- Frederica Freyberg: Noble Wray, thanks very much for joining us.
- Noble Wray: Well, thanks for having me.
Appreciate it.
- So, are you at peace with the recommendation you gave
to the Kenosha DA not to charge the officer
who shot Jacob Blake and if so, why?
- I'm at peace with my decision,
what I provided to the DA
and that's more of a, kind of an intellectual process
that you go through.
Review of the law, the reports, the training,
training and standards as it relates to the individual case.
So, I'm at peace as it relates to that,
but like most Americans that saw that in August,
you can never be at peace when you see something like that.
You can never be at peace when you have a tragedy
that happens in your state like that.
It was a difficult process to go through.
I wanted to so bad
to be able to provide some insight
into issues related to reform,
issues related to injustice in America
in this case, since it received national attention.
But the realities of reviewing the case,
understanding state law,
understanding the constitutional parameters that guide me,
understanding issues related to use of force,
both as a practitioner, administrator,
and someone who has had to review these cases.
I was at peace with coming to that conclusion,
but I would never be at peace when a citizen,
an African-American male,
is shot on the city street
in the United States.
- In his interview with investigators,
Jacob Blake said, the officer,
"Didn't have to shoot him like that."
You're saying the officer did have to shoot him.
Why?
- Well, in the state of Wisconsin,
in terms of use of force,
once the decision was made to shoot
and all of those factors were there.
One, Jake was actively resisting, extremely resisting.
Two, there was a serious crime where they could not,
based upon the warrant
could not let Jake go
and they had to take him into custody.
And then, number three, Jake did place the officer
in eminent danger by thrusting the knife forward
by the close proximity.
The officer from a standard of preclusion
could not back away.
There were kids in the back seat.
There were extenuating circumstances.
You could not let Jake drive off.
So based upon the circumstances,
the officer did not,
the totality of what the officer was dealing with,
very short time period, rapidly evolving.
You would want officers
to look for the minimum amount of force necessary,
but they have already reached
what was a deadly force situation
when they decided to pull out their firearms
and they knew that Jake was armed.
- Why couldn't seven shots to the back
be considered excessive force?
- It could, depending upon the set of circumstances,
but in this particular case,
once the officer decided to shoot
and in Wisconsin training,
and this is really the training from a national standpoint.
What officers are trained now is to continue
to shoot
or to exercise deadly force until the threat has stopped.
And from the standpoint of the officer, that was a chill--
I can see that that knife has dropped
because you have the knife thrusting forward.
Now, when you put it in that context,
you also have to think about
that it took 2.5 to three seconds
for all of those shots to be fired.
And so the question is,
at what point in time during those shots that were fired
did Jake drop the knife?
It is very hard to conclude that
because it's very little objective information to review
as someone that had to review this case to say,
I could see it.
There was video tape.
Maybe he should have stopped at three.
Maybe he should've stopped at four.
So in reality, it is the analysis of the officer
at that particular time.
And so, when you think of three seconds,
and the seven rounds
that went off.
Then there's also some of the factors
that I put in my report
to try and to help people to understand
when an officer is going through that.
Some of the human things.
The ability to say it is time mentally to stop
because the threat has stopped,
but the gap between the mind saying it,
and then, the body reacting to it.
And so, there is a gap.
There's usually-- Most the experts in the field say
it's anywhere between one and a half to two seconds,
depending upon the circumstances
that the officer may find themselves in,
their training, their experience, their readiness.
So, it falls within a reasonable range.
And so the excessive nature of it, it does feel,
it does have that feel.
When I saw it, in the police profession,
they have this thing they call it "lawful, but awful."
It may be lawful, but it looks awful.
It really did.
And from the eye test, my reaction...
Of course, when I first saw it,
I did not know or think that Jake was armed,
to be perfectly honest with you.
So this was a difficult thing,
I think, in part, because in fairness
and the way people see use of force situations,
it is hard for us to wrap our mind
around shooting a human being in the back.
And that is a tough thing.
And I struggle with that,
reading this, all those thousands of pages of reports,
listening to dispatch tapes,
listening to audio of Jake, and listening to the officers.
I really did struggle with that.
- In announcing your recommendation,
you said that it has been a stressful endeavor
to be in policing for 37 years as an African-American male.
Describe why that is.
- It's a stressful endeavor to me
because I have not really retired.
I travel the nation talking about these issues,
the issues related to social justice,
issues related to fair and impartial policing,
as it relates to African-Americans
and African-American men, in particular,
how they're treated,
how police perceive African-American men.
I understand the research behind it.
I do understand that there is, by research,
a visual Black threat implicit bias
that when people see Black people, they see a threat.
That is visually,
and all of that is part of the Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt's study.
So I do understand,
not only from experiencing it as a Black man
raising Black children,
having brothers and sisters coming up in that system,
having been a police officer for so many years
inside of the system, having to supervise,
guide, direct, make decisions about it,
but also hearing the struggles that officers are having.
Hearing the struggles
'cause I also talked to community members
all over the United States,
hearing what they're struggling with, with this.
And so, we are in some ways stuck
on the issue of use of force.
I do have questions regarding the constitutional parameters
in which we operate in, and that is Graham versus Connor.
I think I know that California has tried to grapple
with changing or making some adjustments in that.
However, it is the law of the land.
It is constitutional, Graham versus Connor,
but I do struggle with that.
I struggle with the idea that in policing,
if we say that our goal is to stop someone,
is to stop a threat,
how come we have not come up
with a more innovative way to stop someone?
How come through technology, we have not come up with a way
to stop a human being?
Second amendment rights
are for those that want to keep and bear arms,
but it is not a condition of employment.
Police officers should have more tools available to them
to be able to
not only take evasive action,
take cover, create time, distance, and dialogue,
but they should have the technology tools
at this point in time in the 21st century
to stop a human being without using deadly force,
that is destructive as a firearm.
- Because a friend of the Blake family
and organizer in Kenosha lamented
your and the DA's decision saying
that we should not live in communities
where as Black people,
"If you step outside, you're fair game."
So, you understand what she's saying?
- I understand it and in so many ways,
and that is the struggle,
because I understand it from a police officer.
African-American police officers feel the same way.
I understand it from a personal standpoint.
I feel that way.
I have, like I said, I have sons.
Now, I have grandsons.
I feel that way.
It is like this heavy weight that sits over us
that is kind of pervasive,
that it is a weight
that the justice system,
it just seems like it hangs over being Black in America.
- Under one police reform proposal
in the state of Wisconsin,
the standard for use of force would change
to using deadly force only as the last resort.
Would that have changed your recommendation
had that been in place?
- Wow, that's a good question
because many of these things are situational.
They're the totalic circumstances.
The other thing that I think what people miss in this,
I am obligated
not to necessarily second guess the officer,
hindsight being 2020.
That is the guidance of the Supreme Court.
So it is very situational.
I'm not sure if that would have changed
under that standard as a last resort.
However, I do believe that that dialogue
and that discussion needs to change
because we use the term objectively reasonable.
That means that we have an objective standard
that we look at this,
that what would the reasons,
what would another reasonable officer do
under a similar set of circumstances?
I think we all really think about this.
If we thoroughly think about it,
there's no way when you start talking
about someone viewing this as a human being
that some level of subjectivity will come through.
And I know that as a national trainer in implicit biases.
Your thoughts, your ideas, your training, your experience
is going to creep through.
There's no way to be totally objective.
So, I think there's a lot going on here.
I hope that if that is being pursued, that it is pursued
because I think we need to, from a training standpoint,
Wisconsin training and standard standpoint,
I think we need to go back to this idea of,
you know,
you don't stop shooting until you stop the threat.
I think that does deserve
some more dialogue and understanding.
I think by introducing a law
that says, the last resort
would cause us to go back and look at that.
In my report,
that's the last thing I ended on my report.
I said that we still need to focus on the sanctity of life.
And what I meant by that is just that.
I don't think we're doing enough in this.
The parameters that we have to use to judge this
puts us in a framework where we don't have the flexibility
of being able to think out of the box.
Now obviously,
those that are in the policing profession right now
would probably push back on it because it is a tough job.
It is tough when you are exercising and using deadly force
to make that in a split second decision
with all of these things going on.
But I do think the obligation for us
to look at this as a last resort,
but have a framework to work with,
it would be really important.
- On another matter and unrelated,
what is your response to the US Capitol Police
basically losing control to the Trump mob as it were,
compared to response in Washington and elsewhere
to Black Lives Matter protesters?
- Clearly, they were not prepared.
Clearly, there was a differential response.
Everyone that watched the protests
that took place in the spring and the summer
post George Floyd saw this.
I watched this unfold in this last week.
Watching it yesterday,
could see that they did not have a visible presence
that was necessary to deter.
They did not have the available presence
because once this started, they didn't even have a response.
They didn't have the people.
The officers that were there available to respond.
There is a differential response.
It is clear.
And you would have to be blind
not to be able to do the comparison contrast
on what took place on the Lincoln Memorial at that response.
That was that very visible presence.
You knew Black Lives Matter.
Protesters knew that they were going to be met with force
because they had the visible presence out there.
They did not have that.
It was very clear yesterday.
No one can argue that.
The former chief of Washington, DC mentioned,
on one hand, he was saying
that he's not going to argue the point,
of the presence that they had with Black Lives Matter
if you want to take that route,
but the reality is is that they did not have enough
and it was painfully obvious, they didn't have enough.
- So you just described it as painfully obvious.
What was your reaction when you saw that
and realized that that was happening?
- My reaction was from an African-American in this society
is why is that happening that way?
It almost appeared to be, to me
to come across as intentional.
It was so obvious that there were not enough people.
You have a national event taking place.
But from a policing standpoint,
I had mixed feelings, obviously.
I knew that the officers that were out there
were trying their best.
They were trying their best to do it.
So, I've been in those situations, you know,
being given Mifflin street and Halloween here in Madison,
where you want to put people
in their best position to succeed.
I don't think the leadership,
Capitol police, put those folks
in the best position to succeed and were very lucky
that war did not happen in this whole thing
or people who were not hurt or the potential loss of life.
- Yeah.
All right, well, very, very interesting
to hear from you on that
and certainly on the other extremely important
and enduring matter.
Noble Wray, thank you so much.
- Thank you.