>>> THIS IS S"METROFOCUS."

♪ >>"METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM.

THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND.

BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, THE AMBROSE MONELL FOUNDATION AND BY -- JANET PRINDLE SEIDLER, JODY AND JOHN ARNHOLD, CHERYL AND PHILIP MILSTEIN FAMILY, JUDY AND JOSH WESTON, AND THE DR. ROBERT C. AND TINA SOHN FOUNDATION, THE JPB FOUNDATION.

♪ >>> GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO "METROFOCUS."

I'M JACK FORD.

FOR YEARS, A FORMER NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER INSISTED THAT SHE WAS WRONGLY FIRED FROM HER JOB FOR TRYING TO STOP A WHITE COLLEAGUE FROM USING A CHOKEHOLD ON A BLACK MAN.

CARIOL HORNE LOST HER JOB, BUT THAT DID NOT STOP HER FIGHT FOR JUSTICE.

HER PERSEVERANCE PAID OFF.

A STATE SUPREME COURT JUDGE OVERTURNED HER FIRING.

HE ALSO REFERENCED A NEW DUTY TO INTERVENE STATUTE CALLED CARIOL'S LAW THAT HAS BEEN ENACTED RECENTLY BY THE CITY OF BUFFALO.

TONIGHT AS PART OF OUR CHASING THE DREAM INITIATIVE ON POVERTY, JUSTICE AND OPPORTUNITY IN AMERICA, WE'RE SPOTLIGHTING HER FIGHT FOR JUSTICE AS WELL AS HER PUSH FOR NATIONAL POLICE REFORM.

WE'RE DELIGHTED TO HAVE JOINING US RIGHT NOW TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF THIS CARIOL HORNE AND PROFESSOR ROB WHO IS A COLEAD ATTORNEY ON CARIOL'S CASE AND PROFESSOR OF LAW AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> CARIOL, I WILL START WITH YOU TO GIVE US SOME CONTEXT FOR THIS CONVERSATION FROM OUR VIEWERS AND ASK YOU TO GO BACK TO 2006 AND TELL US WHAT HAPPENED.

>> SO ON NOVEMBER 1st OF 2006, I ANSWERED A OFFICER IN TROUBLE CALL.

SO I WENT TO THE HOUSE EXPECTING THE OFFICERS TO BE IN TROUBLE AND NEEDING ASSISTANCE.

BUT WHEN I WALKED INTO THE HOUSE NEIL MAX WAS IN HANDCUFFS AND BEING PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY THE OFFICER.

SO HE WAS PEPPER SPRAYED AND HE HAD BEEN BEAT PRIOR TO ME GETTING THERE, SO I DIDN'T KNOW SOME OF THOSE DETAILS UNTIL AFTER THE HEARING STARTED.

BUT THEN ONCE WE GOT HIM OUT OF THE HOUSE, WE WERE WALKING TO OUR VEHICLES BECAUSE AS FAR AS WE WERE CONCERNED, ME AND OTHER OFFICERS, THE SITUATION WAS OVER.

GREGORY KWIATKOWSKI CHOKED HIM WITH HIS ARM AROUND HIS NECK.

I SAID, GREG, YOU'RE CHOKING HIM.

I GOT INTO THE POLICE CAR, CALLED THE CHIEF, TOLD HER WHAT HAPPENED AND AN INVESTIGATION STARTED AND I BECAME THE TARGET.

>> HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN A POLICE OFFICER BEFORE THIS INCIDENT TOOK PLACE?

>> 18 YEARS.

>> HAD YOU EVER EXPERIENCED A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE YOU FELT THAT YOU NEEDED TO INTERVENE WITH REGARD TO A COLLEAGUE'S ACTIONS FOR A SUSPECT?

>> I DID, BUT I DIDN'T INTERVENE BECAUSE I WAS A NEW OFFICER AND I SAID, YOU KNOW, TO MYSELF IF THEY HIT HIM ONE MORE TIME, I'M GOING TO STOP THEM, ONE MORE TIME, TWO MORE TIMES, THREE MORE TIMES HITTING THE GUY IN THE HEAD WITH A FLASHLIGHT AND I DD NOT DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.

I DIDN'T KNOW WHO TO TELL.

>> SO YOU MENTIONED THAT AFTER THIS HAPPENED, YOU BECAME THE TARGET OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.

>> YES.

>> I MENTIONED IN THE INTRODUCTION THAT FOLLOWING THAT, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY A HEARING OFFICER AND FOLLOWING THAT YOU WERE ACTUALLY FIRED FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

>> YES.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER OFFICER INVOLVED?

WHAT HAPPENED, IF ANYTHING, WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER OFFICER?

>> HE WAS PROMOTED AND HE CONTINUED TO BEAT ON PEOPLE.

HE CHOKED AN OFFICER THAT WAS ON DUTY.

HE EVENTUALLY WENT TO JAIL FOR SLAMMING FOURT TEENS' HEADS INT A POLICE CAR.

HE WENT TO FEDERAL PRISON FOR THAT AND HE ALSO RECEIVED HIS PENSION.

>> PROFESSOR, WHAT WAS IT ABOUT CARIOL'S CASE THAT ATTRACTED YOU TO IT?

>> CARIOL, QUITE SIMPLY, DID THE RIGHT THING AND INSTEAD OF BEING REWARDED FOR IT AND HAILED AS THE HERO THAT SHE IS FOR SAVING A MAN'S LIFE, SHE WAS PUNISHED.

FIGHT FOR JUSTICE FOR HER.

WHEN WE CAME IN LAST SUMMER, MY COLLEAGUE AND I RON SULLIVAN IMMEDIATELY THOUGHT THIS WAS THE TYPE OF CASE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE OF ASSISTANCE WITH, WE WOULD LIKE TO HELP CARIOL GET JUSTICE.

WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS POSSIBLE, BUT WE DIDN'T EXPECT IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN ANSWER FOR ALL THOSE TELLING CARIOL SHE WAS TOO LATE, HER COMPLAINTS WERE TIME BARRED, ISSUE PRECLUDED, THAT SORT OF THING.

WE KNEW WE HAD TO FIND A WAY TO GET JUSTICE FOR CARIOL, AND THE THREE OF US WORKED TO DO THAT.

>> LET ME ASK YOU TO THEN ASSUME YOUR ROLE AS PROFESSOR AND EXPLAIN TO ALL OF US.

THE INCIDENT HAPPENED IN 2006.

THE FILING HAPPENED IN 2008 AND NOW WE HAVE IN 2021 A DECISION BY A JUDGE.

THERE WERE EARLIER DECISIONS.

GIVE US A QUICK TIMELINE, IF YOU WILL, AS TO HOW THIS CASE HAS PLAYED OUT.

>> SO THE QUICK TIMELINE IS THAT THE INCIDENT OCCURRED IN 2006.

THERE WERE SOME INTERNAL PROCEDURES AS CARIOL TALKED ABOUT THAT LED ULTIMATELY TO HER SUSPENSION AND DISMISSAL.

IN 2008 A HEARING OFFICER ISSUED A TERMINATION ORDER THAT FORMALLY ENDED HER JOB AS A POLICE OFFICER BACK THEN.

AND THEN THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, THE SAME COURT THAT JUST REVERSED THIS DECISION, IN 2010, AFFIRMED THE TERMINATION.

SO FROM 2010 UNTIL 2021, CARIOL AND HER TEAM HAVE BEEN FIGHTING UNSUCCESSFULLY UNTIL THIS MOMENT TO OVERTURN THAT 2008 AND 2010 DECISION.

THE JUDGE IN THE CASE VACATED BOTH OF THEM.

AND HE DID A REALLY REMARKABLE THING.

HE SAID, IT'S AS IF SHE WAS REINSTATED TO HER POSITION AS A POLICE OFFICER IN 2008 FOR THAT WHOLE TWO-YEAR PERIOD.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS NOW, CARIOL WAS A POLICE OFFICER FROM 2008 TO 2010 BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDGE'S DECISION.

>> AS IF SHE HAD WON BACK THEN.

AN EXTRAORDINARY PERIOD OF TIME WENT BY.

PROFESSOR, WHAT CHANGED TO ALLOW THIS JUDGMENT?

WE SHOULD LET PEOPLE KNOW WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, THAT'S THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL IN NEW YORK STATE.

NEW YORK STATE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

THEIR COURT OF APPEALS IS WHAT OTHER STATES CALL THEIR SUPREME COURT.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TRIAL LEVEL COURT HERE.

WHAT CHANGED TO ALLOW THIS JUDGE TO REVERSE THIS WHOLE THING?

>> THEY SAY HINDSIGHT IS 2020, AND I THINK 2020 GAVE US A LOT OF HINDSIGHT.

THIS CASE CAME AFTER THE KILLING OF GEORGE FLOYD, THE KILLING OF BREONNA TAYLOR, A RASH OF EXCESSIVE USES OF POLICE FORCE SUCH THAT THEY HAVE BEEN GOING ON JUST LIKE CARIOL RECITED TO US FROM HER OWN EXPERIENCE, BUT NOW WE WERE TAKING NOTICE, AND NOW THE JUDGE, AS HE CITED IN HIS OPINION, YOU KNOW, HE SAID, LOOK THE ERIC GARNERS AND THE GEORGE FLOYDS OF THE WORLD DON'T GET A DOOVER, BUT THIS COURT HAS A CHANCE TO MAKE THE LAW RIGHT AND PROVIDE JUSTICE, EVEN IF BELATEDLY.

SO I THINK OUR OWN PERSPECTIVE IN THE SYSTEM OF LAW CHANGED AND OPENED THE JUDGE UP TO REVERSING HIS OWN COURT.

HE WASN'T THE JUDGE IN THE UNDERLYING DECISION, BUT HE WAS ABLE TO REVERSE HIS OWN COURT DECISION IN THIS CASE.

>> CARIOL, THIS IS A LOT OF TIME, A LOT OF YEARS GOING BY HERE.

WHAT WAS IT THAT CAUSED YOU TO SAY, I'M NOT READY TO GIVE UP HERE, I'M GOING TO CONTINUE THIS FIGHT?

>> MY CHILDREN AND BECAUSE I SAW THAT IT KEPT HAPPENING OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO OVER PEOPLE, EVEN INCLUDING DEATH.

YOU KNOW, WHEN ERIC GARNER DIED, I JUST REALLY HIT ME IN A WAY THAT I KNEW I HAD TO DO SOMETHING.

THAT WAS WHY I DECIDED THAT I WOULD WRITE CARIOL'S LAW.

>> WHAT WAS THEN YOUR REACTION?

OR BETTER YET, BEFORE I GET TO YOUR REACTION, PROFESSOR, LET ME COME BACK TO YOU.

THOSE OF US WHO HAVE ARGUED CASES IN COURT, YOU KNOW ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE ARGUING IN FRONT OF A JUDGE, YOU'RE TRYING TO GLEAN FROM THE JUDGE'S QUESTIONS OR THE JUDGE'S COMMENTS WHERE MIGHT THIS BE GOING HERE.

AFTER THE HEARING HAS TAKEN PLACE AND YOU ALL WALKED OUT, WHAT DID YOU THINK YOUR CHANCES WERE THAT YOU WOULD GET THE KIND OF DECISION YOU GOT, WHEN WAS A RESOUNDING VICTORY FOR CARIOL?

>> TO BE HONEST, WE DID NOT KNOW FOR SURE WHERE THIS WAS GOING.

THE PROCEDURAL POSTURE, MEANING THE LEGAL TECHNICAL IITIES AROU THE CASE WERE PRETTY COMPLEX AND WE WERE ASKING THE COURT TO TRY OUT A NOVEL THEORY FOR THIS COURT.

IT HAD NEVER BEEN APPLIED THIS WAY BEFORE.

THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT CAUSES OF ACTION.

THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT BASES OR LAWS THAT WE ASKED THE JUDGE TO CONSIDER IN RENDERING HIS DECISION.

ONE OF THEM WAS THIS PROCEDURE, IT'S A LATIN PHRASE CALL EED NU PRO TUNG.

THE SECOND WAS CARIOL'S LAW.

IT SAYS IF IN THE PAST 20 YEARS YOU HAD INTERVENED TO SAVE A LIFE AND WERE PUNISHED FOR IT, YOU CAN GO BACK TO COURT EVEN THOUGH MOST LAWS SAY THERE'S A PRETTY LIMITED TIME THAT YOU HAVE TO DO MTHAT.

IT EXPANDED THE TIME SHE HAD TO GO INTO COURT.

WE NIFILED THIS CASE BEFORE CARIOL'S LAW WAS PASSED.

WE AMENDED IT TO SAY YOU WANT TO INCLUDE CARIOL'S LAW AS WELL.

IN THE END, THE JUDGE WAS ABLE TO COME TO HIS DECISION ON THE BASIS OF BOTH LAWS.

I THINK THE FIRST ONE WAS REALLY A COURAGEOUS USE OF THIS FIX IT NOW PROCEDURE.

BUT BEING SKEPTICAL AT THE ORAL ARGUMENTS, SO WE WERE HAPPY TO HAVE CARIOL'S LAW, WHICH REALLY BOLSTERED THE CASE.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE HAPPY TO SAY IS, LISTEN, IT'S CALLED CARIOL'S LAW.

IF IT DOESN'T APPLY TO HER -- >> WHO WOULD IT APPLY TO?

CARIOL, WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN YOU FOUND OUT, I WON?

WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION AFTER ALL THESE YEARS?

>> SHE HAD TWO WORDS, WE WON.

I JUST SCREAMED.

I JUST SCREAMED.

I WAS SO LIKE SO HAPPY.

IT WAS LIKE BITTERSWEET.

I WAS HAPPY FOR MYSELF, BUT AT THE SAME TIME TO SEE THE GEORGE FLOYDS, ERIC GARNERS, ADAM TOLEDO AND DAUNTE WRIGHT, IT'S LIKE WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO.

THE DEREK CHAUVIN CASE, DON WILLIAMS SAID HE CALLED THE POLICE ON THE POLICE.

THAT IS WHAT NEIL MACK WAS SAYING BACK IN 2006.

HE SAID IT WAS THE DAY AFTER HALLOWEEN.

HE THOUGHT IT WAS A JOKE.

HE THOUGHT IT WAS A PRANK.

SO HE WAS LIKE, HE WANTED TO CALL THE REAL POLICE.

SO THAT IS THEIR WAY OF SAYING THAT WE WANT ACCOUNTABILITY, WE WANT CHANGE.

THAT'S WHAT CARIOL'S LAW GIVES THEM, BECAUSE NOW WITH THAT IT'S THE DUTY TO INTERVENE AND PLUS, AND SOME.

SO THE DUTY TO INTERVENE MEANS THAT YOU WON'T HAVE ANOTHER ERIC GARNER OR GEORGE FLOYD BECAUSE THE OFFICERS WILL NOT LET AN OFFICER DO THAT.

>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT HOW CARIOL'S LAW CAME ABOUT.

PROFESSOR ROBB SAID THEY WERE RELYING ON A STATUTE NAMED AFTER THEIR OWN CLIENT.

I LAUGHED.

I TRIED ABOUT A HUNDRED CASES.

I ARGUED CASES AT EVERY LEVEL.

I NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, I'M RELYING ON A STATUTE NAMED AFTER MY CLIENT, SO THAT TELLS YOU WHERE YOU SHOULD GO IN THIS CASE.

IT'S EXTRAORDINARY.

EXPLAIN TO US HOW YOU WENT ABOUT GETTING CARIOL'S LAW ENACTED IN BUFFALO.

>> IN 2016 I WENT TO JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY I KNEW BECAUSE I HAD STARTED DOING ACTIVISM.

I COULD ASK IF I COULD GET HELP WITH PUSHING IT.

YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD GET FALSE PROMISES AND EVERYTHING JUST FELL THREOUGH.

AFTER GEORGE FLOYD DIED, I SPOKE WITH JERRY WATSON, WHO IS THE FOUNDER OF STRATEGIES FOR JUSTICE.

HE BASICALLY WROTE IT IN A WAY THAT IT COULD BE PRESENTED AND WE PRESENTED IT TO THE COUNCIL ALONG WITH THE CARIOL'S LAW JUSTICE TEAM.

THE ACTIVISTS AND THE ADVOCATS PLAYED A BIG PART.

WHEN WE WERE ON THOSE ZOOM CALLS WITH THE COUNCIL, IT'S LIKE EVERYBODYCARIOL'S LAW.

THE 75-YEAR-OLD MAN WHO HAD BEEN PUSHED DOWN BY THE POLICE AND IT MADE NATIONAL NEWS, HE BASICALLY CALLED IN.

HE WAS LIKE, NO, WE NEED THIS, WE NEED THIS.

AFTER IT WAS PASSED, MARTY SAID TO ME, NOW WE CAN CALL THE GOOD POLICE ON THE BAD POLICE.

I SAID, YOU KNOW, MARTY, YOU'VE GOT A POINT THERE.

>> WE KNOW THAT THE STATUTE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ENACTED BY THE BUFFALO LEGISLATIVE BODY.

SO IT'S NOT STATEWIDE OR FEDERAL.

WE ARE SEEING A LARGE NUMBER OF STATES MAKING PROPOSALS FOR POLICE REFORM AND MANY OF THEM INCLUDE THIS NOTION OF A DUTY TO INTERVENE.

FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, PROFESSOR, WHY WOULD IT BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE A STATUTE HERE?

I'M SURE MOST PEOPLE SAY, OF COURSE IF YOU'RE A POLICE OFFICER, YOU HAVE A DUTY TO INTERVENE.

THAT'S WHAT YOUR JOB IS.

THAT IS NOT SO.

WE'VE SEEN INSTANCES WHERE YOU EXPECT IT TO HAPPEN THAT IT HAS NOT HAPPENED.

GEORGE FLOYD COMES TO MIND.

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A DUTY TO INTERVENE STATUTE?

>> IT'S IMPORTANT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.

ONE IS HISTORY AS YOU POINT TO TRADITIONALLY OR HISTORICA LALL HAS NOT BEEN AN EXPLICIT DUTY TO INTERVENE WHEN ONE POLICE OFFICER IS USING EXCESSIVE FORCE AGAINST A CIVILIAN.

POLICE OFFICERS ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS CHARGED TO SERVE AND PROTECT FORMALLY, BUT WE HAVE SEEN THE CULTURE OF POLICING SPEAK TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT AS WE SAW IN THE CASES THAT YOU MENTIONED WITH GEORGE FLOYD AND OTHERS.

SO ONE OF THE WAYS THAT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO PASS CARIOL'S LAW LOCALLY, NATIONALLY AND BEYOND IS TO CLARIFY NOT ONLY THE POLICE HOPE OR THE PUBLIC POLICY, BUT THE LAW STATUTORILY THAT WE ALL WANT TO ENCOURAGE NOW THAT WE KNOW THIS PROBLEM IS RAMPANT OF EXCESSIVE USE OF POLICE FORCE, WE NEED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR AND HAVE IT BE EMBLAZONED IN THE LAW ITSELF THAT, NO, THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR, AND NOT ONLY SHOULD YOU NOT ENGAGE IN WRONGFUL AND EXCESSIVE USES OF FORCE, BUT YOU SHOULD INTERVENE WHEN YOU SEE FELLOW OFFICERS DO THE SAME.

I THINK A LAW LIKE THAT THAT CAN COME ALONG WITH COURAGEOUS JUDGES WHO DID LIKE DENNIS WARD TO GIVE PEACE TO THIS POLICY AND THIS LAW EVEN IN PLACES WHERE SOMETHING LIKE CARIOL'S LAW HASN'T PASSED.

AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE POLICE REFORM IS NOT ONLY A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE REFORM.

COURTS CAN STILL REVERSE CONVICTIONS LIKE THE ONE THAT THEY REVERSED IN CARIOL'S CASE OR FIRINGS, I SHOULD SAY, EVEN WITHOUT CARIOL'S LAW, BUT FOR A FORWARD-LOOKING JUSTICE AND POLICE REFORM, I THINK THAT'S WHERE CARIOL'S LAW COMES INTO PLACE, COMES INTO PLAY AND IT SHOULD BE EXPANDED, I THINK, WELL BEYOND NEW YORK.

>> QUESTION FOR YOU, PROFESSOR.

THIS CASE HAS EXTENDED WELL BEYOND A DECADE.

DOES THIS DECISION NOW, THE TRIAL JUDGE'S DECISION, HERALD THE END OF THIS CASE?

OR IS THERE STILL THE SPECTER OF APPEALS?

>> WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THERE BEING APPEALS BEGIN THAT IT WAS THE CITY ITSELF THAT PASSED CARIOL'S LAW.

THE BUT WE DO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES TO FOLLOW THROUGH TONE SURE -- TO ENSURE THAT CARIOL GETS THE PENSION AND THE BACK PAY.

WE SEE THAT AS MORE ADMINISTRATIVE, BUT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT LEFT TO GO.

>> CARIOL, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER AND I MENTIONED IN THE INTRODUCTION THAT YOU HAVE BECOME AN ACTIVIST DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME.

GIVE ME A SENSE OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS NOTION OF A DUTY TO INTERVENE, GIVE ME A SENSE OF WHAT OTHER STEPS SHOULD WE BE CONTEMPLATING FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENTS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY AND THE SAFETY AND THE EQUALITY OF POLICING IN THIS COUNTRY?

WHAT ELSE SHOULD WE BE LOOKING TO DO?

>> NUMBER ONE, WE NEED A NATIONAL REGISTRY, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT BAD OFFICERS GOING FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER AND ONE STATE TO ANOTHER ONE.

THAT'S WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE A FEDERAL LAW.

ALSO, YOU KNOW, WHEN POLICE OFFICERS -- I WON'T EVEN SPEAK ABOUT THE PROBLEM.

I'LL TALK ABOUT THE SOLUTION.

SO THE NATIONAL REGISTRY, THERE ALSO NEEDS TO BE MORE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS, BETTER TRAINING.

THE TRAINER THAT YOU GET IS TO ALWAYS BE READY FOR ANYTHING TO HAPPEN, WHICH IS OKAY TO BE READY FOR IT, BUT TO BE THE AGGRESSOR IS ANOTHER THING.

THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING, BECAUSE AS YOU SEE OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THERE ARE CAR STOPS, THE PEOPLE ARE PULLED OUT OF THE CAR.

EVEN HE WAS IN FULL MILITARY GEAR.

IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN HIS UNIFORM BECAUSE THAT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GIVE YOU RESPECT.

SO WHAT WAS IT THAT THE OFFICER SAW?

WAS IT HIS COLOR?

I'M ASSUMING THAT IT IS.

SO FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT COME FROM DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES INTO A CITY THAT THEY WILL NOT EVER WANT TO LIVE IN AND THEY TREAT THE PEOPLE THERE AS IF THEY ARE ANIMALS.

THAT HAS TO STOP.

SO THE MENTALITY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS HAS TO STOP AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMS SHOULD BE GIVEN JUST AS FREQUENTLY AS USING A WEAPON, WHICH IS YEARLY.

BUT IT ALSO SHOULD BE IF SOMEBODY ELSE SEES THAT SOMETHING MAY BE WRONG OR IF AFTER A TRAUMATIC INCIDENT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY COULD HAVE HAD TO USE DEADLY FORCE.

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN DEADLY FORCE IS NECESSARY, BUT A LOT OF THIS THAT WE'RE SEEING IS NOT NECESSARY.

IT'S UNCALLED FOR.

IT'S THE OFFICER THAT INITIATES THESE THINGS.

>> PROFESSOR, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE AGAIN AS SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN SO VERY ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THESE AREAS, ARE YOU -- I HAVE ABOUT 2 1/2 MINUTES HERE.

ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC?

YOU HAD THAT GREAT LINE ABOUT 2020 AND 20/20 HINDSIGHT AND THE YEAR 2020 HAVING SUCH A STARTLING EFFECT, AN IMPACT ON US.

ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC THAT WE MAY WELL BE MOVING TOWARDS SOME IMPROVEMENTS IN TERMS OF THE EQUALITY AND THE QUALITY OF POLICING?

>> I AM OPTIMISTIC.

I THINK THAT, WELL, THERE'S A SAYING THAT IF YOU SAVE A LIFE, YOU SAVE ALL OF HUMANITY.

I LIKE TO THINK OF CARIOL HORNE IN THAT VEIN.

SHE SAVED A LIFE IN THIS ONE INSTANCE, AND I THINK HER CASE REPEATED OVER TIME CAN INDEED SAVE ALL OF HUMANITY THAT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY IN THE WAY THAT IT WAS WITH GEORGE FLOYD AND DAUNTE WRIGHT, ERIC GARNER.

IN SO MANY OF THESE CASES YOU HEAR THIS REFRAIN "I CAN'T BREATHE."

NEIL MACK, GEORGE FLOYD SAID IT.

I THINK THAT WITH FOLKS COMING TOGETHER FROM ALL SIDES AND CARIOL'S STORY IS REALLY A STORY OF ALL SIDES.

THERE'S CARIOL HERSELF WHO NEVER GAVE UP.

THERE WERE HER FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND SUPPORTERS, ACTIVISTS, ADVOCATES, LAWYERS, THE COURAGEOUS JUDGE, LEGIS LEGISLATORS AND ALL THOSE WHO NOW TAKE THIS MESSAGE NATIONALLY.

I THINK IT CAN LEAD TO REFORM, A BETTER AMERICA AND A CHANCE FOR US TO ALL BREATHE, TO EXHALE.

>> THAT'S A WONDERFUL WAY TO END THIS CONVERSATION, AS YOU SAID, A CHANCE FOR US TO ALL BREATHE, HOPEFULLY A CHANCE FOR US TO ALL LISTEN TO PEOPLE SUCH AS CARIOL HERE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU FOR YOUR VICTORY AFTER A LONG AND HARD BATTLE.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US ALSO AND ALSO FOR JOINING IN AND AIDING IN CARIOL'S STRUGGLE.

WE NEED LAWYERS LIKE YOU OUT THERE ON THE FRONT LINES.

FOR BOTH OF YOU, OUR THANKS FOR SPENDING SOME TIME WITH US.

YOU ALL BE WELL.

TAKE CARE NOW.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.

♪ >>"METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM.

THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND.

BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, THE AMBROSE MONELL FOUNDATION AND BY -- JANET PRINDLE SEIDLER, JODY AND JOHN ARNHOLD, CHERYL AND PHILIP MILSTEIN FAMILY, JUDY AND JOSH WESTON, AND THE DR. ROBERT C. AND TINA SOHN FOUNDATION, THE JPB FOUNDATION.

♪