BETWEEN POLICING AND RACE IS OUR
NEXT GUEST, THE FORMER MADISON
POLICE CHIEF, IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
FOR MORE THAN 35 YEARS, A
CONSULTANT FOR THE U.S. JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT ON COMMUNITY AND
POLICE RELATIONS AND THE EXPERT
WHO UPHELD THE DECISION TO NOT
CHARGE THE KENOSHA POLICE
OFFICER WHO SHOT JACOB BLAKE.
NOBLE WRAY SAYS HE ADD ADVOCATES
FOR POLICE AND POLICE REFORM.
WE GET HIS TAKE ON THE DEREK CHA
UVIN VERDICT.
CHIEF, THANKS VERY MUCH FOR
BEING HERE.
>> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THE INVITATION.
>> SO WHAT WAS YOUR REEF ACTION
TO THE VERDICT, BOTH AS A MEMBER
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FROM A
PERSONAL STANDPOINT?
>> FROM A PERSONAL STANDPOINT,
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT JUMPED
OUT AS I WATCHED THAT WERE THE
CITIZENS THAT WERE OBSERVING
WHAT WAS GOING ON.
AND FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, THEY
WERE NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR
FORM BEING ADVERSARIAL.
THEY WERE JUST DESCRIBING HOW
THEY FELT, WHAT WAS ACTUALLY
HAPPENING.
AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS SOMETHING
THAT WAS MISSED IN THIS.
THEY REALLY WERE CITIZENS THAT
CARED ABOUT GEORGE FLOYD AND I
THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS MISSED IN
THE WHOLE TRIAL AND WHAT WAS
GOING ON.
>> SO WHAT WAS IT LIKE FROM BOTH
PERSPECTIVES, TO HEAR THE
TESTIMONY AND REPEATEDLY SEE THE
INDIVIDUAL YOAF OF THE OFFICERS'
ACTIONS THAT RESULTED IN THE
OFFICER'S MURDER CONVICTION?
>> THIS WAS A NO-BRAINER FROM
THE BEGINNING.
I THOUGHT AND MANY IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT THOUGHT THAT THIS
WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CLEARLY
AN EXCESSIVE FORCE CASE.
IT WAS NINE MINUTES AND SO MANY
SECONDS.
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT I THINK
MOST PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD STRAIGHT
FROM THE GATE.
AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO BE A LAW
ENFORCEMENT EXPERT TO BE ABLE TO
DETERMINE THAT THIS WAS AN
INDICTMENT ON HUMANITY.
>> SO WITH 37 YEARS IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT THEN, WOULD YOU
DESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENED TO GEORGE
FLOYD AS AN OUT OUTLIER IN
POLICE PRACTICE OR AN EXAMPLE OF
ALL TOO COMMON USE OF FORCE,
ESPECIALLY AGAINST PEOPLE OF
COLOR?
>> I REALLY THINK THAT THESE
CASES SHOULD BE DEALT WITH ON A
CASE BY CASE BASIS BECAUSE
THEY'RE SO COMPLEX.
THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO
RECOGNIZE IS THE FRAMEWORK IN
WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID
THIS OUT, OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE
, THAT I DON'T THINK
WE'RE GOING TO GET DIFFERENT
RESULTS AND I THINK THE PUBLIC
EXPECTS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET
DIFFERENT RESULTS WHEN IT'S
FRAMED OUT BASED UPON HOW THE
SUPREME COURT HAS LAID THIS OUT,
THE SUBJECTIVELY REASONABLE
STANDARD.
>> SO WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT
THAT, THAT OBJECTIVE
REASONABLENESS STANDARD?
IT KIND OF DEPENDS, RIGHT, ON
WHO YOU'RE CALLING OBJECTIVE TO
MEET THAT THRESHOLD?
AND WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THAT IF
YOU ARE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT
REFORM?
>> THE REALITY IS ALTHOUGH WE
REFER TO IT AS BEING OBJECTIVE
AND REASONABLE, BECAUSE YOU'RE
DEALING WITH SOMEONE'S JUDGMENT,
HIS SUBJECTIVITY IS ALWAYS HERE.
AND SO AS LONG AS WE ARE JUDGING
THIS, YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE A
SUBJECTIVE PART OF THE ANALYSIS
THAT WILL TAKE PLACE HERE.
AND I DON'T THINK PEOPLE REALIZE
THAT.
IT IS WHAT A REASONABLE OFFICER
WOULD DO UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND
THAT.
BUT THERE'S STILL A LEVEL OF
SUBJECTIVITY THAT WE HAVE TO
ACCOUNT FOR.
>> AS TO THAT, HAVE STRIEFDZ
BEEN MADE IN MITIGATING IMPLICIT
BASIS WHERE LAW ENFORCEMENT SEE
BLACK PEOPLE, THEY SEE A THREAT?
>> YEAH.
I MEAN, THE RESEARCH IT OUT
THERE.
I MEAN, THERE IS A BLACK THREAT
IMPLICIT BIAS.
THERE'S DATA, THERE'S RESEARCH,
THERE'S EM PEEFER PEER --
EMPIRICAL INFORMATION OUT THERE
THAT WOULD SHOW.
HERE'S THE THING IN TERMS OF THE
BLACK THREAT IMPLICIT BIAS, MANY
POLICE OFFICERS ARE NOW STARTING
TO PULL BACK, BECAUSE THEY DON'T
WANT TO BE THE CNN, THE FOX NEWS
, THE SOCIAL MEDIA EXAMPLE.
SO THEY ARE PULLING BACK ON SOME
OF THE ACTIVITIES AND ACTIONS
THAT THEY WOULD TAKE, BOTH IN
THE AREA OF USE OF FORCE AS WELL
AS THE WORK.
>> SO THAT WOULD BE REGARDED, I
TRUST, AS A GOOD THING.
>> IN SOME RESPECTS, IT'S A GOOD
THING.
IN SOME RESPECTS, IT'S NOT.
BECAUSE PROACTIVE POLICE,
ENGAGING WITH COMMUNITY, TALKING
TO PEOPLE, EXPLAINING WHAT
YOU'RE DOING, ENGAGING WITH
COMMUNITY IS THE HEART AND SOUL
OF COMMUNITY POLICING.
SO IF WE'VE GOT POLICE OFFICERS
THAT ARE PULLING BACK, THEY'RE
NOT ENGAGING, THAT'S THE
DOWNSIDE.
THE PART IN THIS WHERE I THINK
OFFICERS ARE THINKING THROUGH
THIS ONE IS THE USE OF FORCE.
YOU KNOW, HOW DO I APPROACH THIS
SHOULD I SLOW DOWN?
SHOULD I CREATE DISTANCE?
ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR POLICE
OFFICERS NOT TO ENGAGE IN USES
OF FORCE.
>> YOU SAID AT THE CONCLUSION OF
YOUR JACOB BLAKE REVIEW THAT THE
POLICING FIELD MUST CONTINUE TO
FOCUS ON THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN
LIFE IN DEALING WITH DEADLY
FORCE.
HOW DOES THE POLICING FIELD GET
THERE AND STAY THE FOCUS ON THE
SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE?
>> I DON'T THINK, FREDERICA,
THAT WE HAVE PUSHED HARD ENOUGH
ON, YOU KNOW, THIS IDEA THAT WE
HAVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, FIREARMS
AS PART OF ENDING THIS.
I REALLY DON'T.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS GUARANTEED TO
CITIZENS.
IT IS NOT GUARANTEED TO POLICE
OFFICERS.
WE SHOULD BE PUSHING HARDER AS A
PROFESSION, THAT WE CAN STOP A
HUMAN BEING WITHOUT TAKING A
LIFE.
THAT IS SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.
I DON'T THINK AS A PROFESSION, I
THINK WE FAIL IN THAT ARENA.
>> NOBLE WRAY, THANK YOU VERY