Skip to main content

tv   Minnesota Ohio Attorneys General Discuss Police Reform  CSPAN  July 9, 2020 6:54pm-8:03pm EDT

6:54 pm
on efforts to improve policing. it took part in a virtual event hosted by the national constitution center kenya place reform proposals understates. use of force policies and the qualified immunity doctrine for police officers. national constitution center president and ceo jeffrey, moderated the conversation. >> and gentlemen, welcome. i am president of this wonderful institution. let's inspire ourselves by reciting together the national constitution center's missionon statements. it is the only institution in america chartered by congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among the american people, on a nonpartisan basis. it is exactly what were going to do today in the program.
6:55 pm
two very distinguished attorney generals. this part of the series the constitution center is doing at the national association of attorney generalg plated and it would likeo to thank these peope for helping us put together this program. please remember to put your questions in the q&a box has are talking. i will introduce them as we are moving along. and i know we are going to have a great discussion. we have to extraordinarily distinguished attorney general's. they will guide us but some questions involving peace in the constitution. that are at the center of but america today. and the attorney general ofmi minnesota in 2019. from 2007 - 2019, he represented the fifth congressional
6:56 pm
district. and house of representatives and also was an attorney specializing in civil rights ana defense law including as executive director legal rights center. and is an honor to have you with us pretty. >> it is an honor to be here with you. thank you for having me and inviting me today. >> and turning became ohio's attorney general in january of 2019. from 2011 - 2019, he served as ohio's racing and monitor and before that, cowdrey counties prosecutor, capital case. and he worked at columbia and citizen journal as a reporter. it is wonderful to have you with us pretty. >> it is good to be with you. >> general allison, you are at the center of the most closely watched case involving the police in america today.
6:57 pm
and rising of the tragedy of the george floyd in minnesota. but you been an extraordinary background the as a rep. from minnesota. in a civil rights attorney. specializing in civil rights and defense law. tell us about how your background hud's and civil rights attorney and rep. has influenced your approach to george floyd's move pretty. >> to go at least back to a man who was my grandfather pretty he was organizing black voters into the 1950s. in rural louisiana. he was, a community meeting and he would show up in church and try to convince people who never had it chance to speak democracy . they really did have every right to participate in democracy and the spendable
6:58 pm
other people to vote and some of those people were ordered off of their farms. and some of them beaten. and he was threatened and beaten himself. and even had, when my mom little stories about how they refuse to sell him castling in the city in louisiana because it was with the said, staring up things. and across the street from the house, and they called my family some so much and threatening to kill my grandfather that they sent my mom to boarding school. because they couldn't afford for her to be there is some tragic event happened. so my mom, and everybody, they said we don't want you to grow up to be angry . wanted to grow up to have a sense of responsibility. my mom, was a social worker. and she did juvenile groups
6:59 pm
where the judge would send her cases that of those kids made it through the program, they believe that a juvenile adjudication. and she spent her life doing that. she worked onhe education reform will be the governor in michigan where she moved. and she was able to do a lot of things that way. so this conversation i grew up around. and my dad is a psychiatrist pretty he is 91 years from now. and he still is very active and interested in what is going on in the world. and personally, i don't know it if it was a foregone conclusion that i would do the work i'm doing. but i kind of felt that that i do things quite naturally. i was in congress and i enjoyed beingg there. i never said it was done congress. i just thought that being estate journey trent attorney general was better job. it would be inn a position to be
7:00 pm
of greater used to might neighbors. you can do a lot is an attorney general. it is just tougher to do as a member of congress. basically because you've got to work with 435 people in the house. ... ... leave people alone, we do live in a society where the constitution requires the
7:01 pm
government not impose on people when it should not. and so these issues of civil rights, human rights, civil liberties and policing are issues that i come to bury naturally and is just an honor to talk about those things today with you and the general. >> thank you for sharing that inspiring story annual remarkable background as a lawyer and representative. it's wonderful to hear about your dad being a 91-year-old psychiatrist, my dad is 93 and also a psychiatrist very different background. >> general yost. you have an interesting asbackground as a county bond r an journalist as well. please tell us what the county auditor does? i'm tells about your background as a journalist of affects your approach as your job and what the debate is about the police in ohio.
7:02 pm
>> thank you, i was a newspaper reporter for the columbia's journal. the motto was a quote, founder of the chain was give light and the people will find their own way. and that really is -- the motto and it sheds light on my career path. or probably still be a newspaper reporter my paper had not gone out of business in 1985 finding out what is objectivelyel true in fighting for justice and yes, i did criminal defense work for a while early on in my career
7:03 pm
and through my years as the prosecuting attorney and now in the state service. it has always been about holding power accountable and in check from doing what is right, finding the truth. in finding john fighting for what is just. although he still with us and i'm very proud of him. grew up in a family with six kids. when he got promoted from columbus to detroit and did not want to go with his company so he clicked. and started his own company. one truck, one man, built it
7:04 pm
over 35 years more than 35 people on the state of ohio i learned a lot about integrity honor and hard work i was honored today to be attorney general and agree with you at being the attorney general gives one far greater reach to do justice and to seek common good. and it being a single congressperson. that's immensely rewarding. >> let's pause and say how significant that is to the public officials were representatives in the state attorney general's more significant in terms of the impact you could make. as we dig into the two central questions of defund the police
7:05 pm
and the centers that that have excessive force they are subjected to. the minneapolis city council in june 26, unanimously advance the city charter to allow the police department to be dismantled on the face of widespread criticism after the killing of george floyd. tell us about g that, that would replace the police department with the department of committee safety and violence prevention. is that likely to pass? does your office have any role? do you think it would be a good idea to defund the police? so let me tell you this. i think what i have done is try tose interpret what some of the community and local officials are saying. i will not claim i am the author of this but i listen to it i think what they are saying is this is about more
7:06 pm
safetyw, right now there's one for race in minneapolis for this a lot of gunfire north minneapolis it's not nearly as much as it should be on it goes with some degree of regularity. was all kinds of problems for this was not designed to take away an agency addressing m these things. it is designed to be more effective and simultaneously reduce human rights abuses. that is why the charter, they're not going to call the institution the policee department a they will have all of these things but they will
7:07 pm
reorder it with a different set of priorities somewhat alarming they need to be provocative, why? because they've been calling for reform measures for 20 or 30 years and they have notyw gotten anywhere so there really now where they want to say we have got to keep people safe. but in line with that mission, we've got to look at some of the fundamental suppositions that prohibit us from doing that as effectively as we could. and so they have begun a year-long series of
7:08 pm
conversations. they have a trip planned to go visit camden new jersey. they reconstituted another agency that does the same thing and they have had some very good numbers. it's not perfect and minneapolis is not going to clone that experience it will be minneapolis expression there are a number of police officers we don't want to be a part of an institution for not being charged we are charged a pretty gotten a lot less
7:09 pm
opposition that you might guess. but i do agree the people who have made the proposal having a provocative tagline is not going to get it done. that they stepped forward and extended a greater definition. so their learning camden is a model for minneapolis. chief charles ramsey joined us for program last week and they are trading camden officers to learn about the constitution by talking to schoolkids. we would love to work with both of you very interesting you're thinking about naming -- renaming the name of the police department they're trying coming up with a different term and that's exactly what minneapolis is doing.
7:10 pm
governor dewine is a series in ohio they've asked to have including state officials and teachers and lawyers, not allowing officers to use chokehold some people except in life-and-death situations and not allowing police departments to conduct internal investigations for their other proposals. tell us about them and allows us to remove the a few bad actors there on police forces. look, i got to know police officers very, very well during my time as the prosecuting attorney. i was in a county that was small enough along with my staff, tried cases.
7:11 pm
to see how they conducted themselves on the job or there's no doubt in my mind the horrifying videos we are seeing popping up from cell phones here and there, and in most of our big cities, certainly are really still the exception. they areio horrible and we need to make sure that stops. we agree on that. the fact of the matter is the vast vast their discipline their still evil in the world
7:12 pm
whoever's fit for that job is acting out were saying that in the disciplinary record that happens over, and over, and over again. police department's not able to purge their ranks doesn't have a licensing regime is almost impossible to get rid of bad actors. the licensing regime which allows us to get rid of the few people who are the sources of those appalling videos. but yes let's clarify use of force doctrine and it goes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
7:13 pm
most important thing we can do is get rid of a few bad actors they can resume their day-to-day work a 26-year-old officer is a personal safety check and his job was to go make sure the person was safe having the services they needed. he was gunned down in cold bloo blood. met his young widow into little boys that's the face of law enforcement. men and women going out trying
7:14 pm
to do the right thing and make their communities safe, showing valor every time they put the badge on their chest and it often turns into ao target on theirir backs. we need to not tar them all with the same brush. >> thank you for that story and emphasizing your conversations with governor dewine and the licensing requirement that finches made an other countries require entry require other training for the officers in summer up to over two years. general in the comments you have been able to make about the floyd case, you suggest the case won't rely on qualified immunity because it's not a civil issue. but you did say officers have some allowance use deadly
7:15 pm
force will be interesting to see if that's brought up in the case. can you describe the constitutional standards for deadly force? what had the supreme court said about the standards? and should they be changed or reformed either by courts or legislatures? so so the case we rely on now is the constitutional u.s. supreme court case graham versus connor. it's a case it says you have to use reasonable force based on what a reasonable officer do in a situation. they're going to look more carefully at this. i think california is already taking steps forward to change their use of force where they have required use of the standard of the sanctity of life you should avoid use of force while where you can. it should be proportionate and
7:16 pm
necessary as opposed to simply authorize. it has affected so much about officer will apply a sense of force with the culture, community and the department they're in. the officers do have the authority to affect arrest and most people don't want to be arrested so they have authorization you and i don'td have. but at the same time, those uses of force can be construed in very different ways over different times in different places. we do need standardization. i do think graham versus connor's proof about what the law was before. wait a case called tennessee versus gardner that authorized deadly force on a fleeing felon. in that case are so many officers rely on that lead to
7:17 pm
tragic results. so i think use of force policy is something that's been considered very carefully by legislatures or is a growing trend to use force but if you do not need to tolf protect yourself but others as described by police leaders or someone hadut a knife in a room for the officers had put the knife down the guy didn't do it. i know situations where the officers might go in there and there and shoot him but what they did is they went to close the door and they called mental health people.
7:18 pm
so even though it could be author is underground but is not necessary or proportionate. we do want to remember that so often when officers use deadly force, there are situations when the officers literally doing nothing and attacked. perhaps in the situation general yost just mentioned member to go. there's otherer situations where they say move and the guy doesn't move fast enough so the officer approaches the guy. and then the guy doesn't move fast enough so the officer put hands on the geysers putting themds down. the guy makes further movement which could be interpreted as threat and then the officer uses deadly force. the point is, let's not bring the noise if we don't need to, right? let's use restraint when restraint is thert smart thing to do to keep everybody live. and so, this is a training
7:19 pm
challenge. this is a challenge and matter for the state legislature for the department and i will tell you this you can write whatever policies you want. don't do what general yost said which is make it so the department can cleanse itself of people who don't obey the rules, those pretty words are not going to matter all. i would join general yost and agreeing we need to look at collective bargainingg agreement agreements, and other sort of instruments to make sure the chief is really the accountable source for discipline in that department. we've seen situations in minnesota were officers, they've done a lot of bad things to a lot of people. excessive force, people in custody people they can find handcuffed and the chief firesse them at an arbitrator puts him right back on the force. what message has that arbitrator just sent everybody else? the good officers that general yost to talk about their
7:20 pm
demoralized. where's the standard around here? they had 12 officers write a letter criticizing the behavior of their fellow officer in the george floyd case going public, that is a big deal. we do need for the sake of good officers we need to make theth transition to rewarding the good officers and rid ourselves of the ones were not fit for the job. >> thank you for all off that. thank you for teaching us about two important cases, graham versus connor in tennessee versus garner. it's whether the actions are chapped to believe reasonable and that will be judged asso you said by the officer of the scene not hindsight or including questions whether the actions are proportional and necessary.
7:21 pm
not just authorized. that's a standard in california is thinking of clarifying and your toes about the tennessean garner case which i teaching criminal procedures it's incredible reasonable case andin it involves a fleeing felon and the circumstances which officers can use deadly force to stop ato fleeing felon. and the supreme court in that case said a police officerer can use deadly force for the escape of a fleeing suspect if they have significant physical injurynk to the officer. both of those cases are in the chat box, general yost tells about your experience in the graham connor case and tennessean garner, and your understanding of what the national standard, the constitutional standard of excessive forcece are and if you think those standards should
7:22 pm
be reformed by courts? >> well general ellison has adequately provide the cliff notes on those two cases. one of the developing arguments we have is qualified immunitys. but shield not just officers but public actors in the performance of their personal duties or their public duties. it is judicially created a s doctrine. there is some that the supreme court may revisit that at some point. there were 19 cases seeking in this last term. none of them made it onto the short list to be decided. but i don't think that argument. let's get back to somethingum that general ellison talked
7:23 pm
about. which is a minimum force necessary. that is in fact in ohio the standard wee trained to. but this gets a little murky and it's where we need to think very carefully about this. because the question then becomes what are we talking about. are we talking about a criminal action? and whether a criminal prosecution that the officer should result? are we talking about a 1983 civil rights action which is the matter with a lower standard? are we simply talking about job action and discipline, the work rules and policy? because all of those present a issue.nt
7:24 pm
it's not even necessary in his judgment is it necessary and current case law had a reasonable officer. the challenge is trying to make that the uniform standard. and that is for people who have to make split-second decisions on the street information and maybe c what a surveillance camera block down the street from a different angle shows. sit there safety or the safety of another member of public or put in jeopardy. a weakling to dampen their ability to react to that crisis by for example exposing them to criminal prosecution by staying later, after we've looked at all of the body
7:25 pm
camera footage, all of these surveillance footage and talked all thete witnesses i got all points of view out there about 400 hours in ohio is the use of force investigation. 400 hours of collection and the ability to sit in your air-conditioned office in a soft chair and decide what was necessary. i think thatt is a very dangerous thing for us to put on the backs of folks who are out there protecting us. and i think coming back to our proposals that governor dewine and i, the proposals have licensure with rules of
7:26 pm
conduct for that level of review would be at the licensing board, not in a court of criminal law. >> let me stress there are instances that i prosecuted police officer's during my career, right now in the county i have a team that is working on a variety of physical abuse cases of inmates by correction officers. we had a horrible incident where the inmate was actually restrained -- in a restraint chair. they are strapped down and there's another room with the restrained inmate, one of the ceos sprayed ocs spray into
7:27 pm
her eyes most she was strapped down. clearly inappropriate use we are going after them. not one of these folks who thanks there should be accountability but we need to think very carefully about the dangers on the street and the life and death mission that our officers are on as we consider these questions. >> thank you for all of that. the questions you raised about qualified immunity is on board with a lot of the reform that have proposed saying that qualified immunity would have a negative impact on potential qualifiedd people. understand qualified immunity may not be a part of the floyd case. can you share thoughts and
7:28 pm
what gives officials immunity for the official who clearly violated which a reasonable person would know a few weeks ago the court should revisit that standard even though it is a crime to do so do you think the standard should be revisited and what what impact would that have on police misconduct? >> i think the very strong projection of the existing as a hazard. i think it's so protective it allows people to not have to operate at the very highest level of professionalism. i think statistically a few look at qualified immunity, when the standard was lower he
7:29 pm
saw more accountability. when it was raised and as general yost said you just saw less accountability. the most performing professionals youin can get you got to have an environment where people know there is accountability when they violate the rules. you say you can pretty much do whatever you want and you've got to really, really go way over the line. then the bottom line is you are going to get more bad behavior. and so often we are not talking about these dark alleys, quick split-second decisions. those we could all kind of agree and officer needs discretion in that situation. and you are not always going to be rights.
7:30 pm
but what about the situation with a 75-year-old man was pushed to the ground in buffalo? what about that? is that okay? they first said he tripped. and thenn they say -- the video showed different. today officers are spring chemical agents out ofen the car and people are just standing there. you can say clearly those around. will are they? if an officer says i thought that person could be a threat. you could literally come up with anything. on behalf of your client as long as you are not lying. now of course you can stretch that in the bottom line is the problems we are facing are not f so much the decisions that reasonable people can agree
7:31 pm
they need discretion on and you cannot second-guess them. that is not where the problem is. the problem lies backwards a little clearer to all of us that this behavior is not right and yet it gets protected from civil liability because the standard for qualified immunity is so high. i think we would have better professionals, we would reward the good officers much more often if we raised that standard and expected officers to perform at a high level. and then say yes, those dark alley situations, we can all agree you need some room. but not on some of this other stuff we see. >> thank you for all of that. general yost in eight responses you'd like to make? then i'll introduce another question. >> i would like to respond. i really question whether
7:32 pm
there is a moral hazard out there for officers because they feel like they can get away with anything. maybe it's a difference in our backgrounds. i talked to a lot of police officers and a lot of time in a relatively unguarded situations. they are very concerned about being. sued. very concerned about the consequences. they don't feel at allth they are invulnerable from civil liability. that goes back though to the point i made at the beginning which is while i agree with some of the things that general ellison talks about, spring ocs spray out of a sppolice cruiser, that is clearly not an appropriate tactic and not one we would train to in ohio. i can't imagine any officer would defendd that. but we need to be able to
7:33 pm
remove officers who would exercise their judgment and that or discipline them. but at the end of the day, i don't believe for moving qualified immunity is going to have a good effect and there could well be unintended consequences. the better approach if we are really concerned about qualified immunity is perhaps tweak the standard. i am not sure we couldn't leave it in place with something less then what amounts to willful and want standard. that that could not be tightened up. but i am not in favor as a practical matter of eliminating qualified immunity. it's a little bit awkward for a guy like me to it say there is such a critical judicial
7:34 pm
act. most judicially created doctrines i'm not a fan of. >> tthank you for that and r thank you for reminding our audience the qualified immunity doctrine that came from cases like pearson and ray penn harlow and fitzgerald case was judicially created 1982 justice thomas argued he was faithful to the original qualified immunity statute and should beld re-examined. it is a complicated debate we will revisit, general ellison we have a bunch of questions about the first and second amendments, the assistant journey of ten and ten attorney general's that commonly believed that they have a right to protect their real and personal property.
7:35 pm
i saw this regarding the st. louis couple brandishing weapons from their lawn. they said the country needs to explore and protect and preserve property impact the right for peaceful protests in the right to use a gun. >> this is an interesting question, right? nobody is going to say that if you are going to hurt another person or damage their property it should be activity. it's not. that's obvious. the real question is, if you are lawfully protesting, if you are protesting about an injustice that you perceive to be a serious matter and our community like excessive force, that police brutality really is, then those folks brandishing firearms comment to me that is a concerning
7:36 pm
thing. my view is that yes you may have a first amendment right to express yourself you may also have a second amendment right togh have firearms if your license to do so. or if you are authorized by law to do so. but what point do you menace another person? and what right do you have to do that? if you have a gun, if you have it out, it's loaded, people are peacefully protesting, that raises some very serious concerns to me. i don't think the first and second amendments were ever designed to shield what essentially amounts to a terroristic threat. there are some houses of worship around the country including minnesota and they are people who go out and protest outside of them saying
7:37 pm
islam or some other horrible thing. there probably protected to say that they have the right to say that they may have the right to have a gun. but when they put those two things together and go outside the housed of worship where people are lawfully b behaving, are we not pushing the boundaries of what those two rights allow for? i am very concerned about that. i think the fact is the second amendment is a very interesting peace of jurisprudence and i think we have strayed very far away from the original intent of that particular provision. i think, even in the heller case the average person can have an average gun they can't
7:38 pm
have an m-16 in brandishing ants other people as they are authorized legally to do so. and now we have folks bringing that into state legislatures, calling out the governor and insulting and threatening ways. all under the auspices of the first and secondst amendment. so i think this is something we have to really, really grapple with. i think that folks have got to be able to express themselves matters that happen. that is how change happens we could not have a civil rights movement if we had not come to an evolved sense of what the first amendment protects and protect.oesn't in sylvan versus the "new york times", that's a case where the original case, where they were suing the civil rights activists because there something in an ad that was not absolutely precisely
7:39 pm
right. they sued based on a theory of defamation. the supreme court ultimately said wait a minute, you've got to prove actual malice like your tongue about public figures or public officials and in that case you can't prove it's knowingly said a safe falsity that the cost to pay for putting her name on a ballot. and so, we have looked at the contours of the first amendment and second amendment in the past in order ton accommodate people's rights for people to say what is critical, what is true and helps advance our society towards a higher level of equality and justice. those are some of my thoughts on that matter. i would be curious to be in conversation. >> thank you so much for all of that. this is really exciting for
7:40 pm
like him in a constitutional law seminar. or talk about landmark cases following the first and second amendment. general yost, general allison just mentioned that case in. it was identified for exceptions with the right to bear arms and nothing in the opinion should call in to question long-standing prohibitionsth whether it still are carrying firearms in sensitive places as schools and government buildings share this your thoughts on the intersection of the first and second amendments and how to strike the rightig balance. or as it was asked can that remedies the generals discussing the accomplish without regulation and constitutional reform? >> so, let's start off by
7:41 pm
recognizing just because one has the right to do something does not make it a wise thing to do. the folks that have gone down, ohio isn't open carry states thinking carry a firearm unconcealed without a permit. the folks that would come down to the statehouse and to counter protests with an ar over their shoulder, have that right to do so. that is not i menacing. that is a subjective thing that someone is acting in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable. it requires an overt act to confirm a threat. and simply carrying a firearm does not do that.
7:42 pm
now again, while i have carry license and support the second amendment, i've been a hunter and an outdoorsman my entire life, i would not carry a firearm downtown to a protest if i were to go to when i don't think it is wise. so there is a difference between wisdom and what one has a constitutional right to do something. the intersection is an interesting one. but the issue that was raised -- for example if a legislature were to pass a law, a statute that says guns
7:43 pm
were forbidden during protest on statehouse grounds, i think that falls within the justice goalie is thoughts in the heller decision. i went to see that law. but i think that is something for example that e could happen constitutionally. the st. louis case was raised, it had -- it's important to realize those people were protesting on private property. you have no first amendment right on someone else's propert property. you can take to the streets, you can say whatever you want. but if you are trespassing, if you are on private property with outdm authorization to do so your first amendment right is not implicated there. and while i would not have acted that way those two
7:44 pm
citizens in st. louis chose to, and particularly i would have avoided pointing a rifle at my wife's head as i was holding it, it is hardly a menacing threat when you are standing in front of your property and people are encroaching upon your private property. >> thank you for all of that. it is time for closing thoughts on this completely rich and engrossing discussion. general allison the first round is to you. as you see what's going on what part of the reforms either legislative or
7:45 pm
constitutional or legal that you think are most promising and most important to ensure. [inaudible] >> if i just say so i need we need to acknowledge as a society we have a problem. i'm very happy to see many people from a diversese perspective, agree there is a problem. i'm glad general yost, and governor dewine are working on, we come from different political points of view. there is a instance we have to do something because the situation we have is not serving us well. i also just want to say this problem is long-standing. i don't know if you remember so she i'll adjust, the sociologist to did the study
7:46 pm
in brown versus board of education. that particular sociologist was brought to speak at the congregant mission in 1968. when he was giving his presentation he said you know, i appreciate this current information report but i've got to tell you, it's very similar to what the 1943. report was written whole host of other reports that were written where what we see is, often, not always but often black and brown persons and very disturbing conflicts with members of law enforcement. we keep going through this cycle and we've got to ask ourselves this problem is chronic why do we keep having it until we need to do something differently? i'me glad were in a moment of reflection. sooner or later the george floyd case be something that happened a long time ago.
7:47 pm
i hope we use this moment while it is still fresh and urgent to really make those changes we have been talking about. going to mention some of those now. i just want to say in this conversation because it helps propel us towards really solving a chronic sustained problem. martin luther king talked abouthe police brutality. so did malcolm x, so did the black panther. these people are very diverse in theiron political approach but they all agree on the problem. i will mention there's a lot of history here about the stonewall riotsts were the lgbtq people stood up to assert their rights. or you want to talk about jimmie lee jackson killed by alabama state troopers which led to the movement for the culminated into the voting rights act. this is a problem and we've got to deal with it. thank you for doing this conversation.
7:48 pm
what are some the things i think we should do? number one i do agree that we've got to create an environment where officers who violate the standards, violate criminal law are fired. we got to create that environment and the truth is if you are an officer and i will agree with general yost, there a lot of great, great americans on police departments. you've got to ride next to this thumper, if you were to tell hi him, you are going to have repercussions on the job. we've got to create ano environment where officers can expect if they were to report the violation or law those people will be handled and you'll be able to work with people you can actually trust and obey the law. you've got to reform the system. which deny the ability for discipline and discharge.
7:49 pm
i do believe in due process the officer with discharge should be able to appeal to the city council the mayor, somebody public but not a nameless faceless arbitrator does not have to answer to anyone. number two, i think we need to have investigation and prosecution outside of the normal process of criminal investigation prosecution. why? for the reason the general mentioned. these folks go hunting together. i love to hunt pheasants and turkeys and whatever you undo i'm game. is if you're hanging out with these guys hit a deer stand all weekend and then on monday one of them is accused of doing something on lawful or in violation of a department regulation there is no way you're going to see if there way a little bit or be
7:50 pm
inclined to. it's just human. let's take the human element out side this is the investigator may be the attorney general or some other officer be the prosecution. that way we can have a little more comfort and it will be done without the normal human element of familiarity. another item i would say is we do need to ask ourselves not invest in healthcare not invest in all of these things and then tell the cops you go deal with it we as a society have failed the police as an institution. because we take every social problem we don't want to deal with thanwe we say causes issues and they go shoot somebody and
7:51 pm
they're not supposed where they chokehold them to death and they're not supposed to we suddenly have all kinds of uprisings and we are upset and we want reform. what if we take the burden off the shoulders of the police and said you are not going to have to roust homeless people out of the? park because we'll get that. where are not going to ask you to arrest people over a fake 20. because we have folks who do those property crimes we don't have our men with guns we are going to deal the problems of society -- we will have a real mental health response. so officers don't atone, 204 euro guy got out of an academy a few weeks ago is not going to be asked to deal someone in a meltdown which is what were asking them to do now. it's not fair. those are just a few ideas for now. again i justnt want to thank the
7:52 pm
national constitution center and general yost, and everyone for a great conversation. two thank you so much for this eloquent finalal thoughts. some have called the floyd case your brown versus board of education and the new brown for nation and the world is watching closely. general yost, gore closing thoughts for our audience about what legal constitutional or judicial reforms youalt, think are most n the same for achieving a more perfect union? >> general ellis and i agree on some of the things with the police licensing. independent investigation or aprosecution and things we proposed here in ohio.
7:53 pm
further we need to do a a better job of training. we need to fund training and we need to fund the local officers because of we take someone out of service to train, the police department has to fill that shift. it takes seven officers to have 124 hour shifts seven days a week. fifty-two weeks. year. so taking people out of service very quickly has an impact on the street. >> there are two things i want to mention enclosing as clothing entering closing thoughts. the defendant police issue, yes, let's bring in partnerships but what we do in columbus for example there is actually a specialized team of ten people. five officers and five federal
7:54 pm
health officers that respond to mental health type calls which certainly are on every police department's daca. but the notion we are going to defund the police, words matter, defendant police means take money away from police and that means we are going to have less resources to accomplish those functions. why do wepl even have government in the first place? what's québec to thomas hobbes and the natural state of man. in the natural state of mankind, humankind, the strongest take from the weakest. your person, your family, your property is not safe. and the reason we have government is to preservele that, to have public safety, to have the rules as a law. there is evil in the world.
7:55 pm
there peoplee who want to take your stuff and if they can hurt you and enslave you they will. that is the first function and most important function of the government. i understand it is a sticky #. but the city council of minneapolis when asked about this by cnn affirmed that she envisions a police free future. i don't want to live in that kind of city because it will be anarchy and you will have a lot more than that couple in n st. louis out there with firearms on the street. the "me too" movement doesn't mean yes i sympathize with what's happening. the "me too" movement happened because words matter. women were saying what
7:56 pm
happened to those women with harvey weinstein? yes me too, that happened to me too. that's why it waswh so powerful. words mean something. no means no. defund police means defund police. it is a dangerous idea. but finally let me conclude i can imagine people are on thisam call is a video of a young african-american in his teens talk about the rules his mother taught him for surviving in the world. in the video is reciting these things told this over and over and over again in a bag when you're in the store even it's small as it peace of gum don't look look at aye woman too
7:57 pm
long don't go out of the house without a shirt. the things i would ask my friends and the majority community, did your mom teach you those things? things, rules that you start out a suspect that you are going to be blamedt my mom did not teach me about that stuff. most of my friends who are white did not have that lecture from their moms about keeping the hands of the steering wheel with tenant to if they got pulled over and ask b permission before they get the drivers license out of their pockets. that video, that young man's testimony, was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that race not onlyin is this gent exists in america whether intended or not is endemic enough it is of life for those united states citizens of
7:58 pm
color. and as we are talking about police reform i think it is important to recognize we do not have fundamentally a police problem here. we have a societal problem that has a law enforcement component. it's time we change hearts and minds, perhaps we can have another discussion some point in the future on how we might do that after all this time. but i appreciate the opportunity to be part of this conversation. >> thank you so much general yost. i would be honored to see anotherha conversation thank you for starting this great partnership to bring together political perspective it's extraordinarily educational very illuminating.
7:59 pm
so friends, thank you all for joining, thank you for your great questions and please join me in thanking generals yost and general ellison for a wonderful conversation. thank you. ♪ ♪ >> c-span's washington journal every day we are taking your calls live on the air, on the news of the day and we will discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up on friday morning with the americans for tax reform and discusses the impact of coronavirus on taxpayers. the possibility for tax reform. in tiffani cross on her book say it louder. black voters, white narratives and saving our democracy. and a 2020 election. watch c spans "washington journal" live at seven eastern on friday morning. be sure to join the discussion with your phone call, text messages and tweets. >> sunday night on q and a,
8:00 pm
journalists erin geiger smith talks about the history of voting in the united states and some of the issues surrounding voting today in her book, thank you for voting. >> the 2013 decision had a massive impact on voting rights in their isn't any voting rights advocate or attorney that doesn't see it as just a ground shaking impacts. : : >> special edition of the tv with a look at memoirs and biographies prefers, minnesota, it's been ilhan omar on her journey from somalia to becoming one of the first muslim women elected to the u.s. congress.
8:01 pm
then esther safran foer remember is her daughter as her search for lost family members from the holocaust. cnn political analyst and former south carolina state representative examines the socioeconomic challenges americans in the rural south face through the lens of his hometown. nick adams founder and president of the foundation for liberty in american greatness on what donald trump and winston churchill have in common. later journalist jim newton on the life and career of former california governor jerry brown. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events. you can watch all of c-span's public affairs programming on television, online or listen on our free radio app. be a part of the national conversation through c-span's
8:02 pm
daily washington journal program or through our social media feeds. c-span, created by america's cable television company as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. >> next, minnesota representative ilhan omar from her journey from somalia to becoming one of the first muslim women elected to the u.s. congress. >> host: representative ilhan omar, democrat of minnesota has a new book out called this is what america looks like. congresswoman, thank you for joining us on book tv. there are two characters in your book, who are they? >> my grandfather and father. abba is the word we use for dad in somali and bob is the traditional word that is used


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on