely took the microphone and began talking in at a certain point he said all of you know i've always suppose the movement in race reparations but
7:34 pm
my views have changed. said that ply for reparations must become a central objective to the sub rights movement in america. as we do that other things must fall away. was next ordinary moment. is witnessing a turn that is going to be highly consequential. two days later we got on the plane flew back to new yorkn two days after that the planes crashed into the world tra center. and and nobody heard the word reparations expressed again for a long time. but i think we're now back to a moment where there may be serious consideration in whatever form that may take but there are some more serious discussion of it. >> went to say that i think institutions like this harvard, brown, georgetown, those are places where that conversation is happening the students are involved in both driving the conversation and defining justice, principally enough so
7:35 pm
institutions can be responsive. i applaud the work that you're doing and encourage you to keep doing it. not that you needed the applause for the encouragement but you have it anyway. thank you all. i think think we have to cut it off. we have time for one more know. thank you all very much. [applause] >> if james madison is the architect of the constitution and he might be then george washington is the general contractor. if you goat build a house or do in addition you know it looks more of what the general contractor has in mind that what the architect has a mind. >> sunday night edward was talks about president george washington's role in unifying the country and in ratifying the first federal document in his book, george washington, nationalist. >> what they want to do is recruit washington and in hamilton hedrick talk to
7:36 pm
washington before about this democracy stuff is never to work, yet to be a king in washington was a true republican and he believed in republican government. that sunday night on c-span's q&a. q&a. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by americus cable television companies. it is brought to today by your cable or satellite provider. >> admiral michael rogers, head of u.s. cyber command and director of the national security agency set on recently to talk about cyber threats on the role of the public and private sectors in helping prevent them. he spoke at a conference a conference of international business leaders hosted by the wall street journal. this is 20 minutes. [applause] >> good morning.
7:37 pm
i have to clarify, you are admiral rogers, director of the nsa, commander of the a cyber command from chicago. >> not a congressman from michigan. so we have that out of the way. we can make our own headlines here. exactly how worried should the ceos out here be about the state of cyber security? >> clearly do we a challenger that requires attention, yes. clearly is the role for ceos to play in this, yes. i spent a lot of time talking to the private sector as a result of the mission assigned to both cyber and an essay. when i talk one of the things i normally will ask when talking to ceos is talk to me about the kind of conversations you're having with your cio, talk to me about how you as a leader setting up patients for what you expe them to do. to put another way the guy who defends networks, you do not
7:38 pm
want your network security team decided unilaterally what is important to us an organization. you as a leader need to set the tone. what do that in my own organization. here's the critical information flows that i need to execute the mission assigned to us. here's the critical data that i need access to that's what you need to prioritize against a focus on. here's the areas where i think we can take risk. this is what i want you to focus on and this is what i think we should take some rk. you have to set that tone. when i asked the department of defense about what is important versus myself or my commanders answer the question i get different answers. you need to shape that discussion. i would argue that. i acknowledge that you have many other challenges for your time, don't pretend this needs to dominate your life but i think
7:39 pm
there's a significant role to play. >> what can go wrong. it was two years ago when the funny hat cap in. you remember it well and got a call on tnksgiving. what can we learn from what happened? >> the positive that might take away, i thought the positives were like collaboration between a private company, the computer network expertise, they knew they were dealing with something so they went out and hired expertise and capabilities from within the private sector. they then come to the conclusion that this is something bigger than they had initially and potentially thought and they thought they needed to reach out to the government. i give them big kudos for that. they could've sat there and said we need to minimize this and go very low level on this, let's not really confront this
7:40 pm
publicly. i thought it was a positive. they're very upfront when they approach the government and sd we really something has happened we like your assistance to make sure we understand what's happened and we charactere it accurately and we have a sense for what occurred and we would like your views on how to make sure it doesn't happen again. they were very open and direct, i remember conversations with the leadership as well as the general counsel ani remember one of my concerns is on the government guy and we sa if you want us to provide value and insight the only way this will work as a forgetful access to your network and data. see only way we can reconstruct it and generate the level of insight you expect. i realize that may make you uncomfortable. you're opening the structure and networks and data to the government. you have to be comfortable with
7:41 pm
that. they had no issue. they they came back and said were comfortable with that but we want you to ensure that you inform us of what you're doing, oh what you're doing away doing it. any stick to that is as we do that we have no iue. that worked out great. i thought that dialogue between sony as the company, the private private entity they hired and the u.s. government response team, the fbi and ths great information flow. >> there are things that went wrong. the took a long time to detect this. >> it's not unusual, what we generally find and quite frankly i find it doesn't matter if it's a commercial network government network, networks that i been accountable for defending, we generally find tre's a significant time like for most
7:42 pm
organizations between discovery of activity and the actual time they penetrated the network. if you just look at the statistics that's normally some period of time of 326 months. that was thease of the sony scenario. >> how influential could we be about state actors, north korea and the sony incident the problem in this challenge among them is the fact that the set of actors is so large and diverse. probably depending on what source you want to use probably 60 and 65% of the total activity we see is criminal. it's individuals looking to access systems or access to identifiable information to think about social security
7:43 pm
numbers and credit card information because they sell it and they use it to generate renue. criminal activity activity includes theft of intellectual property. we see criminal groups and nationstates penetrating networks to steal information they think they can sell to someone. they they think there is value there. at the same time you have nationstates who are engaged in actions designed to penetrate the networks within the commercial sector. you also find individuals and groups another specific ideology that brings this disparate group and disconnected people. if you take a look at the model you'll harness the power of the world wide web to bring together people of little previous interaction and areness in each other.
7:44 pm
they will coalesce and bring this wide group of geographically dispersed individuals who coalesce around a particular issue. it will harness that interest to a specific outcome. let's do the following because reunited by the idea that we don't like this particular policy. we've seen activities against nationstates and individuals. there's a wide range of actors out there. so given this i want to ask the ceos out there as we call it out there and i'll ask the admiral, do you trust the government enough to work with your information to work with it during a cyber attack, absolutely, for never? >> . .
7:45 pm
the ultimate solution in my mind is how you bring this public-private partnership. as theirector of nsa and commander of cybercommand the agreement i always reach with whoever we are working with tradable night use the data we gave for anything other then the ext purpose i communicate to you. not doing this as a vehicle to gain access to data for some other purpose. it just doesn't work and we won't do that. it doesn't work that way. don't get me wrong i certainly understand the concern and that fits into a broader historic narrative. traditionally as aation we have been frigid between the role of the government and what is the role of -- that has stood
7:46 pm
us as a country in 241 years of history. my comment though would be cyber does not recognize these arbitrary lines that we have drawn. it doesn't recognize geography. the military for example we love to organize around geography. we have a european command and we have a central command. except network structures on the world wide web they are not organized that way. our adversaries don't see it that way. so we often use these kind of traditional boundaries and they help us organize and deal with problems. i understand why the do it but i don't think they're necessarily optimized for the world we are living in now. put another way i think is totally realistic to expect the private sector to withstand the little onslaught of activity that's being directed against them by nation-states and other actors. likewise i don't think it's realistic to say the government is just going to do this because
7:47 pm
the challenge with the government doing it is if you want me to defend something i can't do it from the outside. i can't defend the network if i don't have access to that network structure. it's like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. it's just not not realistic and it doesn't generallyead to positive outcomes. >> i guess so paul russo showed somewhat encouraging -- poll results showed you have some work to do. >> the way i would look at it is less than 10% of you said there are no circumstances in which i would consider this but from my perspective that's a broad positive. that means there's a willingness among 99% of you to have some form or 91% and you can talk about a math major. 91% of you to have some form of dialogue. and to potentially look at that as a possibility as a positive to me. >> admiral i want to talk about a couple of years ago with tim cookie talked about you or an
7:48 pm
opponent of encryption but your views don't exactly match that of his and since then we have had the san bernardino phone. how can you be pro encryption but also favor intelligent getting more owhat it needs? >> is my experience leads me to believe it's very simplistic to painted either/or. having said that i'm the first to acknowledge that i don't know what the right answer is right now and i don't pretend otherwise but i ha always been struck by at its heart we are nation about can do. every time i'm out in silicon valley and the talking to leaders out there i will say look, you're very model is all about the power of possibility and yet we are spending a lot of time talking about what we cannot do. i think we need to differentiate between what can we not do versus what should we not do. those are two different conversations to me.
7:49 pm
i think we need to have an initial conversation focused on what's within the realm of the possible and i think the tech sector plays a huge role in that i think this is something that is so important tos as a nation. we want to have a broad dialogue and generate a broad consensus here. i think you want the government arbitrarily deciding this is the right answer and i told the tech sector look i don't think from a corporate perspective that your role to arbitrarily tell us what the right answer is. i think it can we come together and answer the first question what is in the realm of possible in what could we do? the second conversation in more important much broader given that what should we do. so they gave me a set of possibilities. which one of those should we have to do because that's a whole different conversation in packets to the legal frameworks.
7:50 pm
back gets into what are we comfortable with. those incredibly important conversations for us as a nation and it's as the conversation i would argue you want to have at a much broader framerk than just bringing tech people together. >> given the scale of the threat of isis and terrorism has that started? has the tech community done enough? >> i'm not going to say somebody is or isn't doing enough that i think clearly we are not where we want to be or need to be. if you look at the level of activity out there and you look at how the dynamics are changing here, i think where we want to be. if think there are some that would argue hey i understand that intellectually but that's not my role as a company. you're asking me to do something that really is not my function. my comment would be look i think you are part of the solution.
7:51 pm
i don't pretend for one minute that it's only your issue are all mere challenge but i think you are part of the solution. i think we need to expand the number of parties that are involved in this conversation about what can we do and what should we do. >> before he you go to questions i just have to ask wikileaks you told mpr in august he was clearly lead for reason and leed to achieve an effect. what can you tell us? obviously there are ongoing investigations but what can you tell us about the wikileaks and what you know? >> i'm still very comfortable. i'm very comfortable with that and i stilthink there shouldn't be any doubt in anyby's mind this was not something that was done casually this was not something that was done by chance. this was not a target that we select purely arbitrarily.
7:52 pm
this is a conscious effort by nation-states to attempt to achieve the specific effect and we have been very public as a government in saying that. we have also been very public as the government saying look this is just not acceptable. we don't support this and we think this is outside the norm of behavior and we are not prepared to accept this. >> in that context we are going to go to questions now. that context this first question from one of the ceos, how proactive are reaping against the attacks from russia and china and i suspect that the word proactive it doesn't just mean defense. >> i thought that was the answer perhaps to the question. so every case is different but i remind people when you step back and you think about howard going to change the dynamics that we are all dealing without there, there has got to be multiple aspects to that.
7:53 pm
you see us addressing, we are trying to make life harder for hack ers rates quite hardly we are trying to harden the systems and increase the level of knowledge and increase capabilities in the private sector and theovernment. we are trying to deal directly with a host of nation-states around the world and engaging with them in terms of what's the role from our perspective on what is not? where using the legal tool for example. we have used indictments against both prc and iranian individuals arguing haight what we are so serious about this we are trying to send you a clear message. we are prepared tose multiple tools and capabilities that are within our toolkit if you will to design, to drive you to change your behavior. you have seen, i think i'd have to say on the chinese piece the conversation that led to the presidential summit in september of 2015, little over a year ago with two presidents xi jinping and president obama came out
7:54 pm
only a grade that we will not use cyber is a tool in the nation-state tube gain economic advantage. there have been one of our biggest issues with their chinese counterparts. we certainly acknowledge nation-states will you cyber is a tool to generate insight and knowledge about what's going on the world around us but in the u.s. system we do not take some of that knowledge that we acquire for intelligence purposes and turned to our private sector and say here's what the fifth-generation fighter x, y and z is doing and this is what you've got to compete against them this is what you have to design a better fighter four. we don't do that. that is the way in some nations and we race is with the chinese frank example saying thiis totally in excel -- unacceptable. we are able to reach an agreement and i thought that was positive. you've seen the actions i've mentioned that we discussed with the iranians. he took a very different action with the north koreans in
7:55 pm
response for example. we indicated we publicly now is activity and we publicly attributed this is the presence of united states came out here retributive the activity to a particular nation in this case the north koreans anthen we talked about we are going to take initial response to this in the form of an economic piece. we put sanctions against both individuals and particular entities, portions of the korean government and we highlight them very plicly. this is an initial step. it does not change her behavior and we see continued action start against the united states along the lines that we ha seen directed to destructively against sony. we are prepared toake action at the time and place of our choosing. it they seem to have had a positive effect so i apologize for going a little long on the answer but mike key point would be for all of you there's no one-size-fits-all. every single nation and every single group we are dealing with we make a decision in the particulars of the conct and
7:56 pm
did we decide the best way. >> we have time for one more question. right here. just a question. >> i'm the ceo of a technology company. a quick question is so much of security seems to be about taking existing systems and existing architectures and hardening them. that's so much more difficult than anticipating where the world is going. any comments of guidance? >> first let me talk from the government perspective particularly within the dif part portrait of defense because that's my responsibility. i was just reviewing this morning with the dean. our strategy is designed to number one replace the infrastructure that we have the currently exis for a network structure but we acknowledge this is going to take time and significant investment. you are going to do this in the course of a couple of years. you see that challenge more broadly for us as a society. there is so much, if you just
7:57 pm
look at the amount of money there right now as a nation we have sunk in fixed capital costs and existing infrastructure. the idea that we are one-day going to wake up and say hey we are just going to replace this in a year or two. that's our ballistic strategy. the resources and quite frankly if you had all the resources he would have the time to deliver them in a year or two czar strategy is replaced all the infrastructure, harden existing infrastructure while you are doing that. increase the capability both of your networks and other technical capabilities that we are spending a lot of time tests here. build workforce that is more cyber proficient that has more cyber intelligence, both your high and as well as your users. everybody would have given access to now as a potential point of vulnerability based on the choices they make as an operator. so there is no one single silver bullet here to all of this.
7:58 pm
it really is a very multilayered , it's a lot of roll up your sleeves hard work. >> admiral rogers and rebecca thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> the two branches are really and advanced with each other over time. congress checking the president backing down from president, the
7:59 pm
president pushing congress, the presidt being worried about it getting too far. >> it's possible only to talk about guns is the rather societal thing which counts people out, dehumanizes them and that means when their life is taken that is already being accounted for by the yeah i think there is a real problem. once you start saying what while he was in a student and there's a suggesti that the grade th you can get would be more worth the.
8:00 pm
at chicago ideas with the panel looked at race in the future of policing in america. participants include a member of president obama's task force on 21st century policing a former new york city police officer and law professors from the university of chicago and the john jay college of criminal justice.
8:01 pm
this is an hour. [applause] >> good afternoon. before we start i know gabriel had you all welcome each other and if you want to give a shout-out for the chicago cubs while you are here you know, you can do that as well. welcome, good afternoon and lcome to what we expect will be a very lively conversation about the police force of the future. you know the names of the cities ferguson, baltimore, baton rouge, charlotte, chicago, dallas, suburban st. paul, the list could go on, tulsa. those are just a few of the cities in recent years that have pushed the issue of policing, the often deadly and direction between police and those they serve and the safety of policing communities.
8:02 pm
there is no question that the current state of policing is an emotional and controversial subject that we are wrestling with all over the country. consider some of the small phrases that get really big reactions. stop-and-frisk, black lives matter, blue lives matter. so that's the backdrop of the conversation that we are about to have this afternoon. now most police officers do the job that we ask them to do, to protect and serve our community and they do it quite well. but no matter what your perspective, there is a building consensus that there needs to be changed, that the police force of the future must be different. what we ask police officers to do beyond enforcing the law, how police are trained, how accountability is designed, which policing methods they use. all of those are up for debate
8:03 pm
here today. so this year reportedly more than 700 people have been killed by police officers in the united states, a disproportionate number of them people of color. we are here today to discuss why those exceptions are so numerous and a proposed solution. we have just a little over an hour to do it so you know we are going to get started. we have assembled a group of experts with diverse opinions and backgrounds to talk us through this key issue so i would like to introduce them and bring them to e stage. first up, craig professor of law at the university of chicago law school. it was his freedom of information and request that led to the release of the video for police shooting of laquan mcdonald in chicago in 2014. craig. [applause]
8:04 pm
>> nice to see you, thank you. >> and we will come next eugene o'donnell a former new york city police officer now profess of law in police studies at john jay college of criminal justice in new york. welcome. [applause] the next one over. also joining us this afternoon dr. cedric alexander public safety director of the county georgia. he's a clinical psychologist and past president of the national organization of black law enforcement executives. he's also a member of president obama's task force on 21st century policing. [applause] and finally marc lamont hill a journalist television host professor of african-american studies at morehouse university and author of the new book
8:05 pm
nobody's casualties of americans on the vulnerable from ferguson to flint and beyond. [applause] gentlemen, thank you and i expect you'll hold nothing back. i'm going to start off with some news that was made yesterday when there was an organization of police chiefs, the international group of association of chiefs of police meeting and when you talk about racism inside policing it's a very delicate issue especially as many rank-and-file police officers come to resist accusations of systemic racism by groups such as black lives matter. i think it might surprise a few
8:06 pm
folks yesterday during a meeting of the association of police chiefs when terry cunningham the outgoing president of that group apologized for historical racism by law enforcement. he cited the role of police that enforces racist laws such as jim crow. he called it a source of today's mistrust between minorities and police officers. gentleman i would like you to address if you think this is a step that the police department should be taking. i know that some folks at the meeting thought it was a step that went too far. mark, i'm going to start with you. >> it's a great question and first i thank you all for inviting me and it's great to see everyone here. this is a question i wrestle with. i was trying to look at these instances of violence and look at the historical underpinnings. one of the things that i continue to come back to is the
8:07 pm
idea that we can't think about racism in the context of policing truly at the level of intention. if we continue to look for the rad foaming at the mouth racism of individual police officers we will find some. we will find those things but far more important is the number of people who are victimized by a system that by design and by structure leads to over policing of some communities at the expense of others. look at the psyche of officers and citizens and how they understand race. if you look at stanford for ray takeye this idea that lack children are seen as older and more guilty than their white counterparts that leads to a tamir rice being 12 and being. is 20. he just means that might be part of the psychology so there are
8:08 pm
all these dynamics that play in tow to the question is does no polity help? absolutely because it acknowledged as there's a structural issue that we all must be accountable for even if you are that quote good officer and quote. we been using the bad apples modeled to think about police officers. they're a bunch of good apples in their bad apples. i think that might be the wrong we think about this because it presents every one as individual i'm saying let's think about this in a different way. >> how do you think about a doctor alexander? >> well, it's great to apologize and certainly for someone who is representative of the largest police organization in the world icp international association of chiefs of police would i think
8:09 pm
it was a welcome apology however i don't think it's going to change very much and be perfectly honest with you. it is great to have their apology but what is really going to be profound if we are going to be policing across this country is going to apologize for its past deeds is that it also has to come locally and i think local police officials in there on respective communities need to have the courage to do what we sapresw the ent of iec peter the other day because that's the real test. that's where the real apology in that neighborhood in that community where historically we all know policing has been utilized over the years predict early going back to jim crow, civil rights. you are utilized by government
8:10 pm
to keep people oppressed, suppressed but i think what's going to be really important is for law enforcement officials to go back to our own communities and make these apologies for the things we could have done better over the years and then promising to do something really a lot different and great as we move forward. >> the big news at the icp was made by the fbi director who basically said the police profession is in a rep with me me -- are rapidly damage state rapidly damage stayed in that sadly correct. nobody wants a job at this point and nobody thought they could do the job. the carter commission said you should have a one one-year degree. one person that they department have that. chicago can't even get a filing fee trying to get police officers going forward. we need to get at the substance, how to go forward. where's sitting in a city where
8:11 pm
10 people were shot yesterday, two were killed and one is 13 and one homicide reclassification of the 15-year-old kid whose body was found burning and the victims in the community have been silent by what i would sit just to you cops have been totally silent. nobody talks about it. everybody could do their jobs better, everybody's an expert and they wouldn't do it for five minutes with the community on the ground has been utterly silent in cities like chicago and baltimore and philadelphia. hundreds of thousands of people leaving the city's because of disorder and fear and crime and asking for more police protective at the end we see a collapse in productivity. and elite has decided to have a conversation that does not connect with people. we call it irreparable damage. not only do we have a collapse of recruiting we have an exodus at the moment from big-city
8:12 pm
police departments. peoplere flying out at the new york city police. 90% of the cops say they wouldn't recommend that job to anybody. there was a cadre of young people that wanted to be police people. the institution could not survive three years and more than probably a billion dollars of negative incessant a factual i'm contextualized lacking in new ones coverage of what the police did and we are happy to go through that. it's a good dato talk about forward and not to go back. we need to talk about a post-policing america. we are simply not going to find the people you would want in a police uniform to do the work. you may find somebody. you may have the department of employment but you are not going to have the department of police and leslie has society come together in a very unified way.
8:13 pm
i do believe it's a very unifying topic. you get on the ground in the talk to people. you will find out this is a tremendous amount of room. police of course remain one of the most esteemed professions in the country. ironic they are being bashed incessantly by lawyers, politicians and journalists. 5% approval rating of most professions in police are almost always in the 60s that ironic indeed that it would be good time to have a conversation conversation on how do we reimagine public safety with the shrinking role of the police? >> let's -- lawson to take in there. the sentencing of voices and i would expect you have something to say about that. >> i guess let me start with the question, the apology. i think it's a good thing. i think it's a step in the right direction but i also think there are risks and not the risk that
8:14 pm
my colleague, not the same risk my colleagues are talking about. when we are talking about apologizing for the past. i think there's a risk of saying that was then and this is now. that yeah about stuff that happened then should never happen. we acknowledge that and i think it's important to acknowledge it but i think it's even more important to acknowledge some of the things that mark was talking about which our present-day racism and not just the vero and stuff but also the present-day reality that all too many black and brown folks and lower income folks have had to address. i think him and that's the first step in terms of looking forward , to me the first step to move forward if it begins with technology reality on the ground and i think we may have
8:15 pm
different ideas and different views as to what those realities may be based on where we sit but i also want to just say to you and also to everyone here so being a professor lawyer earl -- lawyer civil rights folks, elites, that i come from a -- i'm not one of those we need to get rid of, get rid of, get rid of law enforcement and one of the reasons why i am hopeful and why i am hopeful for 21st century policing, it begins with the creative energies and activism of young folks around this nation that forced us to revkin with and the knowledge to realities as real. i'm also hopeful because i meet everyday too and i know about the thousands of officers out there who hate this as much as i do and i think we need to move toward a time when we are -- the
8:16 pm
vast majority get comfortable. one point in chicago we would not be having this conversation in chicago if someone from within law enforcement hadn't had the courage to give me a holler and let me know about what happened. we wouldn't be having this conversation today but the sad reality is that person can't be known. they put their life on the line. they put their family on the line, they put their career on the line by stepping forward. when i have conversations with police officers around the united states i will hear stories like that were where officer step forward but then i asked the next wish and it's been that i have a been off this and i say tell me good stories about police officers who have made dramatic changes in the department and who have exposed corruption but one corruption but when i ask them someone give me a story about a happy ending for the officers i get a lot of
8:17 pm
silence. that's got to change. >> i want to talk to you about the big thing that happened after ferguson was the president decided that they needed to have a conversation about policing and form a task force which you are a member of. one of the things that was recommended was about collecting data to really find out what is happening. i wanted to know what is your frank and unvarnished opinion about whether the white house's current push for this kind of data collection and to share more data about the use of force, the use of guns or weapons against suspects, is that really going to produce good national numbers when you have a police force across the
8:18 pm
country that is so diverse? there are what, nearly 1800 police departments across the country? >> 18,000. sorry about that. 18,000 so all with different ways of thing and this is voluntary. do you expect really to have true numbers about what is happening across the country? >> i think was critically important as we are having a conversation and one thing we talked about ad nauseam during the creation of those task force recommendations was to take a look at data. what we don't know we cannot measure and until we know the number of shootings have taken place in the number of near misses that are taking place, the number of charges that are being brought against police officers, you take all this information that relates to policing community interactions
8:19 pm
traffic stops, whatever the case may be. and the more information that we have about a particular agency, the better description we have of who that agency is. try to think about it anecdotally come you can't do it. he can't measure it with your eyes. you have to have hard science and hard numbers to be able to look at is said to your question with 18,000 police departments across the country, and the government is not going to mandate at least not at this point, mandate agencies to take part in this because that's going to require resources and money and so forth and so on. a lot of departments to want to be ahead of the curve in a lot of departments that have the money in order to do this and to gather this data and use the latest technology that's out there that is being developed,
8:20 pm
think you are going to see a much better police department. when you can take a look at what it really is that your officers are doing every day on the street and look at that information and analyze it and you can say we are doing good in the things we are not doing so great at. these are things which we need to think about. >> i agree, you need data to expect people to make sense of numbers without any kind of data is troublesome at best. so there were two questions embedded in your question. one is should we be covering date on policing? i can think of any good reason why they shouldn't be collecting data on policing. but then there's the second piece of a question which is is that helped fund is america's hopeful toward different outcome let me back up just for a second. i come out of an abolitionist tradition today, that they were article tradition.
8:21 pm
i'm imagining a war without police so i'm always skeptical of any performance gesture because her eyes makes us think the prisons and police as an institution are salvageable. i'm saying they are not. however i do think that to the extent we are going to keep track of the police, the problem is that police are responsible for collecting the data and classifying categories which is historically been out we have done we are asking police to continue to please themselves even empirically. that makes me very skeptical. the reclassification of murders and when there are numbers games to be played how do we classify a homicide versus something else? whether it's funding or crime is going up or going down etc. so the higher the stakes we attach numbers we attach it to
8:22 pm
education. these numbers will dictate your future and outcome and invite the dynasty with the numbers. i'm suggesting some sort of greater oversight. it should be mandatory that all police departments do that. i can imagine a police department not being forced to keep track of the people they shoot for the officers that get shot or the traffic stops. all these things we should be able to know. the war in doug's -- drugs produced a bizarre amount of militarization of police and arming of police. the department has never murdered decades and suddenly we have military-grade equipment. we have a militarized department we can find money to do quantitative analysis. it's a lot cheaper to do hierarchical linear modeling but let me say this with regards to what mark is talking about and he is on point with a lot of things. on thing for me is a police administrator if i have the ability to collect data i don't
8:23 pm
want to examine it. need someone to look at it and understand it and someone who can tell me what it is that we need to did different because he is right. i can look at it and say these numbers don't look the way i wanted to look so they are interpreted in a different kind of way but i think when you have a group of people who are outside of your organization that you are working with that can collect the data, the data goes into a mainframe somewhere and you can look at it and you can discuss it and you can talk about the things that we can do very differently. that is very important because the whole key is the more transparent we are as a police agency, i think that begins to relieve some of this distrust that we are constantly hearing. we are going to have policing in this country.
8:24 pm
that's not going to change and at least probably not in my lifetime. mark is much younger than i am but probably not in mine but it would be wonderful if we lived in a place where we didn't have to have prisons and we didn't have that police but the fact of the matter is that today as we know, how do we operate in the system that we are in any in a way that gives the communities across this country a better view into their local police and began to have some influence into how their services deliver to them by their local police. c i want to ask you because i don't want to get too far into the weeds on this but when we talk about 18,000 police departments of course the big police departments are going to be doing this but when you talk about the smaller departments i want you to address that. what kind of thing are we going
8:25 pm
to be seen with them? is it going to promote more transparency and is it going to make policing more effective? >> if you don't mind there will back up here. we are country where facts matter less and less everyday and if you you want to see an example look at the police dialogue of the red example. the media decided three years ago and you could almost pick the day that this was going to be an issue. they were going to run with that issue. c you believe that? >> unequivocally, provably. the fact that anymore white people are killed by the police, the fact that we live in a nation where there is so much gun violence, the fact that in city after city u2 murder map and planted the mergers on the map in philly, baltimore and chicago there were whole neighborhoods you couldn't see anymore. some streets in some cities more
8:26 pm
people averted the whole neighborhood than a decade. the fact that police are put into that situation and the fact that the law is favorable to the police in the situations in a way that's very hard to change and you can go on and on and on with this. it's in fact became an utter casualty. not that they're not real issues here but this has been a media campaign that really replicates the blogosphere and "the new york times" and "the wall street journal" is in the forefront also of this trying to create a story and they want that story to be there. they still won't have that story and they give a wrong wrong number police killed as many people in the year. i will go by quickly the department i know but very well as the new york city police department one of the most strained police department on the planet. 5 million calls a year, approximately 50 shootings a
8:27 pm
year. almost invariably against an armed assailant but yet if you are on the streets of new york and you talk to people, large number of people would say the police are always killing people. if we are waiting for data and i know people think the data misrepresentation is only on the right. we got to get the policies out of this. we have to see what really works for public safety e-mails to have to talk about victims. we need to acknowledge that in police department after police department shooters are shooting and they're not getting caught. if the cops are going out and catching the shooters we have even more officer-involved shooting's and it the city in particular you have a police department in name only. the cops get there when they get there. i did the pc the other day and i had an african-american woman whose son was murdered in the city and she's not part of an elite.
8:28 pm
when the police were being badged she said i don't turn to politicians and lawyers when i need help. i turn to police. we have to have a real nonpartisa substandard forward-thinking conversation about how to secure communities. get the politics out of it. people take off the policy pointers. c what do you think about that? you look at the cases. is this something that is a media storm that was created or says something that people need to be taking a look at? >> i couldn't disagree more. i couldn't disagree more. i mean in the same way right now we have a presidential candidate saying this is all a media conspiracy by "the new york times" in a media conspiracy with anyone who disagrees with us.
8:29 pm
i think seriously the attitude, this us against them mentality is the last thing that we need at this time because if we want, and i do believe that we need police and if we want to have effective police we have got to have some trust and trust doesn't come unless it's ours. and so if we are going to have a conversaon about reality, being blind to data, i don't want to see another want to know and with the same fbi director said the same breath it's a national disace that if you ask how many people were killed by police in america last year we just shrug our shoulders. so it's more than just encouraging the 18,000 law enforcement agencies to collect information. it's actually requiring it and required it in a standardized way. that's how we have informed
8:30 pm
conversations, public conversations about what needs to be done, not just knee-jerk stuff. and i will say this, back to the data into things because human data batters too. i spent the last four years talking with black high school students about chicago, about their everyday experiences with police. kids who are in school and what i'm told and this is thousands of hours we have spent with kids would break any human being's heart. we have got to do something better. as you know we have in some neighborhoods in chicago less than at 20% clearance rate for mergers and violence. not surprisingly those neighborhoods are the same neighborhoods. we want to look at data where we see the greatest numbers of complaints of police abuse. >> police are at fault. i'm sorry but i can't help but saying they are at fault because
8:31 pm
they are not solving crime. >> my point is you're just arguing this, i don't want transparency. c i never said that today said it won't matter. c so the truth doesn't matter. my point is that the truth matters and the truth is where we need to start. we need to fix this. if we care about policing and if we care about our safety and our community we need honesty. honesty starts with not just one side or the other but honesty, let's look at what the data says and also let's talk to people who have been most included in these conversations. so why are please having difficulty solving cases? the kids who i talk with none of them trust the police and none of them are going to the police even when somebody close to them gets hurt. something is wrong. something is terribly wrong.
8:32 pm
unless we do something and we don't want our children distrusting police. >> maybe they should. if we begin from the premise that police are trustworthy than sure we don't want to create a world where we don't trust the police but if i said i don't trust politicians, you should mark. at some point there are structural questions we have to raise and to your point because i was looking very carefully to what you are saying, i think we don't want to underestimate the value is not a media. media didn't want to talk about it anymore then quite frankly politicians or anyone else. when trayvon martin was killed that's kind of the first moment. c let's be clear that was the police -- other people are mixing and matching. we have to get our facts
8:33 pm
straight. >> my facts are straight. what i'm saying is when trayvon martin was killed that was the first big moment post-rodney king with the media was talking about gun violence and death. he was the first big 21st century trial where we started talking about these issues. that is a way of activism were dreamed up anderson black lives matter began. this was going to say. august of 2014 when mike brown died suddenly there's a movement afoot. it took months for us to hold police accountable for trayvon martin. police wouldn't bring charges and it was the hashtag campaign. wait a minute he is lacking he is young and he still matters we have got to do something about this so was calling police to do a job. >> this is an elite argument of
8:34 pm
us abolish the police. it's great if you have to leave the city. police abolition is a great argument if you live in a compound or you live in a dormant delving. how many people in the city and i'm not ask using police abuse but how many people in the city and other cities and it's in the millions because of the collapse of public safety. [applause] >> the cities of hollowed out and if you want to go abolition on people. >> i promise i'll be faster just let me finish. >> my apologies. c so the first thing is i think there's a movement here and the second thing is the question of race. i don't think that it's some kind of hocus-pocus by the media to raise the question of race. yes more people are --.
8:35 pm
>> almost every single victim in a city like this you would have to go for a long time to find it in the city. >> let's make a commitment to one another. i haven't been able to make the argument yet you are disagreeing with something i haven't said. i think the question of race has to be raised here. proportionality of police involved shootings and proportionality of crime and also which neighbors are being over policed. we talked about stop-and-frisk which was a new york-based project. when you look at where stop-and-frisk happens, we talk about broken windows policing in the juliano era. they didn't say let's go find
8:36 pm
the black people but the very notion of disorder was the predicate for stop-and-frisk and for broken windows policing is the perception of crime in the perception of crime study showing. data shows there's a link to poverty and race. so i think the things that truly matter. we are here to talk about big ideas. my plan is a long-term dream. in 1719 it was impossible to imagine a world without -- i'm saying let's have a vision of what the world could look like an engage in practical policies that, one hand stop some of the pain people are dealing with. i'm out here stopping the stuff from happening. at the same time this can be the
8:37 pm
endgame. >> keeping people safe while we look at root causes and talk about -- what keeps people safe on the ground? it's a strongman argument. you can do both. you can release things on the ground. not abstract. a civilian in the review board, that is not abstract. so let me ask you this because dr. on vendor we are going to let you get in. you are part of the navelgazing on the task force of 21st century police. >> but we talk about this from a police administrator perspective as one of the chiefs. i listen to my two colleagues here and they talk about things
8:38 pm
very differently and they talk about things differently based on what their experiences have been but one of the hardest things to talk about is policing and who is right, who is on first and who is on second. merely because the whole introduction of policing into communities of color have then wrong the inception. there has never been any trust and here again it goes back to what i was talking about moments ago where police across this country was used to suppress groups of people and keep them in place and keep them on their side of the tracks. so as we move through the decades and centuries some of backup that are but it didn't change a whole lot of places.
8:39 pm
we know that in many communities across this country people don't trust police because police have a. communities in which they have police. they have asked people to be witnesses in the bee witnesses and they turn around and they use them in a different kind of way that puts them out on front street. so a lot of people don't have a reason to want to tell who shot johnny down the street even though they don't admit it. they want to but there has never been any trust whatsoever between policing and some of the horrific things that policing have done to innocent people period over the history of policing. you don't have to go back a long time ago in order to know this. so we are in this place where something mark was talking about and this is where it gets complicated and complex is that in many communities that are struggling with at the southside of chicago or the fifth ward and
8:40 pm
houston for the south and of the county where i live. regardless of where it is, you have people there who don't feel connected to police for a variety of different reasons. some of it's based on their own experience and some of it is based on stories and myths that are being told and all of those things, right? i think one thing that we have to be able to do if we are going to dance policing we have to understand that when it predominantly african-american committee says to me chief alexander i've got a lot of crime in my community. i've got reinkensmeyer of robbery and i have drugs sales. i've young black people shooting each other every night and i need police presence police presence there and went police get there they go down.
8:41 pm
hopefully they are not violating people but in real tough situations they go down and their rest someone's friend or cousin a niece or nephew or son or daughter and they are targeted the next day. you can't have it both ways and it gets to a point where i hear where we don't want to over police but if i'm not there being present and being visible than trying to keep other people from getting hurt becomes more difficult but if i put too many police in their and they start to interact with people in the community who were not doing what they're supposed to doing that i could get complaints. i'm not saying that officers are right all the time but many times they are literally trying to do their job.
8:42 pm
people have certainly their perceptions about what their local police department is or is not doing so nobody is sitting around in the circle is wrong about their experience or what their perception is. it's just that we are all seeing it very differently because it's so complex. those communities won't be in there. they want the police and mayor. the police are not the result of a bad economy or poor education for those things that drive this crime. that's not the police officers fall. they are just the ones that have to respond to the outcome of all these social ills and when they do they generally end up oftentimes with some negative interaction that may take place and sometimes officers are right and unfortunately there are times when they are wrong. >> i want to talk about officer buy-in by craig at want to let
8:43 pm
you respond first off. >> the first thing i'm going to come really on the heels of erector alexander, if you lie to folks you are not going to get trust and mark was responding to this i think it's right, it is not something i'm advocating for. people should believe -- trust police because of the right thing to do. saying there's a real objective problem and police cannot the effective without trust. the only way and here's how you solve the problem is buying being honest with people by not lying and also by being accountable. fundamentally accountable to the community we serve. when i talked about working and talking with kids and for the last few years i've spent a lot of time in the high school five blocks were a teacher at the of chicago and among the things and they're two different constitutions that apply. there is the constitution that
8:44 pm
applies in lower income black and brown communities in chicago and elsewhere in urban areas the united states and the constitution in teach-in my law school classrooms where hey you don't get stopped unless you have a reason to believe that you actually committed a crime or your armed and dangerous before a search you. chicago makes new york in terms of stop-and-frisk until very recently, chicago has put new york to shame in terms of stop-and-frisk. when i speak to kids, so these are just everyday kids who live with the ever-present possibility of things stopped and searched in treated like a criminal. every kid also notes and every kid from southland chicago part of the reality is what we are talking about everyday experiences also know a family member who's been beaten or been arrested and some who have been shot and killed by police.
8:45 pm
they know that retaining counter has the potential to escalate. every kid we talked to talks about this as an everyday experience. the vast majority of her kids in chicago and chicago high schools are telling me this. i interviewed 200 kids and my own daughter attends 45 blocks to from the place we are talking about. no with a kid other than my daughter who has observed that, that's a different story, different town had ever been stopped or searched by the police. so until also and i guess the biggest thing that kids taught us was that there is not going to be this trust until and unless they see police department stand behind those good officers who smile and treat them with respect but who don't stand behind the officers who abuse them. the reality in chicago in many
8:46 pm
places across the nation is that there has been an utter lack of police accountability when police officers abuse their power. >> vindicating the fourth amendment and talking about a law school class is terrific but let's acknowledge certainly in w york a city that once had 2002 at the murders you get to the airport and you don't have a fourth member not suggesting anybody knows, the reality is those who -- need to own up to the fact that by doing that they help to create issues and have cost lives and their children dead about it. many of you may have -- police are not out there anymore and they are a paper tiger and the bad guys know it.
8:47 pm
people are in prison because they weren't intercepted when they are carrying guns. this is a serious conversation we should have for the community. philadelphia michael nutter was running for mayor was more supportive of stop-and-frisk than anywhere else. we have to get real and get on the ground and talk to people. it's perfectly well to talk about the constitution in a law school setting and dance on the head of the constitutional law pin. the reality on the ground is lives are being lost all over the place. shooters are being caught. to the police want to go out and get a shooter for rock in the morning and haven't officer-involved shooting? people left understand the police business. the false setting is to do nothing but i was doing research years ago, police in chicago in 1972 -- do nothing is basically the advice. >> do you agree that police are
8:48 pm
doing nothing because of the ferguson affects? >> i think there may be some cities where that may be more of an issue than maybe in others. i can speak specifically to my community and say no but i can look to a couple of other communities across the country and say that could very well be the case but here's the thing about stop-and-frisk. stop-and-frisk went totally unsupervised and if you don't have reasonable cause to stop someone you can't just stop me because we are two black guys walking down the street. you understand what i'm saying and what happens with stop-and-frisk, yeah crime went down significantly. a lot of bad people were taken off the street would also people like myself and mark writes that violated. it left us totally against the police. here is what the president of
8:49 pm
the united states says. we call him barack. >> you can call him barack. [laughter] >> i didn't mean that. >> we all heard it. we were just trying to get to that. >> so here is what the president of united states says, is that we have to bring down crime but we can't do it by raising public resentment towards the police. we have got to find a way to do both. the only way that you do both quite frankly goes back to what the doctor's been saying what i've been saying religiously is that you have to have community engages in a trusted relationships. we can't go back and change what has happened but going forward we have got to figure out how do we create in our communities that have so much distrust for the police at this very moment,
8:50 pm
who have lost so much legitimacy and communities across this country, how do we get that back? >> i'm saying that captain -- can't happen in the structural issues that produce these things. so for example i agreed come if you stop-and-frisk everybody in america you'll catch a lot more guns than if you don't bow to your point the question is at what cost do we want to do that? so how do we strike a balance? or take a bigger and how to imagine a world than this is an academic argument. there countries that do this in real life that i'm saying how can we also imagine a context where there aren't as many guns were there and is much gun violence or artist many robberies. investing in jobs and investing in head start in early literacy. these are things that we can do to structurally get rid of that but then we have to imagine those things in connection with the future of police. even if you believe in policing which obviously i don't but even
8:51 pm
if you believe in policing is your long-term and short-term goal the radical reform comes from changing the relationship between the police and community for example where i'm in philadelphia in the hood hood by the way north philly one of the things we do is cop watch programs. we watch police in we do neighborhood watch. we do conflict resolution with young people on the tube gun buyback programs. we do things so that police don't have to do those things. we have a greater trustable we can do iour own neighborhood that we police ourselves but that becomes the goal. to me that's also the future and one last thing the first half of my book, which is on sale right now, he look at atomic ferguson there are 20,000 people. 16,000 citizens have warrants. 16,000 out of 20,000 people that's unconscionable. that's not because police are
8:52 pm
giving everybody tickets. not making police the would the man. all the jobs leave and eight no jobs and now you have 16,000 with warrants. somehow you can go to traffic court and you would be like white drivers are really good drivers. so you also have to think about the structural piece of this that leads to atomic ferguson turning citizens into vulnerable people. this is the problem we have to deal with all of that. citi we are going to good audience in just a moment that mr. mcdonnell i want to ask a question because we have been talking a lot about community and how they feel about the police. what we have heard from you is that police are full of resentment too so if you look at the 21st century task force
8:53 pm
and all of the recommendations that it provides and say this is how we need to have police and community working together come is there anything that please buy into and how do you get them to say this is okay or these are things that we think need to be change? >> we have an abject political failure people who have failed so badly for so many years and i have the highest respect for dr. oz and are put that report is sort of a panacea. chicago has been doing policing for 25 years and have also had 22,000 murders that you have to look and say what in policing the need to be doing that involves getting offenders? it's a conflict of adversarial job which is why maybe we have lost their our appetite. certainly we are not going to get young people. what mark said is right we need to talk about the volume and the offloading responsibilities,
8:54 pm
mental health and we need to look at drugs. we need to look at non-custodial arrest civil enforcement, strategies that do not involve the police wrestling around on e ground with people because bravo talk we have heard from so many people i've yet to hear anybody tell me how the police make an arrest of a resisting person without using force. a core issue that they deal with they are charged with using force and there are plenty of videos with police officers being murdered and you can see how fast it happens. you can see how unscripted it is an there are no rules. goes from from cordial to homicidal in seconds. we need to have a serious conversation. i think all the action, shrinking the police role. they have a service role and that's most of what they do.
8:55 pm
in suburban america that's what they do. in urban america they have -- lack of gun regulation. we have to figure out a way to shrink the role of the police and really it's a democracy issue because the bloggers have taken over. by the way the idea that this media conspiracy donald trump is getting lot of votes because people do believe that the media is dishonest on major public issues. we have to come face-to-face with that that there is a perception that the media picks up issues, hammers them and personally i can tell you from dealing with them they are not only involved with the nuances in the particulars. they want the visceral, emotional and they want the devices. >> that is why the task force is suggesting a lot of the data collection comes forward so we can get rid of that and see what's really happening on the ground. but they go to the audience. we have about 10 minutes here. we have a lot of folks.
8:56 pm
the person is going to come by with a microphone. people with microphones on either side there. all right, let's start over here. >> hi i saw the -- [inaudible] and i'm curious what you think of it and what are the tactical initiatives on the ground to strengthen the trust between the chicago police and the community? are the grassroots initiatives or initiatives in place. body cam is obviously more transparency is always good. >> not out of cameras. it's inevitable but it's
8:57 pm
inconsistent with getting i think people into the police profession you want there's causing more police officers to be injured and causing more people to be arrested actually. it is an elitist industry formulation shoved down people's throats. if you ask a believer especially especially -- cameras would never put on their list. ex post facto critiquing the place is going to be a conversation. >> that i mean how does it create more danger for the police? >> for anyone who's been in unscripted argument forget about a physical confrontation how fast can they deteriorate? part of the whole camera issue is that the idea that police are equals. police cannot be closed through the -- if the police articles they lose her lack of a better term the upper hand in the street. by the way anecdotally do have a huge problem. more people are being pulled over and saying who the hell are you to pull me over? they are not making requests.
8:58 pm
they're making demands. there's a study that shows they have to have the first -- in a situation. c let me have you addressed the question though. what is being done here in chicago to create a better atmosphere? you said podey cameras are not it. craig federman is there anything happening here that will make things more probable to people? >> i'm going to hit the big things. one starts with honesty and i think there could be a revolution. the jackets out of the box in the camp at the jack back in the box. one of the things i was exposed in chicago and not just a chicago issue is the reality of the code of silence from top to bottom in that department. and so this means in terms of what needs to happen in the things that are happening and beginning to happen in chicago but they need to go further than where they have gone is putting
8:59 pm
in place of real regime of accountability. that's how you build trust. that's how also you improve safety. the other thing and i guess this is not a chicago thing but they they -- because they're good examples of where we have seen notches in suburbia where police departments have taken different tax and i challenge the notion that community policing has gone on for decades in chigo. if you were here you would know that that is just simply not true. there has been a talkbout community policing. something that has been utterly defunded in chicago and from way back when but i will say because i actually believe in community polici and i have seen what community policing can do. one example far from, on the other side of country richmond california i still lived in the bay area and this is right next to oakland, california.
9:00 pm
.. was then and then moves from fargo north dakota to richmond california and guess what implements the seem policing and guess what it works. he actually had police officers arthe policeofficers that were o the more experienced police to fight thunions on this and the more experienced officerforthe n the communities to stay there. they are going to build
9:01 pm
relationships and get planes for resolving without the need for a rest and giving them more difficulthe moredifficult thinga lot more work than it does. >> north dakota would applaud you. i don't know if we talked about. >> the last .10 years later it went way down into trusting the police went way up. that's the rate it went up and there wasn't a police shooting in richmond for ten years after he took charge and is held accountable. it'accountable. >> was it a real estate research like it was in new york? >> i did want to have the touch
9:02 pm
briefly but not by the changes in the oversight committee here in chicago that we wil but we wo that if we can. [applause] the strategy in the city of chicago. first it was an apology that is sent backwards. >> the second thing that scares
9:03 pm
me is when you think there is no reason for a wee protect all. [inaudible] that's what i do for you. what are your thoughts on restructuring this fraternity where they don't look out for the communities. > >> i know the people want to get in. i never said it was backward. that doesn't mean that we should be apologizing for things that
9:04 pm
happenedn the past. would you be considered a police career? my question for you and how do you restructure and redefine. that is the perception that you have the police here with a fraternal organizations that is in many ways separate from the community and i think we have to continue to do is for people like you and all of us to bring up to the facts because as we recruit and begin to train better we have to help the offices understand it because
9:05 pm
neither one are going to function without the other. if you don't have the community involvement and you can't have good police officers if you don't have good community involvement. it takes both of those entities to work together so that is a t of old school thinking but here is what you don't hear about our the police officers out there every day that do that you don't hear about it who don't take issue with getting in front of and even testifying against other officers. that is a great question we are getting there and that is what we have to do better. we are partners in this whole public safety.
9:06 pm
>> we need again assumes outside of the police department. something does need to be done in the police department which matters as well and a that the police resisted every time. i think we need outside oversight.
9:07 pm
the premise that i don't see in the beginning but at least long-term care needs to be a minimalized role and it needs to be the community policing itself as every extent possible. >> i think we are just about out of time, yes? thanks to all of you in the audience. good afternoon.
9:08 pm
[inaudible conversations] ease tell us what the most urgent issue for the next present donald trump a the incoming congrs to address in 2017 a prize of $5,000 would g to thetudent or the team with the best erall. $100,000 in cash pzes with the ard and shared beten 150 students. that is an inauguration day. go to the website, student
9:09 pm
1776 to isis the two branches are in advance with each other to congress checking the president backing down from the president and pushing congress and being worried about. >> 9 p.m. guardian journalist looks at gun deaths in america over a 24 hour period in his book another da day in the deh


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on