The Anchormen Show with Matt Gaetz - Episode 21 - Breaking Down the Democrats' Police Reform Bill

00:00:00.000 Welcome to Hot Takes. This is Congressman Matt Gaetz. Let's talk about the news. And

00:00:21.360 the news of the day is surrender in some of America's major cities. In the city of Minneapolis,

00:00:26.920 the police department is going to be not just defunded, not reformed, not changed,

00:00:32.860 but dismantled by their city council. And one of the city council members from Minneapolis was on

00:00:38.620 CNN with Allison Camerata and just a remarkable exchange. Take a listen. Do you understand that

00:00:45.680 the word dismantle or police free also makes some people nervous? For instance, what if in the middle

00:00:52.420 of the night, my home is broken into? Who do I call? Yes. I mean, I hear that loud and clear

00:00:58.320 from a lot of my neighbors. And I know, and myself too, and I know that that comes from a place of

00:01:03.520 privilege because for those of us for whom the system is working, I think we need to step back

00:01:09.420 and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may

00:01:15.360 mean more harm is done. Sometimes the call doesn't come from a place of privilege. It calls from a

00:01:21.160 place of fear, concern for your family. You know, I mean, when someone calls 911, because there's an

00:01:27.740 intruder in their home, and they're concerned for their children, they don't want a social worker to

00:01:31.920 show up. They don't want someone to show up who can counsel them through their white guilt. They want 0.60

00:01:37.140 someone who can neutralize a threat. That's what we have to have in society. And I am not expecting

00:01:43.860 this trend of dismantling the police to sweep our nation. But when you see that Mayor Garcetti is

00:01:50.580 taking action like this in the city of Los Angeles, when you see in Washington, D.C., Mariel Bowser

00:01:56.740 not stating with conviction and courage that defund police is not part of the Black Lives Matter

00:02:02.980 mantra that she has used the imprimatur of government to establish in Lafayette Square. It's a real slide.

00:02:10.020 It's something that we can't tolerate. And I sure hope that in the right and proper and

00:02:16.740 just thinking communities across this great country that we stand with those who are willing to stand

00:02:22.260 against the criminals. I joined Lou Dobbs to make very clear that I stood for order in our streets and

00:02:30.020 protection for our citizens against the angry mob. Here's my exchange with Lou Dobbs. As we look across the

00:02:35.940 country, we see a vision from the radical left that is downright terrifying. They want to lock us in our

00:02:41.860 homes, take our guns away, make the jobs that had us prosperous illegal, and then they want to

00:02:47.620 defund the police while a radical mob runs down the street lighting things on fire, throwing cinder blocks

00:02:53.700 and crashing our cars. I have no interest in that, America. I want an America where we support the police,

00:02:59.780 where we utilize every resource available to ensure that they're responsive to their communities. And

00:03:05.220 the overwhelming number of people who wear that uniform, whether it's in our law enforcement or in

00:03:10.740 our National Guard, they do it because they love America and they love Americans. And we need to stand

00:03:16.740 with them and against these riots that seem to be terrorizing people in the name of a politics that is

00:03:22.660 radical and leftist. This week, the House Judiciary Committee will meet to consider legislation

00:03:27.620 on the issue of police reform. Democrats unveiled that legislation yesterday. We're starting to get

00:03:34.020 into our review and research of it. And I thought I'd talk about some of the key elements where I think

00:03:39.300 there might be areas of agreement and where there may be some concern that the outcomes that my colleagues

00:03:45.300 desire for safer communities might not be fully achieved if you create a withdrawal from police

00:03:51.860 engagement in areas where that engagement is absolutely needed. But let's talk about the first

00:03:56.580 major element of the Democrat police reform legislation, and it's to ban the chokehold.

00:04:02.980 Now, I've not ever been in a chokehold. I can't imagine the experience would be all that pleasant.

00:04:08.820 But it does beg the question, if any police are in an environment with someone that they need to

00:04:14.580 neutralize who's not being compliant, what are the tools that you want at the police's disposal?

00:04:20.020 We certainly don't want them to start by using lethal force. So obviously,

00:04:24.260 you want to begin with your non-lethal options. And certainly, you don't want anything that's going

00:04:28.900 to create any lasting impact. You want a temporary neutralization of someone who is resisting the

00:04:35.380 verbal commands of police. So if the chokehold is not going to be one of the tools, you have to look

00:04:40.900 at what other options might be available. Now, some places use arm bars. That could potentially break an

00:04:47.460 arm. It also leaves someone with the ability to sort of move the other side of their body,

00:04:52.660 which could escalate a situation into the need for lethal force. So a lot of the research I've seen

00:04:59.620 on sort of the arm bar as an approach concludes with the analysis that it can actually escalate

00:05:06.340 violence. Because if you're not able to fully neutralize someone into a submissive state,

00:05:11.700 that then you maintain that level of conflict, where you could get a firearm involved,

00:05:16.660 or have some other death or injury that there would be a tragic outcome in an encounter that

00:05:21.860 wouldn't have to reach that level. So arm bar potentially bad. But I have to say, I did read

00:05:27.700 a very interesting piece in on a website called police one, and we'll throw it up on our social media

00:05:33.860 platforms. LVNR lateral vascular neck restraint. So the principle here is that if the chokehold constrains the

00:05:44.980 windpipe and the oxygen and the way that it maintains the compliance of the suspect

00:05:49.540 is to limit their ability to breathe, and then when one doesn't breathe, they obviously become

00:05:54.660 highly compliant to be able to get air in their lungs. But this says that if you instead constrain

00:06:01.060 the lateral blood vessels that are on the side of the neck, so think not right in front of the windpipe,

00:06:06.180 but sort of under the ears, moving down under the jaws, that you can limit the blood flow to the brain,

00:06:12.580 which can get someone similarly unable to resist, but that it doesn't limit their ability to get

00:06:18.980 oxygen into the lungs, which we all know we need to live. And I read about this in police one as an

00:06:24.820 option, someone's breaking it down. I also read about the experience using LVNR in Kansas City.

00:06:31.300 The Kansas City Star also has a piece again, these are like 2013-2014 that the literature is coming out,

00:06:37.940 and it talks about how in Kansas City, this has reduced the complaints for excessive use of force.

00:06:45.620 It has reduced the number of instances where force has resulted in corresponding litigation,

00:06:52.820 or other medical issues. And it seems to be a pretty positive experience there.

00:06:58.580 Now, it has not been an entirely positive experience. There has also been circumstances

00:07:03.940 where when you don't get that blood flow to the brain, you can have an elevated risk of stroke.

00:07:08.340 And there was actually a case where two officers were involved in training,

00:07:12.660 and that stroke risk came to fruition. And there was actually litigation over the officer training

00:07:18.420 on this restriction of the lateral blood vessels into the brain. So I think that we can really

00:07:24.260 depoliticize this. I mean, we can get the best minds in the room on what types of restraints

00:07:30.420 are effective and not creating an escalating situation where more violence would be necessary.

00:07:35.780 But at the same time, I think that we've got to ensure that we don't allow that lethal force to

00:07:41.620 become the next step in as many circumstances as possible. And so if there's a way to utilize

00:07:45.780 blood vessels as opposed to airflow, if there's a way to substantially reduce, manage that stroke risk,

00:07:52.740 we want to look at that too. But I think that this is a perfect place for Republicans and Democrats to

00:07:59.220 come together with law enforcement and figure out, is there a smarter, better way to keep people safe,

00:08:05.380 to keep law enforcement safe, and to keep all the tools on the table that law enforcement would need

00:08:10.580 in terms of obtaining the compliance to not escalate police violence.

00:08:15.220 Another issue being discussed by Democrats for potential legislation is a change in the legal

00:08:21.220 immunity status of police officers. Now, some of this gets into some complicated matters of law,

00:08:26.900 but I'm going to try to break it down. And you have to start by asking the question,

00:08:30.900 well, what is the current state of play if someone feels like they're abused by a police officer and

00:08:36.740 they want to utilize our courts to vindicate their constitutional rights? And the answer to that is

00:08:42.180 something called a Section 1983 claim. And there you have to allege that someone has deprived you

00:08:48.740 of a clearly established constitutional right under the color of state law. And if someone does that,

00:08:55.220 then you have the ability to sue them in their official capacity, obtain a judgment against them,

00:09:00.340 attain monetary relief, even obtain injunctive relief against that person, depending on the

00:09:06.500 circumstance. And so it makes you wonder, well, why is that that system not working now? Are there

00:09:13.620 elements of negligence or areas where we're not doing our job to keep law enforcement trained, where we

00:09:20.260 could shore up the law and make very clear that if someone is clearly violating the well-established

00:09:26.340 constitutional rights of someone, that they ought to be held to account in our justice system, that

00:09:31.140 in fact, a court is a far better way to redress your grievance than throwing a cinder block through,

00:09:38.020 you know, a Nike store and walking out with whatever goods you'd like as a form of faux political speech.

00:09:44.420 So here we use the court as a venue. We allow a Section 1983 claim. And there's one particular

00:09:50.660 case that I found interesting. It was Canton v. Harris. It's a Supreme Court case that lays out the

00:09:57.220 standard to bring a lawsuit for the failure to train someone. And if we can develop some clear standards

00:10:06.420 for training when it comes to chokeholds, when it comes to the use of lethal force, then, you know,

00:10:13.300 there might be a mechanism by which we look at the ways someone would vindicate their rights

00:10:18.500 to make a failure to train claim. And as I looked at the jurisprudence today, you have to prove that

00:10:24.100 the training was the lack of training, I should say, was deliberate interference in a constitutional right

00:10:31.140 and that there is some proximate cause between the failure to provide that training and the injury.

00:10:36.980 For example, if someone was killed because there was not good training on how to use a weapon,

00:10:43.460 you probably couldn't use the lack of training on a chokehold as the basis to bring that claim. So

00:10:49.460 ensuring that there's causation between the lack of the training and the injury seems important.

00:10:54.180 And so I think that under this current Section 1983 standard, under the jurisprudence that I

00:10:59.780 reviewed saying that even if there's a lack of training or awareness about correct standards,

00:11:04.340 that there's a way to bring an action, you know, I am at this moment unconvinced

00:11:09.060 that altering the immunities that law enforcement enjoys will give us a greater probability of

00:11:14.820 getting out the bad actors. There is the concept of a national registry of people and the incidents

00:11:22.500 involved in the claims that are made against them regarding police abuse. And I think there's a way

00:11:28.180 for state attorneys general to have a platform to be able to share information, to be able to find

00:11:33.780 bad apples. Look, I stand with the police. I stand against these riots. I think that there are so much

00:11:40.100 of the protest culture that is an over generalized indictment of our country and our law enforcement.

00:11:46.580 I think that when there's one bad apple in a department, that doesn't indict the whole organization

00:11:53.140 because of one bad person. I mean, heck, we have bad people in Congress. We find all the time. We

00:11:57.460 had one guy that was writing love letters to his staff. When we when we figured that out, you know,

00:12:02.020 he left the Congress. We did not disband the entire United States Congress because one guy did something

00:12:08.260 wrong. I mean, I had one colleague who propositioned to have a threesome with his secretary and a lobbyist.

00:12:14.340 And again, and then use taxpayer money to go and pay off their sexual, the sexual harassment claim

00:12:22.180 of the staffer. We didn't dissolve the Judiciary Committee because he happened to serve on the

00:12:26.500 Judiciary Committee. We found a way to reconcile an accountability for his precise actions. So I mean,

00:12:32.740 when one police officer does something in one case, I don't think that that imputes to every law

00:12:38.020 enforcement officer or every person in their department. But but I think it is important

00:12:44.020 to ensure that we have a way to root out the bad apples. And if there's a way with

00:12:49.380 some sharing of information and greater transparency about complaints while giving people due process,

00:12:55.780 I think that's important. I don't think you label people without due process. I think you could actually

00:13:01.220 build some good out of this and ensure that the good police officers that hate to see this conflict

00:13:07.140 in our communities have the tools to to clean up their own community. And I think they need to have

00:13:12.260 that opportunity. And I think that in a society that still very much deals with race as an element of

00:13:17.700 how we interact with each other and how we see ourselves and how we see the circumstances that we

00:13:23.620 find ourselves and others in, you know, having that ability to track instances to be able to utilize data

00:13:31.300 would seemingly be a very positive contribution that my Democrat colleagues could be making and they

00:13:36.100 could find themselves with a good deal of Republican support. The Democrats have included in their

00:13:42.500 legislation also a prohibition against no knock warrants. So if you're wondering what a no knock

00:13:48.740 warrant is, it's a circumstance where the government has gone before a judge and proven that if you give

00:13:55.620 the subject of the warrant notice that the warrant is going to be executed, that that could potentially

00:14:02.260 lead to the destruction of evidence, the moving of evidence that could lead to physical harm to other

00:14:08.500 witnesses, it could lead to harm to law enforcement. So in some cases, a judge has to have a higher

00:14:14.180 standard than a regular warrant, and they issue a no knock warrant. And there have been cases where these

00:14:20.100 no knock warrants have tragic, tragic outcomes where people who would not have otherwise lost their life

00:14:28.020 due as a consequence of that elevated attention and that that elevated anticipation regarding the entry

00:14:34.660 of a premises without warning. But it does beg the question, if you didn't have no knock warrants,

00:14:41.140 what would be the consequence? Would you put more law enforcement in danger? Would you put more

00:14:45.860 witnesses in danger? I mean, these things are used in like 20,000 cases each and every year. And I'm

00:14:53.060 concerned that if you make a fundamental change there, you really better know what you're doing.

00:14:58.580 And I would have to see a lot more evidence. Again, we only got this piece of legislation

00:15:02.500 yesterday, but I would have to see a lot more evidence that there would be a way to keep the

00:15:06.660 public, others around, innocent bystanders and law enforcement safe in instances where that type of

00:15:12.980 notice could create a far more dangerous environment for people. And if you get rid of no knock warrants,

00:15:20.420 and if you get rid of the qualified immunity that police enjoy, I think one of the logical

00:15:27.620 outcomes we can anticipate as a society is a pullback of police. And it's something that the

00:15:33.620 media and researchers have written a lot about called the Ferguson effect. So I want to talk about

00:15:39.140 the Ferguson effect. There's a great piece in USA Today in January of 2017 by Amur Madhami, and it

00:15:46.980 talks about three fourths of law enforcement being more reluctant after these high profile

00:15:54.900 encounters leading to protests with police and African American victims, three fourths of law

00:16:00.580 enforcement. And this was even before the Floyd case saying that they are more reluctant to engage.

00:16:06.580 And it cites a Pew Research study of over 8,000 law enforcement officers. And you even have people that

00:16:13.780 that the left has gravitated to voices like Rahm Emanuel saying, gosh, you know, we've got to have

00:16:19.460 an engaged, proactive police department. The study and the data quote, Jim Comey, who was the FBI

00:16:27.860 director of some fame and of some very negative consequences saying that that he had seen a pullback

00:16:34.660 in police following some of these cases. And so if you look at the Ferguson case, if you look at what

00:16:41.700 has happened in Baltimore, Washington, other places following some of these high profile

00:16:47.460 shootings of African Americans by law enforcement, you do see law enforcement less likely to have that

00:16:53.780 proactive approach Rahm Emanuel talked about, less likely to really go forward and ensure that

00:17:00.340 communities are safe from those who might be legitimately committing crimes out of fear that it could

00:17:05.140 create a high profile encounter. And, you know, the people who are hurt most by a law enforcement

00:17:11.060 pullback are not the folks in the whitest parts of white suburbia. It's folks in lower income

00:17:18.660 communities. It's folks in minority communities. It's folks in urban communities that suffer greatest 1.00

00:17:23.860 when there is a law enforcement pullback. And so I do not believe that is our destiny. I think that

00:17:29.380 if we come together and acknowledge that there are improvements we can make to policing, just like

00:17:34.660 there are improvements we can make to every profession, there's an acknowledgement of how

00:17:38.820 to treat people better in policing, just like we could do so in medicine or in the practice of law

00:17:44.820 or accounting or constituent service in the United States Congress, we can make it all better

00:17:49.860 by getting the best science, the best data. I think that's where we can have a nonpartisan exercise.

00:17:55.540 But if you start to see in the House Judiciary Committee and then beyond a continuation of this

00:18:00.900 defund the police, delegitimize, dismantle, surrender mentality, if we start to take the

00:18:07.220 view that there are some places where law enforcement should simply throw their hands up

00:18:11.940 and allow communities to deal with whatever savage element would harm the weak or the disabled or

00:18:18.740 the young or the old or those who are unable to defend themselves, well, I'm not for that. And I don't 1.00

00:18:23.380 think our country should be for that. And that will be a circumstance where Republicans stand on the

00:18:28.580 side of law abiding people who deserve to have the law enforced. And I think there are ways we can

00:18:34.340 enforce that law better, more fairly, more effectively. And that is something that should unite all Americans.

00:18:42.500 Thanks for listening. This has been Congressman Matt Gaetz. Be sure to leave us a five star review and a

00:18:47.860 comment or a suggestion or even a criticism. I love your hot takes and I hope you'll be back tomorrow for mine.

The Anchormen Show with Matt Gaetz - June 09, 2020

Episode 21 - Breaking Down the Democrats' Police Reform Bill

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript