good morning everyone very warm welcome to you all we’re extremely delighted that you’re able to join us here today for our event on the topic deadly force the legal basis for police shootings of unarmed black males in America very timely an important subject today my name is Krisha Frimpong senior research analyst of the race prosperity and inclusion initiative here at Brookings and our agenda for this morning is our firstly walk us through some brief statistics on the use of lethal force by law enforcement and how that’s played out across the criminal justice system and thereafter we will break into our discussion panel with our distinguished panelists to discuss this topic here today so to provide a brief overview of the topics we’ll cover is firstly I’ll go through some national statistics on the use of lethal force by police officers and secondly we’ll look at how that relates to all victims across racial demographics and thirdly we will look specifically at how this relates to all armed victims across race and lastly we’ll look at how this is played out in criminal case dispositions across the country so we take a national outlook on the use of fatal police shootings by police officers we can see that from 2015 to 2018 the total number of civilians that were killed by police officers ranged from about 1700 which peaked in 2017 to about 1400 up to the present time and we can see that from 2017 onwards there was a slight national decline in these police shootings and this trend has been reflected across racial line so we can see that white males who constitute a majority of these fatalities have also been trending downwards followed by black males Hispanic males and Native American males and we can it’s important to note that for Native American males there’s a relatively scarce public information on this racial demographic and so it’s very likely that there’s an under reporting of fatalities as relates to this group now when we take a much closer look at fatal shootings of all victims by racial demographic it reveals a slightly different picture so on the Left we can see the share of males across the u.s. population across racial demographics so first we can see white males constitute a majority of all males within the country at 31 percent followed by Hispanic males black males and Native American males and the chart on the right we can see the composition of all victims of fatal police shootings across the country and two key important points to note first we can see that white we can see that all males constitute a majority of all these fatalities across the country at about 91% and secondly we can see that white males are the largest number of fatalities of all victims of fatal police shootings at 38 percent however we can see that black males are the second smallest segment of all males within the country at 7 percent however they represent the second largest share of all victims of fatal police shootings at 21 percent in fact black males are killed by police officers at three times their relative share within the national population and are twice as likely to be killed by a police officer as a white male so now let’s turn our attention to look at fatal shootings of unarmed victims across racial demographics so again we have the share of males in the US population on the left we have the breakdown of all unarmed victims in the u.s. population on the right and here we can see that black males relative to their 21 percent share of all national fatal shootings in the country represent an even greater proportion of unarmed fatalities at about 34 percent a little over a third and more specifically an unarmed black male is killed by a police officer at five times their relative share within the national population and there are four times as likely to be killed by a police officer as an unarmed white male so this illustrates two important points is that clearly there is evidence of a racial disparity in the use of lethal force by law enforcement even amidst a decline in fatal police shootings across the country and secondly black males and in particular unarmed black males are at a greater risk and have more vulnerability to being a victim of a fatal police shooting relative to their white male counterparts and all other individuals

across the country so this leads us to look at 17 of some of the most prominent and well-known cases of black male civilians who are unarmed and killed by law enforcement including individuals such as Freddie gray Tamir rice Michael Brown and many other individuals and when we take a look at the criminal case dispositions of these 17 black male victims who are unarmed we can see some very startling results I want to draw your attention to the chart on the left which shows the cases in which an officer was not criminally charged for murder or manslaughter we can see indicated in green that one out of these eight cases is still pending it’s relatively new from 2018 and the rest 7 out of 8 no criminal charges were brought against the police officers and we look at the chart on the right we can see cases in which officers were indicted or criminally charged and two out of those cases the officer was charged and if the case is still pending five have been criminally charged and not convicted as indicated in black and three have been criminally charged leading to no conviction as indicated in the red so we can see across this spectrum that the cases in which an officer was not charged or not convicted far outweighed the cases in which an officer was criminally charged of convicted in fact only three out of these 17 cases led to a conviction and this rarity of attributing criminal liability to police officers in gauging the use of deadly force is something that is reflected across national scale we can see that from 2005 to 2007 teen only 80 total officers were arrested for the murder and manslaughter of civilians in the country and only 28 out of those 80 officers were actually convicted about 35% and the rest were either not convicted or the trial is still pending and so it’s clearly that it’s clearly seen that the majority of police shootings of civilians within the country are found to be legally justified and so in conclusion all the dispositions of these cases across the country are based upon a police officers perception of a reasonable threat and it may be a little bit difficult to read all the words here but these are some of the accounts of the police officers who are responsible for the deaths of the 17 black on our male civilians that we showed previously and what all these accounts illustrate is the fact that a police officer who engages in the use of force sees this as a perception of a reasonable threat and a fear for the safety of their own lives and what in fact provokes them to engage in the use of deadly force and so in summation there are a variety of legal standards that govern the use of deadly force and we would like to discuss those standards in our panel here today so please join me in welcoming our moderator camille Bessette director of the race for spirit inclusion initiative along with our distinguished panelists [Applause] so while we’re getting miked up here I want to thank you quite Joe for that excellent introduction I also want to extend a very warm welcome to all of you who are joining us here in Brookings at the Brookings Institution today and also to our online audience also joining us remotely before we head into our panel I want to say a few words about why we are here and what we hope to accomplish today last year the Brookings Institution launched a new initiative the race prosperity and inclusion initiative and our initiative is focused on promoting equity and economic mobility for poor and low-income Americans and for communities of color as part of this initiative we have a particular focus on young men of color and on policies that can advance their prospects for success the experience of being young black and

male is singular in the United States and we are interested in promoting serious policy dialogue about that experience as cuejoe indicated in his opening remarks our purpose here today is to use the 17 very high profile cases of fatal police shootings of unarmed black males as a point of departure to understand the legal standards under which the use of lethal force by police is legal we will be examining not only what the criteria are for the use of legal force by police but also how those criteria have been implemented in police departments across the country we will also discuss the implications of these cases for policy changes that have been contemplated at the state level and with that it gives me great pleasure to introduce each of our distinguished panelists so sitting right next to me is in Gaussian delay the director of research and special projects for the death penalty Information Center she joined Death Penalty Information Center staff as the director of research and special projects in September of 2018 her career as a lawyer has focused on the intersection of racial justice and the criminal legal system after graduating from Yale Law School she clerked for Judge Eric lay on the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and she’s litigated on behalf of death sentence individuals as an assistant federal public defender in Phoenix Arizona and as a staff member of the Ohio justice and policy Center in Cincinnati Ohio before coming to before adjoining the death penalty Information Center and gauzy served as senior director of criminal justice programs at the National n-double-a-cp where much of her work centered on providing unit training strategic direction and research to support the n-double a-c-p as criminal justice agenda welcome sitting next to her is Peter b-bring who was a senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California and this director of police practices for the ACLU of California he joined the ACLU Southern California staff as a staff attorney in 2006 Peter works on a wide range of police rated related issues including race and bias and policing gang injunctions excessive force search and seizure police interference with the First Amendment rights national security civilian oversight and surveillance secret surveillance prior to joining the ACLU Peter worked in private practice specializing in civil rights and workers rights peter clerked on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California he graduated from New York University Law School School of Law where he was an editor-in-chief of the NYU Review of law and social change and he also graduate from Harvard University uh next to Peter is Rachel Andre dr. ray Shawn Ray is the associate professor of sociology and the executive director of the lab for applied social science research at the University of Maryland College Park he is also one of the co editors of contexts magazine sociology for the public and formerly dr. ray was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation health policy research scholar at the University of California Berkeley dr. Ray’s research addresses the mechanisms that manufacture and maintain racial and social inequality with a particular focus on police civilian relations and men’s treatment of women his work also speaks to the ways that inequality may be at can you ated through racial uplift activism and social policy dr. Rey has written for The New York Times Huffington Post NBC News the conversation and public radio and stern international selected as 40 under 40 Prince George’s County and awarded the 2016 University of Maryland research communicator award dr. Ray’s appeared on headline news algebra al-jazeera and PR Fox and MSNBC his research his research is cited in CNN Washington Post associate press Associated Press MSN the root and the Chronicle please join me in giving a very warm welcome to all of our distinguished panelists so the way we’re gonna work this is we’re gonna I as these panels are typically done I’m gonna ask the panelists a range of questions they’re going to answer those and then once we get through those questions we’re gonna open it up for audience questions and we will take about two or three at a time and then answer them appear so that your opportunity to engage with our panelist wall will come in time and we’re very much looking forward to that discussion so I’m gonna start off by I’m just sort of setting the scene the Supreme Court 1985 ruling and Tennessee versus Gardner Garner set the constitutional floor for police use of deadly force so I’d like it if you know given that we’re not all

attorneys here if I’m going if you could just summarize that standard the standard that was enshrined in that ruling sure so in Tennessee V garner the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where somebody was actually fleeing from the police and was shot in flight and it was clear that the person was not a danger to the police officers or the public it was someone who was being pursued for a burglary offense so a felony offense and at the time the rule had been the law in Tennessee has been interpreted saying that if any felony if there’s any felony that you were fleeing from the police could use deadly force against you and the United States Supreme Court decided that you could not just use deadly force whenever right you could not just shoot a fleeing suspect if there was not actual a real threat to the life and a physical harm now so should the police officer oh yeah to the police officers in public and so and and the that really set the stage at that time there were a kind of a variety of legal standards in the different states different police departments had different standards around the use of force but I think one thing that that definitely changed that game so so Tennessee V Garner really said that just trying to use deadly force in to apprehend somebody is not enough of a justification but then in Graham V Connor there was again this question about what does this mean and actually what is the legal standard so this was a Fourth Amendment seizure and the Graham V Connor was stating that the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard is the actual standard that should be applied this objective reasonableness and Graham V Connor has really shaped the way that police departments have framed the way that they their use of policy force policies are read have framed the way that people are trained around you supports so some of the things that Graham V Connor emphasized was this is not about looking at hindsight 20/20 hindsight at the situation this is about what an the reasonable officer would have done in the circumstance and since the that Graham V Connor decision interpreting Tennessee V garner the ideas about Graham V Connor if you think about when the awareness of just line law enforcement officers about Supreme Court precedent you could think about you know the Miranda decision right people have to give the Miranda rights everybody’s aware of that but I would say as a close second even if they’re not thinking this is about Graham V Connor in the way that police reports are written in the way that people are being trained in police academy the kind of risk the the the framing of the use of force and when that use of force is justified is really heavily shaped by the way that Graham V Connor really with an eye towards saying that much use of force and use of deadly force is reasonable the way that Graham V Connor really framed that discussion great thank you very much for that Peter I wanted to chat a little bit about these two standards these you know definitely the Tennessee versus karna said the constitutional standard the grand versus Connor sets other standards that a lot of police departments have started to have followed but I have States set to –ss to as States sought to set higher standards than these two standards or different standards and these two standards that we’ve just discussed so in a word know most states I mean there’s some exceptions so Tennessee for example whose statute was at issue in Tennessee V garner has modified their statute but most states have statutes that actually predate Tennessee V Garner and basically codify

the common law rules about shooting police so for example in California where I’m from our statute on basically the criminal affirmative defense for for law enforcement officers was written in 1872 when the state was literally the wild wild west and hasn’t been updated since and so most state standards California’s actually codifies the old fleeing felon rule that officers can shoot any any fleeing suspect so it does not meet constitutional standards and certainly doesn’t meet modern policing practice and so I think what I will say is that if you want to look for standards that are above the constitutional floor the place you have to look is actually police agencies especially in recent years a number of police agencies have brought on more progressive policies through some on their own more through oversight by the federal Department of Justice if you look at the consent decrees that have been put in place by the Department of Justice almost all of them have a use-of-force component that has higher standards it includes a component that requires higher standards than Graham and in fact even the police executive Research Forum a kind of research group of police management issued a set of recommendations around the use of force policies the second of which was that departments should enact policies that have higher standards than the Graham V Connor higher than the constitutional floor great thank you very much it’s very helpful so rashon I want to get you your thoughts as part of this discussion and I wanted to know given the sort of changing landscape of standards have we seen any relationship of those changes which you know initially are decided in the courts and then later implemented in individual police departments has that changed the volume or the nature of fatal police shootings around the nation um yes so kind of since the mid-1980s what we seen actually was a decrease in officer-involved shootings and killings and then all of a sudden in the mid 90s in the late 90s we started to see a Jim crease and that’s kind of what we’ve seen over the past say you know 20 years or so and part of that is making sense of a conundrum that people try to focus on which is the fact that in the 90s we started to see record lows in terms of violent crime and for the most part that’s kind of continued up until relatively relatively recently so that hasn’t necessarily correspond it and I think what the other panelists are really highlighting is that since that Tennessee garner decision I’m actually from Tennessee so I think about kind of living during that particular time and what that meant from being in Tennessee compared to being in other states and so part of that we started to see a series of other cases that set up residence and I think instead of necessarily naming these cases we could think about the outcomes of these cases so stop-and-frisk Terry stops jump outs which is where you kind of have an undercover group of officers who are in plain clothes we’re jumping out on individuals standing on the street and of course the president’s here is that it’s about whether or not someone is suspected of engaging in a felony and I think part of recognizing what that means is that it gives officers a lot of discretion to make a justification for who they perceive to be engaging in a felony and what type of felony they perceive them to be engaging in and so in many respects they’re actually able to at times make decisions as they’re going along and even though we’re focusing on these set of cases as it relates to this particular state’ll to forget this stat that african-american men compared to white men are about four times more likely to be killed by the police when they’re not attacking nor when they have a weapon in many respects that’s the group we’re talking about these are individuals who the police have said no they weren’t engaging in a crime and no they didn’t have a weapon and getting still we still see this outcome but besides that group we have to look at what led up to that particular encounter that’s when the fact that minorities are more likely to be pulled over than whites they’re more likely to be searched and whites they’re more likely to be to have violent force used upon them in all of these different cases over the past thirty years or so have established a president’s that that’s okay based on what a reasonable officer would do and I think it’s difficult for people to really understand that but what that president’s essentially means is that you you you ask other officers would they have engaged in the same type of behavior given the circumstances and given what they know about the situation now of course you have specific police departments police unions who have decided to kind of double down on that an aim to rectify that and make it what they perceive to be more objective but at the end of the day in many respects is still police officers policing other police officers about these about these alleged behaviors and at the end of the

day what we see is an outcome and a huge disparity that I think in the United States of America none of us should be comfortable with just pick up from that but and that question about objective reasonableness right and what that means it sounds very scientific and of course you would like to see what would an objectively reasonable officer do in this situation but I think we have to definitely put layers on top of this so it’s interesting and you know Tennessee V Garner and a lot of the the kind of Seminoles police we used to force cases there is no mention of race right it’s just some suspect some person by name and we are not necessarily taking into account the effect that that had on the way that the interaction progressed so I want to bring in some of the what we know more now about the way that it bias both explicit and implicit is a play in so many of our discretionary decisions in the criminal legal system including those decisions about who to arrest who to stop and frisk who to search right and so when we think about the the science around implicit bias and implicit biases this often unconscious kind of snap judgment reaction that we all have around a variety of issues and traits but we think about the the what we know about implicit bias against African Americans I mean know that um number two decision that there’s a vast majority of white people have implicit bias against that’s negative towards african-americans and in some studies there’s kind of about half to a majority of black people so this is not just something that is only white people are need to address right but that these are this these implicit these kind of under the surface biases that help to change the way that we are perceiving a situation can have really negative effects in these interactions where we are having ambiguous situations where you have to make a snap judgment well we have studies showing that if you have an ambiguous situation and you have the person has dark skin as opposed to a person with white skin that we’re seeing people making more negative assumptions about that and we’re seeing people make assumptions that add to culpability I think we have really scary information about what that means when we’re talking about children and we can all think to the Tamir rice and his his death as a potential you know example of this where when we think about black boys and girls are seen as older more culpable and less human and I say when I say less human I’m actually saying that in a literal way that it’s easier for for people’s brains to associate black boys with animal type a type of figures as opposed to human beings right so there’s this dehumanization kind of bias and so what does that mean when we’re talking about these very charged and very life-and-death interactions that could happen between black people and the police so when we’re talking about this legal structure and we’re talking about these cases that don’t necessarily take that into account and so when you think about these you know the the prevalence of this explicitly explicit and implicit bias in general society and we bring that in to law enforcement interactions we have to think about what does that mean about the way that juries are except are willing to accept the I was afraid for my life like when the idea of a scary big black man is something that is kind of hard coded into a lot of our subconscious what does that mean for whether a jury is willing to accept that an officer had a fear and that the sphere was objectively reasonable so let me let me kind of expand that a little bit and so when we’re talking about a standard around a reasonable officer standard right you’re saying that the circumstances under which those decisions and actions are made right vary when you’re talking about

encounters with African Americans in particular African American males and that the case law does not speak to that so my question is is there and this is going to be you know you give me your best answer there’s obviously no right answer to this but is there a uniquely objective reasonable officer standard when we’re talking about the use of lethal force I’m gonna say no I think I think there actually the concept of reasonableness comes in to the legal standards in a couple of different ways there’s a reasonable officer standard but there is also that Graham at bottom is just asking the question what a reasonable officer think that the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances from my perspective it’s actually been the second reasonable that is also problematic I mean for all the reasons in because he says right this is it that’s essentially no standard at all right does it seem reasonable does that seem like something that that you would do there’s no that standard in and of itself provides very little guidance or framework for somebody to evaluate whether force is reasonable and so the evaluation is then loaded with all the implicit and explicit bias so I guess my question is does the definition of what’s reasonable change depending on who it is you’re interacting with yes that is certainly true and actually to go into Graham a little bit more right Graham does the court in Graham outlined three factors the severity of the crime at issue the immediacy of a threat and the the amount of active resistance that the subject was engaging in for to kind of evaluate what force is reasonable and it’s unquestionable that the threat and even the amount of active resistance is going to be that’s a subjective judgment that is going to be evaluated in part based on race that’s just the the what research and daily experience shows us and so maybe jumping the gun a bit but one of the things I that we have been working on at the ACLU in California is ways to change that standard so that it is a little more guided and constrained in ways that we think that that are kind of represent a moral consent okay I’ll come back to that but I want to ask you Ray Sean so given that there this reasonable standard both in terms of reasonable officer you know view of what he or she might do in a similar situation and the idea of a reasonable threat so those two areas is the standard of evidence around what constitutes a reasonable threat different in cases involving black males than it is for white males yes so part of what happens with the reasonable with a reasonable threat is fear so fear plays a role in the decision-making process did the officer fear for his or her life and the lives of other people around and if that fear reaches a particular threshold that justifies the action then we see the outcome and it’s justified because they were acting reasonably in part of what people have realize about what race and skintone does in America unfortunately is that blackness becomes weaponized so even when people don’t have a weapon even when they are not engaging in any type of physical force their physical body becomes a weapon it becomes criminalized in a way that justifies the actions of individuals engaging in certain things against their bodies and we see that in a host of studies that we that we just heard about it’s not just about being perceived as odor it was another study that showed that when you take white and black men who basically look exactly the same their bodies were tested that individuals still perceive the black men as being larger and stronger than the white men I think when we look at the Mike Brown situation I think regardless of what people kind of think about what led up to that one key thing I remember reading from officer Darren Wilson or former officer Darren Wilson is that he said Michael Brown looked like a demon like Halloween’s coming up what do you do when you see a demon like there aren’t enough bullets that will stop a demon if you literally take a human looks like that or is is an actual demon what do you have to do to actually stop it he then went on to say he looked like Hulk Hogan and I looked and I and I felt like a four year old both of these men are six forward they’re both six four they’re both large tall men so when we think about these particular actions if that is the reasonable standard then what we start to see is that it ends up justifying in many regards some of the outcomes that we actually see as it relates to implicit bias in particular and part of your original question was about do we

see a difference yes we see a doing a standard yeah in the standard of evidence and police officers actually say that there’s this difference but I think the part that people don’t get is that all they have to do and especially say when the Fraternal Order or the police gets involved all you have to do is convince a few groups of people the prosecutor’s office that you were justified that’s kind of first step a grand jury if it gets past that and then actual jury of people who unfortunately hold the same biases that the officer is actually doing I can speak directly to this some of the work we’ve been doing police officers over the past few years we have them take what are called implicit association test so I specialize in social psychology and and kind of frame things in that particular way these implicit Association test everyone should go take them they’re based out of Harvard you can type in IAT and Harvard in a search engine show you your hoster biases about about all sorts of outcomes we did these with police officers one of these exercises we did was about race and weapons the the the test was whether or not people exhibit more preferences or bias toward blacks with weapons or whites with weapons what we found even shocked me which is that overwhelmingly the police officers reported a bias towards blacks with weapons and none of the officers reported biased toward whites in a strong or moderate way toward weapons like that it was simply non-existent what’s key here this was not white officers this was just not male officers this was just officers and it’s not just officers it’s humans it’s people so part of that we have to realize that officers when they’re off duty or even before they became police officers there are people who are socialized just like us and unless we take officers through a particular training when they’re becoming officers officers to disrupt kind of the racialized way were socialized in the gendered way we’re socialized then we’re gonna keep seeing these outcomes these reasonable outcomes that justify and aim to objectively talk about an outcome there really was an objective at all and if we really want to look at it we should actually take social science research and actually investigate it and figure out what’s going on but unfortunately we police Kelly’s for the most part we only have evidence from about 16 states around the country we know how many people get the flu every year we don’t know how many people are shot and heard by the police to me as a taxpayer that’s a problem and so I wanted to ask a Peter so in that this question about standard of evidence and whether there’s a it changes depending on the race of the of the victim do you have any thoughts on that well yeah I mean I more or less along the lines of what I said before I think that’s that’s absolutely right and and the the problem is compounded when you have vague standards the more you have a vague standard the more likely it is to be informed by by bias and I absolutely agree that one of the things we need to do is follow social science research investigate ways to address and eliminate bias culturally not just in in law enforcement but but at large but I think there’s also work we can do toward refining those standards to try to cabin bias to try and focus on facts focus officers focus prosecutors and juries on more objective facts so one of the things that we’ve done in in California the ACLU and a number of other organizations sponsored legislation that would have changed the state authorization for police officers to use deadly force and changed it from a reasonableness standard to a necessity standard and in some ways that echoes the standard that the Supreme Court set forth in Tennessee V Garner although the court has retreated from that kind of first in Gramm and then later basically said that that thing we said in Tennessee V Garner doesn’t it was really just Graham and so the the even the necessity standard in the Supreme Court jurisprudence has really faded to some extent and so we try to basically bring it back under state law and that does a few things right requiring necessity I mean first of all I think most people most most members of the public are communities of color of white communities and most officers think that police should not be using force unless they have a deadly force unless they have to I mean that’s a that’s a pretty straightforward kind of moral place that we we can agree but that also focuses officers on alternative tactics that they can use I think one of the problems with the Graham standard and and much of the jurisprudence is it kind of and there’s actually been writing about this says Stoughton a professor at the University of South Carolina who’s a former police officer and Brandon Garrett have written on how the jurisprudence around use of force ignores and doesn’t leave room for police tactics so there’s no element in

the Graham analysis about what police could do other than using force and that’s what we sought to bring back by emphasizing a necessity because necessity by its nature asks what else might you be able to do and the the bill that we ran actually explicitly also had a provision that required de-escalation tactics whenever it was safe and reasonable to do so and that’s something that police departments have been enacting on a policy level requiring officers to de-escalate where it’s safe and reasonable to do so departments that have done that have seen reductions in serious uses of force there there are a number of departments including big city departments that are dealing with urban areas lots of crime the best studied one is Seattle that has been that policy has been in place pursuant to a consent decree and was studied by a court-appointed monitor and a policy that required de-escalation and essentially put in place a necessity standard reduced mid-level and serious uses of force by sixty percent over a three-year period which is really striking reduction great yes so so just wrapping up your evidentiary standard and I think there’s a summary saying yes you can have an evidentiary that on the surface is the same for everybody but there’s a lot going on underneath the surface as everybody has been saying right so you can have something that’s facially neutral but in practice we see how we’re getting different results and I think that what Peter just said about taking that the actual reality of police tactics is actually very much at the heart of Tennessee V Garner and not some of the later Supreme Court jurisprudence that really backs away from that because in Tennessee V Garner they recognized that when you know at the time of the founding and common law and things that there were less tool that people weren’t police didn’t have guns right and because of that this whole well a while ago we could actually pursue fleeing felons and use deadly force was the argument that was raised in Tennessee V garner and they said well you know back then you didn’t have guns you didn’t have ways that actually allowed you to actually control situation in a different way from afar you know not in in you know like a hand-to-hand tussle where there might be more chance of definitely four so I think recognizing that the reality of policing changes the issues that are surrounding our understanding of what is necessary to actually ensure that the public is safe that police officers are safe and that they’re we’re not actually using more force than as necessary and as such a situation changed that actually goes back to kind of that that fundamental idea of this is what fourth amendment should be requiring as far as this this seizure of a person so I think that some of that looking at the actual possibilities for police tactics looking at the realities of the social science research that we have is actually very much in line with kind of what the the that that kind of original limit on deadly the use of deadly force was okay great that’s helpful so I there’s several strands here and I’m going to pursue each of them individually just so that you know our audience can follow us so now I really want to talk about the what what is happening in police departments across the country so we are clearly not the first ones to identify implicit bias and there’s certainly certainly a lot of case law and social science research etc so tell me what what’s happening in police departments and police fraternal associations that’s being I you know that is used to both acknowledge that kind of implicit bias and also help police officers recognize it and utilize tools to overcome it when they are in these kinds of situations well I think there has been a significant change in departments and officers in general approach to the issue of bias and just by way of reference in 2008 we in LA released a report on racial profiling at LAPD that was met that was basically about implicit bias I mean we didn’t use the terminology but you know it just looked

at outcomes and and how much more likely African Americans in particular were to be stopped pulled out of their cars subjected to searches and there was a you know tremendous reaction against that the then Chief Bill Bratton said you know LAPD is not racist this is this report is baloney and what’s happened in the decades since then though is that this idea of implicit bias the idea that that everybody is subject to bias because it’s in in the water in American culture has enabled I think police to recognize that that’s a problem that’s a problem that everybody has but that they have to deal with more seriously because they carry guns and they arrest people and so departments have started addressing the issue of implicit bias through stronger policies through trainings that that at least make officers aware of some of the issues that dr. Bay has has talked about but I mean one of the problems and I’m you’re more better situated to talk about this and I am is that there’s not a lot of evidence based training that’s out there that can say okay you know you take this eight-hour course and no more bias right we’re we’re not there and I don’t think we can ever be there right really you know I mean because we’re always I think the work on implicit bias has to be continuing because all of the kind of social conditioning that hopes create that bias is continuing right we’re it’s never going to be let’s figure it out and fix it and we’re done you know yeah so sure yeah I mean of course I mean research shows that that a one-off only does so much part of it is what you want to do is plant a seed and then allow for that seed to grow over time so part of what all of us have to do everyone in this room is we essentially have to be resocialized with how we’ve been trained to kind of think about difference in America and one of the things we’ve been doing at the University of Maryland in the lab for applied social science research is we’ve developed with computer scientist and virtual reality simulation program that gets that police officer decision-making so that we can better objectify what’s going on and also help keep officers safe to be able to train in a safe environment where they’re not necessarily exposed and part of this is not just about people’s conscious or unconscious attitudes it’s also about what’s what’s beneath the skin so being able to examine people’s physiological outcomes their heart rate their stress level their reaction time this is what happens to officers in a second that it should be noted that when regular civilians like most of us in this room go through police police simulations we fail miserably so police officers are much better than we are and we have to put that in context which is very very important to do but I also think part of this is highlighting some of these broader patterns we see so one that one of the studies that always note is what happens when people are in close proximity to certain people well unfortunately people have a certain physiological reaction so for example if I came here with a snake and a spider look some people already just jumped like that is a physiological response when all of a sudden give you a gun and you’re shooting at that snake like crazy so some people have that some people have us the same physiological reaction to black men yes they do the snakes and spiders and then we wonder why we see the outcomes that we do now part of what’s happening input so I think that’s that’s part of it is we can objectify what’s happening we can take it out of a computer-based simulation which is helpful and put people in a real world example that’s what we’ve been doing I think the second part is what’s happening in police departments I do think we have to definitely mention that police officers get sanctioned internally a lot these are things that we never even see I mean they run into something like how many people like run into something on a regular basis like they get highly sanctioned for that certain types of language they use they get sanctioned for that yes these trainings are happening I tend to think that they’re very much watered down and instead if we really want to deal with this yes policies one way but I think with Fraternal Order of Police associations with police departments is another way and part of that is studying police for the past few years it’s about police accountability some of the ways to do this is like with these court cases we put up that were put up in pretty much all of them there were large civil settlements settlements millions of dollars of taxpayer money going out so if we take Freddie gray in Baltimore I don’t even we just just focusing on unarmed black neighborhood say Korean gains which is like 30 to 36 million dollars that’s in the city of Baltimore that already doesn’t have any money and that money is coming from taxpayer money imagine though if the payment shifted from taxpayer money to police pensions to Fraternal Order of Police dues to Police Department insurances now all of a sudden when Peter gets ready to do something like hold up Peter like we you know that’s my pension is on the line and so part of it is making people accountable for themselves and the way that the policy the way we have is set

up now when police officers engage in decision-making rarely are they held accountable to each other and we have to change that so let me ask a question around training a police officer training more generally and the the question the basis of the question is that you know a lot of police officers can be very overwhelmed when they are constantly put in these stressful situations and I’m wondering when we talk about utilizing tactics around de-escalation whether or not that is a kind of perspective that’s sort of instituting training around de-escalation is something that is gaining momentum or is it something where you were seeing sort of spot trials and spa spot solutions around that piece I think that all officers are trained in these escalation to some extent I think that there’s a question about where that’s put in the priority you know uh given other options or if de-escalation is seen as in some way dangerous right while you’re trying to de-escalate you might be you know harmed in some way so I think I’ve seen a number of policies when I was at the N double ACP I work with local branches that we’re trying to get policy changes around use of force and there were some policies where it was pretty clear that de-escalation was last option it’s like yeah if you have to you know try not but really here’s the legal standard about why you can use force you know the most force possible right and and I think that though the ways that de-escalation is is framed can make a big impact on the way that people are actually acting on the streets every day right so so I think there are a number of issues that can come up with that but we can think about the way that it happened in the training the way that your policy is written the way that your state legal standards are going to impact the the norms that are our officer and what whether you feel like you are actually accountable are you going to actually you know get in real trouble if you don’t first try to try to de-escalate the situation and I would also say that in many of the situations that if you look at with a use of deadly force or just the use of you know stream force if you look at the last second before the person use deadly force there are a lot of times where you’re like wow at that stage maybe they didn’t have many options but if you actually backed it up a little bit right would say with saying like were there did you have some choices to make that might not have put us put you in that situation where where there was this conflict right it’s usually there are a lot of times where you can back up like okay maybe if we’d done something differently a couple minutes before this wouldn’t have felt like the life-or-death situation that it was so I think that’s very important that’s helpful um rashon yeah I was just gonna say I mean what we’ve observed and kind of studied police trainings and what they go through when they go through cadets could that school if you will and they put in a lot of hours I mean it’s a lot of work I think part of it is acknowledging that it’s really hard work and most of us would never do it but if you want to know what your department your local departments are doing you can look at how many hours are spent on different things there are a lot of hours spent on tactics but there’s very little hours spent on social interactions and when we think about it social interactions between two people is what police officers do all the time and it’s something I’ve heard them say that that’s that’s always bothered me which is they’re like well some people are good at it some people aren’t it’s like no that’s not true you can train people to be better at social interactions and so the first step in de-escalation is oftentimes the conversation the other part that you’re getting at is what people don’t realize they have a string of things that they’re supposed to be escalate with before they actually use a weapon it’s the Taser one day people don’t realize about the Taser is you have to be in a certain certain close proximity to actually use the Taser and invent a Taser doesn’t work you instantly have to go to your next lethal op option which is your gun so at times officers are actually sanctioned internally for the speed at which they engage example Tamir rice they rode up on that twelve-year-old so fast but went by rolling up on him so fast they couldn’t even use another option and of course it was so loaded in all the stuff we’re talking about they thought he was older you know people could talk about the police officer and how he had been you know let go from other jobs he resigned and probably shouldn’t even have been a police officer in laQuan McDonald that was

another great situation there were all part of the conviction when laQuan McDonald um had to do with not only was there video which I know will talk about some of that in a second but it was also the fact there were so many officers not engaging that it suggested that Van Dyke’s behavior was so unreasonable that cook that the evidence was overwhelming now part of the reason why they hadn’t engaged he’s because all of them didn’t even have a Taser so laQuan McDonald might still be alive if one of those officers had a Taser to actually use on him before men died got there that has to we funding and the fact that these police departments are growing and I’ll just say one other quick thing because I think it’s important for people to kind of recognize this there too two things I want to add first thing is that police officers don’t have really good opportunities to deal with their mental health they’re overworked they’re overstressed they’re underpaid and if you go if you go in and say something is wrong in my head you’re gonna be put on desk duty they’re gonna view you as a liability you’re gonna be let go I don’t know about you but if I have 17 years on the force and I got three years to retire to send my kids to school I’m being quiet we need to set up a better mechanism possibly external opportunities for police officers to go outside of departments and get help the second thing I’ll say is that when we were deserving what they were doing they were at times do things like this they will put them through a simulation and say you didn’t engage in the correct behavior or the correct statement you would essentially get shot in the simulation okay but sometimes the training officers will sit in the dark with the pellet gun and some people are nodding because they know this so they went through this with a pellet gun and they will shoot the the cadet going through the simulation and it will hurt because pellet guns hurt and oftentimes it’ll be with red paint and they’ll make you wear that for days so you’re walking around everybody else with red paint on your shirt like you just got shot and killed what do you think you what do you think you’re gonna think and do when you get on the street but that’s the current scenario so all the trainings we have that are supposed to deal with this stuff is so counteracted by what’s already in place which is part of also we could talk about the hegemonic masculinity that’s entrenched in police departments that lead to some of the outcomes we see so fear become something that the only way police officers are trained to deal with fear is we force we don’t train them to deal with fear we retreat we train them to deal with fear with force and so the outcomes we see are exactly the recipe that’s been brewed up it shouldn’t be surprising so I’ll stop there okay so that that’s has been excellent I’m now going to shift to this question about the necessary standard versus you know other standards and so you know we most of us don’t know what the difference is you talking what about that Peter can you tell us what the difference is between the necessary standard and some of the other standards that exist well I mean it as I said before I mean I don’t think on some level it’s not actually all that different from the doctrine right the the Supreme Court in Garner talks about necessity and this in their in the context of is it necessary to prevent escape is deadly force necessary to prevent escape it along with probable cause to believe that there’s a serious threat so I think it’s it’s in some ways not all that different but it’s clearer in that it focuses on alternatives as I said before and I think that there are like one of those is de-escalation and not just you know less lethal options like Tasers I mean yeah you’re right that that officers have been trained on de-escalation even you know for decades and you officers old particularly older officers who may not want to get into fights talk about talking people in right instead of using force and officers know how to do that and they know things like using distance time and cover to reduce the threat to themselves which allows them to give to employ more options to communicate the the tamarind rice example is a great one right this one if you talk to officers about that one of the big things they say is by jumping out of the car ten feet away from Tammy Rice they were confronted with this threat they had no other options if they had just come in more slowly gotten out on the other side of the car used the engine block as cover they could have communicated once and how quickly would they have seen that that was just a twelve-year-old boy with a toy so I the necessity standard can focus on those other options and then the the last point I wanted to make was though and Guzzi point about thinking about the officer’s actions leading up to the use of force that is also a doctrinal problem it’s not it’s not clear but there are a number of courts that have said that when you evaluate officers use of force under the constitutional standard

you only look at the moment that they pull the trigger so in the rice situation obviously that falls far short of what’s necessary to understand whether that shooting to kind of a common understanding whether that was necessary it wasn’t there’s actually a case at the Supreme Court just last year where they came out of LA where deputies were looking for a suspect and they kicked the door of a shack in without announcing that they were police and there happened to be a guy who was not the guy they were looking for sitting with a BB gun and they shot him many many times and if you look at the fact that you know they were confronted in close quarters with a guy with a gun that might look necessary but if you think about think back a few moments the fact that they were going around kicking in doors and going into houses without announcing themselves it seems less necessary so another aspect I think of the necessity standard which is actually it was part of the legislation that we worked on was is explicitly considering a wider temporal frame considering the officer’s actions that led up to the use of force and think you know was there you know not did they Zig when they could have zagged and ten minutes later that resulted in a use of force but were there things that the officer did that were not consistent with good tactics that foreseeably led to a shooting when there didn’t have to be one so let me ask you given given that on that sort of argument whether or not body cam cameras officer body cams will change the discussion around evidentiary standards around what is a time frame that we look at when we’re trying to evaluate whether or not force was necessary or reasonable in a particular case do you rashon do you have any thoughts about that yes sure so we so we conducted a large study with the civilians of a county and in a large study with police officers so we interviewed about a hundred residents and about a hundred and twenty police officers about their thoughts about body more cameras transparency privacy overwhelmingly everyone supported body worn cameras so body worn cameras are interesting because on one hand from an optics standpoint they matter because they’re perceived to provide more transparency and people on both sides of the aisle whatever we want to consider that to be are in favor of it because people who are really big supporters of police say people are gonna see how police officers get treated and it’s going to justify police officer’s actions on the other hand people are who are big proponents of kind of civilian opportunities to be freer say say the same thing right these body-worn cameras are gonna show how badly people are being treated by the police and so that’s one part of it that from iatitude standpoint people support it when we actually look at the outcomes it’s a bit mixed and it’s a big mix for a couple of reasons on one hand one way to think about it is in like in a majority of the cases that were highlighted those 17 we have some type of video that that’s not something that we could just throw to the side like the video matters the documentation matters whether it’s the body-worn camera or someone with their phone key point is – from the legal president’s perspective is to expand the range by which the courts make decisions on it because the public is making a decision on a three to five minute clip the court is not making that same decision on that three to five minute clip so there’s a gap there the second thing that’s happening is that is that we’re body worn cameras there varies on how they’re implemented there are some places that leave them on continuously there are some places where they hit the button in the rolls back thirty Seconds there are some places where they manually turn them on as they make decisions to do so we need more standardization there but one thing we do know is when they stay on longer of course we have more information there and obviously from a police department standpoint I think it’s a resource issue people don’t realize that when you have a large Police Department it’s a lot of money to outfit them with new equipment and it’s another thing that police officers have to deal with and that they have to write reports on and training and complete the training so I mean we’re talking about a lot of money to put into that and at times what happens is the technology is moving so fast on the on this side of things and by the time a police department finally gets a body worn camera they’re already outdated so and then we wonder why they’re not really matter that much so I mean I think there are certain brands that allow you I mean some of the new stuff literally a sergeant or you know a captain can literally pull up on their phone and look at body-worn camera footage of their officers I think that’s where things need to go and then in many respects I think a lot of that needs to be public record but police officers do fear walking into someone’s home and someone might not be completely clothed or you know someone might literally be dealing with the serious incident and those are the types of things that don’t need to show you going to a hospital Lorenz who into a place of worship so police officers have real concerns but overall people support them and I do think they matter because they provide more transparency in any way we can get that we need it but we need more consistency and we need for the the

legal presidents to match the data that we’re able to collect now oh just mention a couple things about one of the body weren’t cameras reminds me and that resource issue just to mention the importance of the federal government in actually helping to set and support police standards so as we started out with so we have about 18,000 law enforcement organizations across the country there’s no central management there’s no central oversight of that right but the Department of Justice in the way that it actually deals with these issues can really help set tones and really support change so we know and this was a Department of Justice it was the president’s Task Force on 21st century policing that brought together experts to really talk about what are some of these issues and they brought it they brought up and talked about some of the issues that we’ve talked about today public trust and accountability implicit bias the need for mental health care for police officers body worn cameras one of the ways that many jurisdictions have been able to at least start pilot programs was through the support of the Department of Justice and making sure that’s happened and we also know the Department of Justice in the investigation those systematic investigations of Police Department’s the pursuit of consent decrees has really been helped to shape one or not of some of what’s going on within police departments and to that search for best practices and figuring out where we can change the way that that force is being used through a collaborative process I’m from Cincinnati Ohio where there was a very community engaged collaborative process around changing police practices so I don’t think that even though there we are talking about law enforcement across the country we’re talking about the work that needs to be done on the state level I we cannot underestimate the power of federal government and federal resources and helping to kind of establish and support best practices around use of force and one of them is supporting body cameras and there are a lot to talk about about why do your own Kansans way that they’re implemented are they protecting privacy are they actually our Police Department’s they’re police officers able to watch the camps before they write a police report because that can be problematic we also have seen where’s where that sometimes when the camera can look back 30 seconds where we’ve seen examples of people planning drugs in that 30 seconds I mean you know actually doing things that you would otherwise not have evidence of so I think that that they’re a really important tool in so many areas of use of force but they’re their complexities that communities will be dealing with and hopefully that will have some support federally around great so I want to ask one more question and then open it up to the audience and that is you talked about you know work potential a potential agenda for the federal government in this area you certainly work at the state level you work with police and communities so let me ask you all communities are the ones who are and families are the ones who are most impacted when we have a case of lethal force a young man dies right as a result of that so what is the role for communities in this conversation and how can those communities best add their voices as we think about different kinds of standards around the use of lethal force I love this question as a person who has really been engaged with communities that have been struggling with with these issues I I think that when we look at the the way that communities are dealing with with state use of lethal force and we can talk about the death penalty if anyone wants you to because we can bring out is a sanction balance in many ways but but I think that the lived experience of communities has to be essential to this conversation and we also know about the trauma and anxiety that communities are dealing with when there’s that threat of legal lethal force that is kind of hovering over everybody’s head and that’s something that that we have recognized and and that is not something new but I think that we’re having a deeper conversation about what that

means we’re also seeing studies of the the kind of trauma and anxiety there’s a SOS on the street so that was done in Ohio and that was a study about how people’s daily lives and the way that they operate their daily lives are affected by the way that that their fears of potential police violence but given that information given that lived experience I think that the ability of communities to help shape the standards that are governing the use of force in in police departments is crucial helping to shape their Police Department’s generally is crucial having community oversight such as civilian oversight boards being participating in making policies participating in hiring and disciplinary decisions often right when we have the police department as actually as a part of our community in a part of the work that we’re doing to keep each other safe I think is really important I think we’re seeing things like the work being done in California to pass that law we see there’s a ballot measure in Washington State right now about changing the use of force standards I think the the voice of communities and that kind of being able to build power and investment in keeping our communities safe and recognizing what does that mean because of many times that doesn’t necessarily mean more police on the streets it can be mean more mental health workers on the streets because one of the figures that we haven’t talked about is how about a fourth of those police shootings are for somebody who has exhibiting symptoms of some type of mental illness or mental disturbance right so so I think that community involvement in all of these pieces is crucial to actually finding a step forward Peter I agree completely with all of that I want to add one piece which is I think rashon mentioned earlier that the component of administrative discipline you know the that accountability I mean we’ve been talking about accountability or lack thereof through the criminal process that’s another component right officers getting disciplined or fired but in many states there’s no that information is completely confidential that was actually the case in California until a bill passed this year which would create some narrow exceptions for shooters and other serious uses of force and some other categories but you know under the the previous rule not only did communal communities would see like the Stephon Clark shooting that happened if this bill hadn’t passed communities wouldn’t know whether the officer was fired as a result of that shooting and in most departments in California they wouldn’t even say whether the shooting was in or out of policy and there’s no way for a community to engage with the system that’s most likely to hold officer accountable in some measure the Disciplinary system if they don’t know what’s going on right and that’s really at odds with I think our basic you know basic principles of democracy that people need to hold the government accountable for what they’re doing if the these important decisions about how departments address police shootings are kept completely closed off and just to follow up one one way to address transparency is not just releasing the investigations and the Disciplinary results it’s collecting that data again as Shaun said you know we don’t collect that data nationally we do in California there’s a requirement it was pretty straightforward requirement departments have to provide information a fairly detailed report to the State Department of Justice every time there’s a use of deadly force whether that results in a fatality or not there’s no requirement for that we’ve collected all sorts of statistics on crime but none on homicide by police officers and that should change thank you and Rashad yes yes I mean I think part of pushing these sort of things through like there’s no reason why it’s taxpayers we shouldn’t know when an incident happened what the outcome is I mean I think it’s all right to know that impart of that starts with us voting locally and particularly voting for local officials who will be willing to push some of these policies further so in other words I mean they’re like like with the civilian oversight committees the ones that I’ve been involved with and that I know about it’s nice to have them but in terms of their influence and influencing what happens in the police department is limited but all of a sudden you elect a mayor who pushes for that change and now that establishes a president that can be implemented in other places right so that’s a big one I mean in terms of the transparency is also another big one I would also encourage people to go through through their local police civilian organizations to actually go through and see what police officers actually encounter because you can have a better understanding of why they make the decisions they make you don’t

necessarily have to agree all the time but the important is to understand why they’re making those decisions so I mean I think voting locally becomes very very important and then volunteer volunteer to get involved in these organizations and figure out how you can actually make a difference in what’s happening in your own backyard well on that note I’m gonna open it up for audience question so what we’re gonna do is we’re going to take like two or three and and then and at a time and then answer so so we have we have a number of hands here so whoever’s not running the mic let’s start on this side and then move over there it was like twenty two dark-skinned gentlemen myself and someone I didn’t know that was like a interesting experience and then recently a friend of mine in Brooklyn he sent me a video on YouTube it’s it was a video in Pennsylvania where he state troopers they stopped just a black man for speeding and then proceeded to drive off and he flagged he flagged him down and came back and then it escalated further where they tased him multiple times for him he fought tasers fought them ran around the car bring to the his car pulled out his gun and pop them shot and shot the cop several times white cops what happened as a result of that was that that guy who got the black man who committed those crimes he got like 55 so like 100 duck years in prison so what stands out to me is like also like you’re my bias as a as a black man towards police the implicit bias that you spoke of it goes both ways too the what goes on in the cops mind in terms of de-escalation and that in the second example I showed it could have de-escalated it came back and escalated in further and it was altered and them being injured one of the COS fell into a coma he was uh he was clinically dead when he got to the hospital in a coma came out the coma Danny remember the incident but then it goes further in terms of the the way that black men are sentenced disproportionately towards their white counterparts so in situations where maybe police are justified then they then they throw the book at it then they throw the book and my brother’s so I just wanted to see if you add any opinions on that and then I also thought about like an entertainment and media in terms of like from 1991 to now like how you know music particularly hip-hop kinda like moves that forward to okay so we’re gonna take several questions thank you there’s a gentleman right behind him right behind him hello I’m Allen Davis I’m a retired New York City police officer former federal crack nozzle with the Bureau of Prisons and international police violence for the State Department years that’s my pedigree my question points to this objective reasonableness that Graham offers us as law and how it seems that it’s really dependent on how that’s interpreted by every different office in every different jurisdiction and how they they seek to apply it so my question really is over the doctor admits in terms of how can communities get a standard as a chapter with the you do they use that you approve of and I wonder at the panel if folk let their elected leaders know what they thought they were standards were and voted them in or out depending on what they adhere to those community standards because I remember in New York we had back in the day a lot of corruption and they didn’t they gave all the classes and we be nice to blacks and Hispanics and be nice to people and none of that worked and then one day they start locking up people in uniform on the

street I was there and then crushed and so down because I had a direct impact on people’s lives and lives so my question is do you think direct involvement by citizens in terms of holding their police chiefs and their mayors to this standard that the community decides it’s appropriate would have an effect on who was disciplined who was fired regardless of whether they were convicted in the courts but who got to keep their job and who did great thanks very much so um so there’s a gentleman with the red right here and it’s you there and then we’re gonna answer these questions after this gentleman asks and then we’ll go come back for some more okay hi my name’s Gus in Velenje with the voice of democracy for the United States and Equatorial Guinea so just as a friend suggestion perhaps in the future you know for the ten minute question thing I think a little bit imbalanced just a point of reference as a you know I ran for Olympics went to Stanford did all the stuff that didn’t live a life that day he was honorable and you find in all that you’re talking about this there’s that still that system of who is this person why is this per through driving this kind of car why is this person you know in this kind of neighborhood and it gets to the point to where it’s so exhausting because you get it from white police officers and you also get from black police officers so my question is with regard to Chicago and the tragedy going on in Chicago who’s gonna hold that black on black crime statistic who’s a whole those folks accountable you have the jesse jackson’s you have president obama kept that city is a killing zone and i find the black community is ignoring that reality okay thank you so we’ve got a question on chicago violence and accountability there we have a question about the direct involvement of city in creating and enforcing community standards around the use of lethal force and then we also have a question around sentencing and escalation / de-escalation so okay and one thing I’m going to say to our panelists is we can we can get more questions in is try to be brief so and you don’t have to answer every single one just pick one and then we can go from there so I’m actually gonna start with ray shot thank you all for your questions in regards to Chicago you know people always highlight black on black crime but for some reason we don’t frame crime as me a white on white crime crime is crime and let me finish let me finish let me finish let me finish okay so I I’m gonna I’m gonna ask us ask us to respectfully listen to the panelists as they complete their answers go ahead thank you so here’s the stat for everybody who wants to know 94% of crime that black people commit violent crime homicides is committed by other blacks 86% of crime committed against whites is committed by other White’s we don’t frame it the same way so when we talk about the media which was part of I think the first gentleman’s question part of the way to media frames thing is that it also skews things for us and what they got no being from these types of communities whether that be st. Louis Memphis Chicago of Baltimore is that people are investing in their communities and they are actively doing something to do with the crime that’s happening in their communities but if we really want to deal with crime we have to deal with a lack of education and job opportunities and that is part of what people don’t really want to talk about so statistically when we run analyses on what causes crime those are the things what causes crime now of course people are engaging in certain types of actions and they should be sanctioned for that but hopefully we could talk more about that on to the next part is real quick I think peremptory strikes matter a lot so the fact that lawyers are able to print the parentally strike people it’s kind of part of the problem and then I think that for african-american men in particular there is a legit fear of police officers that really needs to be dealt with and part of that legit this is unfortunately that a lot of african-american males have had bad interactions with police officers that doesn’t justify anyone doing something else to police officers at all and so some of the incidents that we’ve seen over the past years definitely need to be corrected but I think that’s something that also needs to be done and we starting to do some of this at the University of Maryland is actually to examine what happens when people interact with trustees of an institution so police officers are kind of the trustees of the criminal justice system how do people respond physiologically to them and does that lead to say a Freddie gray running that becomes a reasonable response when you’re scared you run and for some reason all of a sudden that running could could unfortunately lead to it to a negative outcome okay I’m just gonna go down the line Peter I’ll just the second question about accountability and Grandma I mean first of all I want to thank you I think it’s a very important point and I talked

about transparency we’ve talked about training if there’s not accountability to the training or and there’s not accountability after things are out public we’re not gonna see change and I think you know too often we see these kind of frightening examples where there there is transparency there’s a video of exactly what happened and an officer is not held accountable they’re not fired not charged and and if that happens nothing will change and so thank you for for sharing that and in terms of whole communities holding officers accountable for or departments accountable for setting standards I think that’s hugely important and there’s actually a kind of a cliche in law enforcement of shootings that were used of force that are lawful but awful I don’t know if you’ve heard this right and you know if that reflects a use of force that officers can agree is and should not have happened but is not against the rules and the fact that that’s a cliche to me is very striking we’ve set these rules the community sets the rules and we’re supposed to set them in keeping with our moral standards and if there is such thing as lawful off but awful there’s a cliche that there’s a whole category of uses of force where where we all agree that they’re awful but they they’re not against the rules and we need to change the rules and just to follow up on that so for example the example that many use the Seattle about having use of force policies right so you can have better use of force policies and the constitutional floor right you can have pushed your community’s police officers to have better I just want to thank the sentencing disparities question which was the first one that actually ties into this issue of black on black crime and implicit bias I mean we really need to address the racial legacy of the criminal justice system that is being played out in all of these pieces that there’s state sanctioned kind of violence against black people which has been about the justifications of police shootings throughout from slavery starting which does tie into the way that we decide who is worthy of who is who we can lock up and throw away or kill and throw away right so so the value of black lives and I know that we have been talking about that a little bit on plays itself out in many ways in the Troezen thinking about if black victims of crime and how they’re treated compared to others so we really have as a society a lot of work to do to actually have a holistic job so the work that we’re doing around law enforcement accountability is work that happens in the courts that happens in the ballot box that is happening in our communities in the day to day interactions we need to be creating and influencing the structures that are helping to continue the reinforced kind of legacy of race and racism that is part of what was at the founding of the the nation but can be different in the future great thank you we’re gonna take another three questions so let’s start over here please and then we’ll kind of work our way around oh you know my name is Sheree Chevy I’m the host of freedom fighters of the DMV for WBGO our networks and one of the things that I’ve been working on for a long time is um that police officers we don’t have very national databases and that our society is basically governed by licenses and my colleague she and my other colleague there they are mandatory licensed person including myself and for the nation why is it that police officers can make decision to be lawyers doctors killers everything else without a license and why is that the National such as the FBI has no documentation for is holding records on police behavior and conduct now why why is that we don’t have a national database okay thank you let’s go directly behind him there’s a young lady back there right right can you raise your hand again you have that code on you my question was basically the same we are licensed there’s probably many people in this room who have occupational licenses and wherever I go as a as a licensed person throughout this country they can pull it up and find out what I did and a police officer that that crazy person who killed Tamir rice in Cleveland had the community not been outraged and spoken up he would have been on his way to try to kill somebody else in another department would you recommend that

people in communities start a petition demanding from their City Council’s or county governments that police they need to start having licenses and say PG County they’re criminals okay thank you let’s get to more questions since I think we can probably cover those those two so let’s get let’s just work this side of the room here so we’ve got a young lady in a red jacket there yes you yes hi there this is not so much a question as much a comment to the Chicago and and always the argument that’s made about the black on black crime and violent crime my name is Linda Garcia the policing campaign director at the Leadership Conference for someone Human Rights before that I was at the Department of Justice where I did work on the investigation of the Chicago Police Department and one thing that I can say is that the communities they want good policing so what they don’t want is police to over saturate areas and shake people down wrongly and to use excessive force and those are two different things and just in changing the way that policing is done you can answer the issues of violence but that’s not done through unconstitutional and biased policing okay thank you and then we have this young lady here in the gray jacket and then we’re gonna take those questions and my name is Claudia Ferris I am just a neighborhood person in this context I live in an area which is oversaturated by police coverage and I don’t trust the police I am a very privileged person in terms of my access to society my knowledge about think and how things function but those people are my neighbors I lived with them and it bothers me when they are harassed by the police I don’t know what to do about it I just haven’t I walk around with an attitude and it’s nothing that I do think about reactive is helpful in that regard because I don’t feel that I have access to true levers of effectiveness and I just put that out there okay great thank you very much so we have we have questions on community trust right and community leverage licensing of police and then the openness of the data administrative databases that deal with a disposition of a police officers you know case so feel free oh I’ll just start with the trust piece and connecting that to violence and communities I think that’s really important also leadership conference has a great body camera tool the folks wanna use it to look at quality camera policies but oh what I think that the point about the tie-in right because if you’re actually going to close cases you actually need to talk to people who will are willing to talk to you so recognizing that the creating police departments that are actually able to build trust with individuals is actually important police departments recognize this the 21st century this task force report on 21st century policing raises this a lot of police leaders have said building trust is fundamental we’re not going to have the build the trust that we need unless there’s true accountability when something so one has done something wrong right so so that piece is crucial and is a part of addressing high rates of violence there I don’t think it’s a coincidence that in many the cities that we’re seeing some serious violence issues that we are also seeing some serious police corruption issues and you know police violence as well so Peter yeah on that point I just you know completely agree and agree with with Linda’s point about the oversaturation is not the same as good policing in their way that many communities are kind of harmed twice by the police once through the failure to police properly and to provide safety and and again through the actually harmful policing techniques and you know we say this all the time that good policing a lot of the stuff that we are advocating for will build trust that will make police able to do their jobs is it more easily and more effectively and it’s it’s I think not just a cliche on I also wanted to address the point about licensing yet so there’s a term for this in the kind of police reform movement which is

decertification and it is it there are states that do this that require just like a contra or a lawyer even a barber has to maintain licenses in California I know you know barber shops are inspected there are state inspectors that come around and make sure that the combs are really in the blue liquid and stuff like that and there’s but there’s no licensing yeah website so for there’s no licensing for state licensing for police officers which allows officers who are to quit from a department while they’re under the cloud of investigation and misconduct and move to another department that problem is exacerbated when records are not public so it can actually you know be administratively difficult for I mean certainly in California up until this point and in states where where there is a confidentiality for disciplinary records a department that is hiring a lateral officer can’t just go and look up their discipline they have to get you know a waiver signed by applicants they have to make sure that it’s all and it it doesn’t always happen and so I asked eeeem where there is States state certifying entity a licensing entity is something that there has been a move toward there are recommendations around at least the interim report of the 21st century Task Force on policing and and that would be an important piece of accountability long term Reed I mean I think in the Tamir rice situation as well as in a situation that recently happened in Pittsburgh both of those officers did this method which is the Fraternal Order of Police will tell police officers to resign a police department will want to get rid of them so they might actually write them a recommendation to go somewhere else and that’s the way that bad apples pew I mean I don’t necessarily think there are more bad apples in policing as in other professions but at the same time that process allows it to continue as relates to kind of community trust I think we have to push for policies that actually allow police officers to live near us so what I mean by that is police it’s a recent study that showed police officers as well as teachers actually can’t live in sixty of the major metropolitan areas in the United States they simply don’t know the people they have no empathy of course there are these other issues we’re talking about too but if you have a level of empathy and you’re living by certain people who you’re police it’s shown that if we go back in time that those sort of relationships start to build and then what that leads to is police officers starting to view everyone as a person who their kids could go to school with a person who they might go to church with a person who they see mowing their grass but instead what happens they might simply see them as a suspicious person and when they see them as such that leads to the host of outcomes that we’re talking about today so I want to extend a very very deep instance there thank you to our event staff my two interns are fabulous communications folks our facility college facilities colleagues our security colleagues of course cuejoe and to our fabulous panelists as well thank you all [Applause] thanks for watching be sure to LIKE and subscribe for more videos from Brookings