MetroFocus

FULL EPISODE

METROFOCUS: April 20, 2021

For years a former New York police officer insisted she was wrongly fired for trying to stop a white colleague from using a chokehold on a black man. Cariol Holloman-Horne lost her job with the Buffalo police department in 2008 but that did not stop her fight for justice. Tonight we welcome ex-officer Horne and her attorney Intisar Rabb to the program.

AIRED: April 20, 2021 | 0:28:28
ABOUT THE PROGRAM
TRANSCRIPT

>>> THIS IS S"METROFOCUS."

>>"METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE

BY --

SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III,

SYLVIA A. AND SIMON B. POYTA

PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT

ANTI-SEMITISM.

THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN

GANZ COONEY FUND.

BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ,

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, THE

AMBROSE MONELL FOUNDATION AND

BY --

JANET PRINDLE SEIDLER, JODY AND

JOHN ARNHOLD, CHERYL AND PHILIP

MILSTEIN FAMILY, JUDY AND JOSH

WESTON, AND THE DR. ROBERT C.

AND TINA SOHN FOUNDATION, THE

JPB FOUNDATION.

>>> GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO "METROFOCUS."

I'M JACK FORD.

FOR YEARS, A FORMER NEW YORK

POLICE OFFICER INSISTED THAT SHE

WAS WRONGLY FIRED FROM HER JOB

FOR TRYING TO STOP A WHITE

COLLEAGUE FROM USING A CHOKEHOLD

ON A BLACK MAN.

CARIOL HORNE LOST HER JOB, BUT

THAT DID NOT STOP HER FIGHT FOR

JUSTICE.

HER PERSEVERANCE PAID OFF.

A STATE SUPREME COURT JUDGE

OVERTURNED HER FIRING.

HE ALSO REFERENCED A NEW DUTY TO

INTERVENE STATUTE CALLED

CARIOL'S LAW THAT HAS BEEN

ENACTED RECENTLY BY THE CITY OF

BUFFALO.

TONIGHT AS PART OF OUR CHASING

THE DREAM INITIATIVE ON POVERTY,

JUSTICE AND OPPORTUNITY IN

AMERICA, WE'RE SPOTLIGHTING HER

FIGHT FOR JUSTICE AS WELL AS HER

PUSH FOR NATIONAL POLICE REFORM.

WE'RE DELIGHTED TO HAVE JOINING

US RIGHT NOW TO TALK ABOUT ALL

OF THIS CARIOL HORNE AND

PROFESSOR ROB WHO IS A COLEAD

ATTORNEY ON CARIOL'S CASE AND

PROFESSOR OF LAW AT HARVARD LAW

SCHOOL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> CARIOL, I WILL START WITH YOU

TO GIVE US SOME CONTEXT FOR THIS

CONVERSATION FROM OUR VIEWERS

AND ASK YOU TO GO BACK TO 2006

AND TELL US WHAT HAPPENED.

>> SO ON NOVEMBER 1st OF 2006, I

ANSWERED A OFFICER IN TROUBLE

CALL.

SO I WENT TO THE HOUSE EXPECTING

THE OFFICERS TO BE IN TROUBLE

AND NEEDING ASSISTANCE.

BUT WHEN I WALKED INTO THE HOUSE

NEIL MAX WAS IN HANDCUFFS AND

BEING PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY THE

OFFICER.

SO HE WAS PEPPER SPRAYED AND HE

HAD BEEN BEAT PRIOR TO ME

GETTING THERE, SO I DIDN'T KNOW

SOME OF THOSE DETAILS UNTIL

AFTER THE HEARING STARTED.

BUT THEN ONCE WE GOT HIM OUT OF

THE HOUSE, WE WERE WALKING TO

OUR VEHICLES BECAUSE AS FAR AS

WE WERE CONCERNED, ME AND OTHER

OFFICERS, THE SITUATION WAS

OVER.

GREGORY KWIATKOWSKI CHOKED HIM

WITH HIS ARM AROUND HIS NECK.

I SAID, GREG, YOU'RE CHOKING

HIM.

I GOT INTO THE POLICE CAR,

CALLED THE CHIEF, TOLD HER WHAT

HAPPENED AND AN INVESTIGATION

STARTED AND I BECAME THE TARGET.

>> HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN A

POLICE OFFICER BEFORE THIS

INCIDENT TOOK PLACE?

>> 18 YEARS.

>> HAD YOU EVER EXPERIENCED A

SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE YOU FELT

THAT YOU NEEDED TO INTERVENE

WITH REGARD TO A COLLEAGUE'S

ACTIONS FOR A SUSPECT?

>> I DID, BUT I DIDN'T INTERVENE

BECAUSE I WAS A NEW OFFICER AND

I SAID, YOU KNOW, TO MYSELF IF

THEY HIT HIM ONE MORE TIME, I'M

GOING TO STOP THEM, ONE MORE

TIME, TWO MORE TIMES, THREE MORE

TIMES HITTING THE GUY IN THE

HEAD WITH A FLASHLIGHT AND I DD

NOT

DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.

I DIDN'T KNOW WHO TO TELL.

>> SO YOU MENTIONED THAT AFTER

THIS HAPPENED, YOU BECAME THE

TARGET OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE

PROCEEDING.

>> YES.

>> I MENTIONED IN THE

INTRODUCTION THAT FOLLOWING

THAT, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION

BY A HEARING OFFICER AND

FOLLOWING THAT YOU WERE ACTUALLY

FIRED FROM THE POLICE

DEPARTMENT.

>> YES.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER OFFICER

INVOLVED?

WHAT HAPPENED, IF ANYTHING, WITH

REGARD TO THE OTHER OFFICER?

>> HE WAS PROMOTED AND HE

CONTINUED TO BEAT ON PEOPLE.

HE CHOKED AN OFFICER THAT WAS ON

DUTY.

HE EVENTUALLY WENT TO JAIL FOR

SLAMMING FOURT TEENS' HEADS INT

A POLICE CAR.

HE WENT TO FEDERAL PRISON FOR

THAT AND HE ALSO RECEIVED HIS

PENSION.

>> PROFESSOR, WHAT WAS IT ABOUT

CARIOL'S CASE THAT ATTRACTED YOU

TO IT?

>> CARIOL, QUITE SIMPLY, DID THE

RIGHT THING AND INSTEAD OF BEING

REWARDED FOR IT AND HAILED AS

THE HERO THAT SHE IS FOR SAVING

A MAN'S LIFE, SHE WAS PUNISHED.

FIGHT FOR JUSTICE FOR HER.

WHEN WE CAME IN LAST SUMMER, MY

COLLEAGUE AND I RON SULLIVAN

IMMEDIATELY THOUGHT THIS WAS THE

TYPE OF CASE THAT WE WOULD LIKE

TO BE OF ASSISTANCE WITH, WE

WOULD LIKE TO HELP CARIOL GET

JUSTICE.

WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS

POSSIBLE, BUT WE DIDN'T EXPECT

IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN ANSWER FOR ALL

THOSE TELLING CARIOL SHE WAS TOO

LATE, HER COMPLAINTS WERE TIME

BARRED, ISSUE PRECLUDED, THAT

SORT OF THING.

WE KNEW WE HAD TO FIND A WAY TO

GET JUSTICE FOR CARIOL, AND THE

THREE OF US WORKED TO DO THAT.

>> LET ME ASK YOU TO THEN ASSUME

YOUR ROLE AS PROFESSOR AND

EXPLAIN TO ALL OF US.

THE INCIDENT HAPPENED IN 2006.

THE FILING HAPPENED IN 2008 AND

NOW WE HAVE IN 2021 A DECISION

BY A JUDGE.

THERE WERE EARLIER DECISIONS.

GIVE US A QUICK TIMELINE, IF YOU

WILL, AS TO HOW THIS CASE HAS

PLAYED OUT.

>> SO THE QUICK TIMELINE IS THAT

THE INCIDENT OCCURRED IN 2006.

THERE WERE SOME INTERNAL

PROCEDURES AS CARIOL TALKED

ABOUT THAT LED ULTIMATELY TO HER

SUSPENSION AND DISMISSAL.

IN 2008 A HEARING OFFICER ISSUED

A TERMINATION ORDER THAT

FORMALLY ENDED HER JOB AS A

POLICE OFFICER BACK THEN.

AND THEN THE NEW YORK SUPREME

COURT, THE SAME COURT THAT JUST

REVERSED THIS DECISION, IN 2010,

AFFIRMED THE TERMINATION.

SO FROM 2010 UNTIL 2021, CARIOL

AND HER TEAM HAVE BEEN FIGHTING

UNSUCCESSFULLY UNTIL THIS MOMENT

TO OVERTURN THAT 2008 AND 2010

DECISION.

THE JUDGE IN THE CASE VACATED

BOTH OF THEM.

AND HE DID A REALLY REMARKABLE

THING.

HE SAID, IT'S AS IF SHE WAS

REINSTATED TO HER POSITION AS A

POLICE OFFICER IN 2008 FOR THAT

WHOLE TWO-YEAR PERIOD.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE TALKING

ABOUT THIS NOW, CARIOL WAS A

POLICE OFFICER FROM 2008 TO 2010

BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDGE'S

DECISION.

>> AS IF SHE HAD WON BACK THEN.

AN EXTRAORDINARY PERIOD OF TIME

WENT BY.

PROFESSOR, WHAT CHANGED TO ALLOW

THIS JUDGMENT?

WE SHOULD LET PEOPLE KNOW WHEN

WE TALK ABOUT THE NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT, THAT'S THE TRIAL

COURT LEVEL IN NEW YORK STATE.

NEW YORK STATE IS A LITTLE BIT

DIFFERENT.

THEIR COURT OF APPEALS IS WHAT

OTHER STATES CALL THEIR SUPREME

COURT.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TRIAL

LEVEL COURT HERE.

WHAT CHANGED TO ALLOW THIS JUDGE

TO REVERSE THIS WHOLE THING?

>> THEY SAY HINDSIGHT IS 2020,

AND I THINK 2020 GAVE US A LOT

OF HINDSIGHT.

THIS CASE CAME AFTER THE KILLING

OF GEORGE FLOYD, THE KILLING OF

BREONNA TAYLOR, A RASH OF

EXCESSIVE USES OF POLICE FORCE

SUCH THAT THEY HAVE BEEN GOING

ON JUST LIKE CARIOL RECITED TO

US FROM HER OWN EXPERIENCE, BUT

NOW WE WERE TAKING NOTICE, AND

NOW THE JUDGE, AS HE CITED IN

HIS OPINION, YOU KNOW, HE SAID,

LOOK THE ERIC GARNERS AND THE

GEORGE FLOYDS OF THE WORLD DON'T

GET A DOOVER, BUT THIS COURT HAS

A CHANCE TO MAKE THE LAW RIGHT

AND PROVIDE JUSTICE, EVEN IF

BELATEDLY.

SO I THINK OUR OWN PERSPECTIVE

IN THE SYSTEM OF LAW CHANGED AND

OPENED THE JUDGE UP TO REVERSING

HIS OWN COURT.

HE WASN'T THE JUDGE IN THE

UNDERLYING DECISION, BUT HE WAS

ABLE TO REVERSE HIS OWN COURT

DECISION IN THIS CASE.

>> CARIOL, THIS IS A LOT OF

TIME, A LOT OF YEARS GOING BY

HERE.

WHAT WAS IT THAT CAUSED YOU TO

SAY, I'M NOT READY TO GIVE UP

HERE, I'M GOING TO CONTINUE THIS

FIGHT?

>> MY CHILDREN AND BECAUSE I SAW

THAT IT KEPT HAPPENING OVER AND

OVER AGAIN TO OVER PEOPLE, EVEN

INCLUDING DEATH.

YOU KNOW, WHEN ERIC GARNER DIED,

I JUST REALLY HIT ME IN A WAY

THAT I KNEW I HAD TO DO

SOMETHING.

THAT WAS WHY I DECIDED THAT I

WOULD WRITE CARIOL'S LAW.

>> WHAT WAS THEN YOUR REACTION?

OR BETTER YET, BEFORE I GET TO

YOUR REACTION, PROFESSOR, LET ME

COME BACK TO YOU.

THOSE OF US WHO HAVE ARGUED

CASES IN COURT, YOU KNOW

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE ARGUING

IN FRONT OF A JUDGE, YOU'RE

TRYING TO GLEAN FROM THE JUDGE'S

QUESTIONS OR THE JUDGE'S

COMMENTS WHERE MIGHT THIS BE

GOING HERE.

AFTER THE HEARING HAS TAKEN

PLACE AND YOU ALL WALKED OUT,

WHAT DID YOU THINK YOUR CHANCES

WERE THAT YOU WOULD GET THE KIND

OF DECISION YOU GOT, WHEN WAS A

RESOUNDING VICTORY FOR CARIOL?

>> TO BE HONEST, WE DID NOT KNOW

FOR SURE WHERE THIS WAS GOING.

THE PROCEDURAL POSTURE, MEANING

THE LEGAL TECHNICAL IITIES AROU

THE CASE WERE PRETTY COMPLEX AND

WE WERE ASKING THE COURT TO TRY

OUT A NOVEL THEORY FOR THIS

COURT.

IT HAD NEVER BEEN APPLIED THIS

WAY BEFORE.

THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT CAUSES

OF ACTION.

THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT BASES

OR LAWS THAT WE ASKED THE JUDGE

TO CONSIDER IN RENDERING HIS

DECISION.

ONE OF THEM WAS THIS PROCEDURE,

IT'S A LATIN PHRASE CALL EED NU

PRO TUNG.

THE SECOND WAS CARIOL'S LAW.

IT SAYS IF IN THE PAST 20 YEARS

YOU HAD INTERVENED TO SAVE A

LIFE AND WERE PUNISHED FOR IT,

YOU CAN GO BACK TO COURT EVEN

THOUGH MOST LAWS SAY THERE'S A

PRETTY LIMITED TIME THAT YOU

HAVE TO DO MTHAT.

IT EXPANDED THE TIME SHE HAD TO

GO INTO COURT.

WE NIFILED THIS CASE BEFORE

CARIOL'S LAW WAS PASSED.

WE AMENDED IT TO SAY YOU WANT TO

INCLUDE CARIOL'S LAW AS WELL.

IN THE END, THE JUDGE WAS ABLE

TO COME TO HIS DECISION ON THE

BASIS OF BOTH LAWS.

I THINK THE FIRST ONE WAS REALLY

A COURAGEOUS USE OF THIS FIX IT

NOW PROCEDURE.

BUT BEING SKEPTICAL AT THE ORAL

ARGUMENTS, SO WE WERE HAPPY TO

HAVE CARIOL'S LAW, WHICH REALLY

BOLSTERED THE CASE.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE HAPPY

TO SAY IS, LISTEN, IT'S CALLED

CARIOL'S LAW.

IF IT DOESN'T APPLY TO HER --

>> WHO WOULD IT APPLY TO?

CARIOL, WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN

YOU FOUND OUT, I WON?

WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION AFTER ALL

THESE YEARS?

>> SHE HAD TWO WORDS, WE WON.

I JUST SCREAMED.

I JUST SCREAMED.

I WAS SO LIKE SO HAPPY.

IT WAS LIKE BITTERSWEET.

I WAS HAPPY FOR MYSELF, BUT AT

THE SAME TIME TO SEE THE GEORGE

FLOYDS, ERIC GARNERS, ADAM

TOLEDO AND DAUNTE WRIGHT, IT'S

LIKE WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF WORK

TO DO.

THE DEREK CHAUVIN CASE, DON

WILLIAMS SAID HE CALLED THE

POLICE ON THE POLICE.

THAT IS WHAT NEIL MACK WAS

SAYING BACK IN 2006.

HE SAID IT WAS THE DAY AFTER

HALLOWEEN.

HE THOUGHT IT WAS A JOKE.

HE THOUGHT IT WAS A PRANK.

SO HE WAS LIKE, HE WANTED TO

CALL THE REAL POLICE.

SO THAT IS THEIR WAY OF SAYING

THAT WE WANT ACCOUNTABILITY, WE

WANT CHANGE.

THAT'S WHAT CARIOL'S LAW GIVES

THEM, BECAUSE NOW WITH THAT IT'S

THE DUTY TO INTERVENE AND PLUS,

AND SOME.

SO THE DUTY TO INTERVENE MEANS

THAT YOU WON'T HAVE ANOTHER ERIC

GARNER OR GEORGE FLOYD BECAUSE

THE OFFICERS WILL NOT LET AN

OFFICER DO THAT.

>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT HOW

CARIOL'S LAW CAME ABOUT.

PROFESSOR ROBB SAID THEY WERE

RELYING ON A STATUTE NAMED AFTER

THEIR OWN CLIENT.

I LAUGHED.

I TRIED ABOUT A HUNDRED CASES.

I ARGUED CASES AT EVERY LEVEL.

I NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO

SAY, YOUR HONOR, I'M RELYING ON

A STATUTE NAMED AFTER MY CLIENT,

SO THAT TELLS YOU WHERE YOU

SHOULD GO IN THIS CASE.

IT'S EXTRAORDINARY.

EXPLAIN TO US HOW YOU WENT ABOUT

GETTING CARIOL'S LAW ENACTED IN

BUFFALO.

>> IN 2016 I WENT TO JUST ABOUT

EVERYBODY I KNEW BECAUSE I HAD

STARTED DOING ACTIVISM.

I COULD ASK IF I COULD GET HELP

WITH PUSHING IT.

YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD GET FALSE

PROMISES AND EVERYTHING JUST

FELL THREOUGH.

AFTER GEORGE FLOYD DIED, I SPOKE

WITH JERRY WATSON, WHO IS THE

FOUNDER OF STRATEGIES FOR

JUSTICE.

HE BASICALLY WROTE IT IN A WAY

THAT IT COULD BE PRESENTED AND

WE PRESENTED IT TO THE COUNCIL

ALONG WITH THE CARIOL'S LAW

JUSTICE TEAM.

THE ACTIVISTS AND THE ADVOCATS

PLAYED A BIG PART.

WHEN WE WERE ON THOSE ZOOM CALLS

WITH THE COUNCIL, IT'S LIKE

EVERYBODYCARIOL'S

LAW.

THE 75-YEAR-OLD MAN WHO HAD BEEN

PUSHED DOWN BY THE POLICE AND IT

MADE NATIONAL NEWS, HE BASICALLY

CALLED IN.

HE WAS LIKE, NO, WE NEED THIS,

WE NEED THIS.

AFTER IT WAS PASSED, MARTY SAID

TO ME, NOW WE CAN CALL THE GOOD

POLICE ON THE BAD POLICE.

I SAID, YOU KNOW, MARTY, YOU'VE

GOT A POINT THERE.

>> WE KNOW THAT THE STATUTE

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ENACTED

BY THE BUFFALO LEGISLATIVE BODY.

SO IT'S NOT STATEWIDE OR

FEDERAL.

WE ARE SEEING A LARGE NUMBER OF

STATES MAKING PROPOSALS FOR

POLICE REFORM AND MANY OF THEM

INCLUDE THIS NOTION OF A DUTY TO

INTERVENE.

FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE,

PROFESSOR, WHY WOULD IT BE

IMPORTANT TO HAVE A STATUTE

HERE?

I'M SURE MOST PEOPLE SAY, OF

COURSE IF YOU'RE A POLICE

OFFICER, YOU HAVE A DUTY TO

INTERVENE.

THAT'S WHAT YOUR JOB IS.

THAT IS NOT SO.

WE'VE SEEN INSTANCES WHERE YOU

EXPECT IT TO HAPPEN THAT IT HAS

NOT HAPPENED.

GEORGE FLOYD COMES TO MIND.

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A

DUTY TO INTERVENE STATUTE?

>> IT'S IMPORTANT FOR A NUMBER

OF REASONS.

ONE IS HISTORY AS YOU POINT TO

TRADITIONALLY OR HISTORICA LALL

HAS NOT BEEN AN EXPLICIT DUTY TO

INTERVENE WHEN ONE POLICE

OFFICER IS USING EXCESSIVE FORCE

AGAINST A CIVILIAN.

POLICE OFFICERS ARE PUBLIC

SERVANTS CHARGED TO SERVE AND

PROTECT FORMALLY, BUT WE HAVE

SEEN THE CULTURE OF POLICING

SPEAK TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT AS

WE SAW IN THE CASES THAT YOU

MENTIONED WITH GEORGE FLOYD AND

OTHERS.

SO ONE OF THE WAYS THAT IT'S

REALLY IMPORTANT TO PASS

CARIOL'S LAW LOCALLY, NATIONALLY

AND BEYOND IS TO CLARIFY NOT

ONLY THE POLICE HOPE OR THE

PUBLIC POLICY, BUT THE LAW

STATUTORILY THAT WE ALL WANT TO

ENCOURAGE NOW THAT WE KNOW THIS

PROBLEM IS RAMPANT OF EXCESSIVE

USE OF POLICE FORCE, WE NEED TO

MAKE IT VERY CLEAR AND HAVE IT

BE EMBLAZONED IN THE LAW ITSELF

THAT, NO, THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE

BEHAVIOR, AND NOT ONLY SHOULD

YOU NOT ENGAGE IN WRONGFUL AND

EXCESSIVE USES OF FORCE, BUT YOU

SHOULD INTERVENE WHEN YOU SEE

FELLOW OFFICERS DO THE SAME.

I THINK A LAW LIKE THAT THAT CAN

COME ALONG WITH COURAGEOUS

JUDGES WHO DID LIKE DENNIS WARD

TO GIVE PEACE TO THIS POLICY AND

THIS LAW EVEN IN PLACES WHERE

SOMETHING LIKE CARIOL'S LAW

HASN'T PASSED.

AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT

THIS, BECAUSE POLICE REFORM IS

NOT ONLY A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE

REFORM.

COURTS CAN STILL REVERSE

CONVICTIONS LIKE THE ONE THAT

THEY REVERSED IN CARIOL'S CASE

OR FIRINGS, I SHOULD SAY, EVEN

WITHOUT CARIOL'S LAW, BUT FOR A

FORWARD-LOOKING JUSTICE AND

POLICE REFORM, I THINK THAT'S

WHERE CARIOL'S LAW COMES INTO

PLACE, COMES INTO PLAY AND IT

SHOULD BE EXPANDED, I THINK,

WELL BEYOND NEW YORK.

>> QUESTION FOR YOU, PROFESSOR.

THIS CASE HAS EXTENDED WELL

BEYOND A DECADE.

DOES THIS DECISION NOW, THE

TRIAL JUDGE'S DECISION, HERALD

THE END OF THIS CASE?

OR IS THERE STILL THE SPECTER OF

APPEALS?

>> WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THERE

BEING APPEALS BEGIN THAT IT WAS

THE CITY ITSELF THAT PASSED

CARIOL'S LAW.

THE

BUT WE DO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL

PROCEDURES TO FOLLOW THROUGH

TONE SURE -- TO ENSURE THAT

CARIOL GETS THE PENSION AND THE

BACK PAY.

WE SEE THAT AS MORE

ADMINISTRATIVE, BUT THERE'S A

LITTLE BIT LEFT TO GO.

>> CARIOL, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER

AND I MENTIONED IN THE

INTRODUCTION THAT YOU HAVE

BECOME AN ACTIVIST DURING THIS

PERIOD OF TIME.

GIVE ME A SENSE OF WHAT WE

TALKED ABOUT THIS NOTION OF A

DUTY TO INTERVENE, GIVE ME A

SENSE OF WHAT OTHER STEPS SHOULD

WE BE CONTEMPLATING FOR OUR

POLICE DEPARTMENTS TO IMPROVE

THE QUALITY AND THE SAFETY AND

THE EQUALITY OF POLICING IN THIS

COUNTRY?

WHAT ELSE SHOULD WE BE LOOKING

TO DO?

>> NUMBER ONE, WE NEED A

NATIONAL REGISTRY, BECAUSE WE

DON'T WANT BAD OFFICERS GOING

FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER

AND ONE STATE TO ANOTHER ONE.

THAT'S WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE A

FEDERAL LAW.

ALSO, YOU KNOW, WHEN POLICE

OFFICERS -- I WON'T EVEN SPEAK

ABOUT THE PROBLEM.

I'LL TALK ABOUT THE SOLUTION.

SO THE NATIONAL REGISTRY, THERE

ALSO NEEDS TO BE MORE

PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS, BETTER

TRAINING.

THE TRAINER THAT YOU GET IS TO

ALWAYS BE READY FOR ANYTHING TO

HAPPEN, WHICH IS OKAY TO BE

READY FOR IT, BUT TO BE THE

AGGRESSOR IS ANOTHER THING.

THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING, BECAUSE

AS YOU SEE OVER AND OVER AGAIN,

THERE ARE CAR STOPS, THE PEOPLE

ARE PULLED OUT OF THE CAR.

EVEN HE WAS IN FULL MILITARY

GEAR.

IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN HIS

UNIFORM BECAUSE THAT WOULD

AUTOMATICALLY GIVE YOU RESPECT.

SO WHAT WAS IT THAT THE OFFICER

SAW?

WAS IT HIS COLOR?

I'M ASSUMING THAT IT IS.

SO FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU HAVE

PEOPLE THAT COME FROM DIFFERENT

MUNICIPALITIES INTO A CITY THAT

THEY WILL NOT EVER WANT TO LIVE

IN AND THEY TREAT THE PEOPLE

THERE AS IF THEY ARE ANIMALS.

THAT HAS TO STOP.

SO THE MENTALITY OF THE POLICE

OFFICERS HAS TO STOP AND

PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS SHOULD BE

GIVEN JUST AS FREQUENTLY AS

USING A WEAPON, WHICH IS YEARLY.

BUT IT ALSO SHOULD BE IF

SOMEBODY ELSE SEES THAT

SOMETHING MAY BE WRONG OR IF

AFTER A TRAUMATIC INCIDENT, YOU

KNOW, WHETHER THEY COULD HAVE

HAD TO USE DEADLY FORCE.

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN DEADLY

FORCE IS NECESSARY, BUT A LOT OF

THIS THAT WE'RE SEEING IS NOT

NECESSARY.

IT'S UNCALLED FOR.

IT'S THE OFFICER THAT INITIATES

THESE THINGS.

>> PROFESSOR, FROM YOUR

PERSPECTIVE AGAIN AS SOMEBODY

WHO'S BEEN SO VERY ACTIVELY

INVOLVED IN THESE AREAS, ARE

YOU -- I HAVE ABOUT 2 1/2

MINUTES HERE.

ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC?

YOU HAD THAT GREAT LINE ABOUT

2020 AND 20/20 HINDSIGHT AND THE

YEAR 2020 HAVING SUCH A

STARTLING EFFECT, AN IMPACT ON

US.

ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC THAT WE MAY

WELL BE MOVING TOWARDS SOME

IMPROVEMENTS IN TERMS OF THE

EQUALITY AND THE QUALITY OF

POLICING?

>> I AM OPTIMISTIC.

I THINK THAT, WELL, THERE'S A

SAYING THAT IF YOU SAVE A LIFE,

YOU SAVE ALL OF HUMANITY.

I LIKE TO THINK OF CARIOL HORNE

IN THAT VEIN.

SHE SAVED A LIFE IN THIS ONE

INSTANCE, AND I THINK HER CASE

REPEATED OVER TIME CAN INDEED

SAVE ALL OF HUMANITY THAT

OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN

AWAY IN THE WAY THAT IT WAS WITH

GEORGE FLOYD AND DAUNTE WRIGHT,

ERIC GARNER.

IN SO MANY OF THESE CASES YOU

HEAR THIS REFRAIN "I CAN'T

BREATHE."

NEIL MACK, GEORGE FLOYD SAID IT.

I THINK THAT WITH FOLKS COMING

TOGETHER FROM ALL SIDES AND

CARIOL'S STORY IS REALLY A STORY

OF ALL SIDES.

THERE'S CARIOL HERSELF WHO NEVER

GAVE UP.

THERE WERE HER FRIENDS AND

FAMILY AND SUPPORTERS,

ACTIVISTS, ADVOCATES, LAWYERS,

THE COURAGEOUS JUDGE,

LEGIS

LEGISLATORS AND ALL THOSE WHO

NOW TAKE THIS MESSAGE

NATIONALLY.

I THINK IT CAN LEAD TO REFORM, A

BETTER AMERICA AND A CHANCE FOR

US TO ALL BREATHE, TO EXHALE.

>> THAT'S A WONDERFUL WAY TO END

THIS CONVERSATION, AS YOU SAID,

A CHANCE FOR US TO ALL BREATHE,

HOPEFULLY A CHANCE FOR US TO ALL

LISTEN TO PEOPLE SUCH AS CARIOL

HERE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING

US.

CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU FOR YOUR

VICTORY AFTER A LONG AND HARD

BATTLE.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US ALSO

AND ALSO FOR JOINING IN AND

AIDING IN CARIOL'S STRUGGLE.

WE NEED LAWYERS LIKE YOU OUT

THERE ON THE FRONT LINES.

FOR BOTH OF YOU, OUR THANKS FOR

SPENDING SOME TIME WITH US.

YOU ALL BE WELL.

TAKE CARE NOW.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.

>>"METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE

BY --

SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III,

SYLVIA A. AND SIMON B. POYTA

PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT

ANTI-SEMITISM.

THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN

GANZ COONEY FUND.

BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ,

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, THE

AMBROSE MONELL FOUNDATION AND

BY --

JANET PRINDLE SEIDLER, JODY AND

JOHN ARNHOLD, CHERYL AND PHILIP

MILSTEIN FAMILY, JUDY AND JOSH

WESTON, AND THE DR. ROBERT C.

AND TINA SOHN FOUNDATION, THE

JPB FOUNDATION.


FEATURED PROGRAMS