1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brusso from Bloombird Radio. 2 00:00:09,400 --> 00:00:16,040 Speaker 1: He actually became Abdulah Haking Mohammed. He was no longer 3 00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:22,400 Speaker 1: Carlos Bledso. Martin Blesdoe's son, Carlos wants a bright, happy, 4 00:00:22,440 --> 00:00:26,520 Speaker 1: go lucky hip hop fan, had fallen with Islamic radicals 5 00:00:26,520 --> 00:00:30,000 Speaker 1: as a college student in Tennessee. His sister says they 6 00:00:30,040 --> 00:00:34,559 Speaker 1: transformed him. They instill into your head that what you're 7 00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:38,040 Speaker 1: doing is right, and you're doing it for your new family, 8 00:00:38,760 --> 00:00:43,360 Speaker 1: which is the extremists. When Carlos shot and killed a 9 00:00:43,479 --> 00:00:47,200 Speaker 1: soldier at a US military recruiting office in two thousand nine, 10 00:00:47,520 --> 00:00:51,160 Speaker 1: the family struggled with anger and grief. With nowhere to turn, 11 00:00:51,640 --> 00:00:55,040 Speaker 1: they decided to help others who faced the same question 12 00:00:55,160 --> 00:00:57,720 Speaker 1: they had. What do you do when a loved one 13 00:00:57,920 --> 00:01:01,880 Speaker 1: subscribes to a radical idea of g whether it's jihad, 14 00:01:02,040 --> 00:01:06,400 Speaker 1: white supremacy, q and on or something else. Parents for Peace. 15 00:01:06,480 --> 00:01:09,880 Speaker 1: I feel like it's going to bring these families closer 16 00:01:10,680 --> 00:01:13,600 Speaker 1: so that we can cry on each other showers, and 17 00:01:13,720 --> 00:01:18,280 Speaker 1: for those that may be questioning what their child are doing, 18 00:01:19,000 --> 00:01:21,679 Speaker 1: I think this will open their eyes. The demand for 19 00:01:21,720 --> 00:01:24,639 Speaker 1: the services of Parents for Peace has never been higher. 20 00:01:25,000 --> 00:01:28,360 Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Yaffee Bellini, who's 21 00:01:28,360 --> 00:01:31,360 Speaker 1: written about the group. David start by telling us about 22 00:01:31,440 --> 00:01:33,880 Speaker 1: the raid on the house of a young man who 23 00:01:33,920 --> 00:01:37,240 Speaker 1: also had been radicalized. This was back in November of 24 00:01:38,760 --> 00:01:41,559 Speaker 1: and a mother in the southern US who were calling 25 00:01:41,600 --> 00:01:44,039 Speaker 1: any and the story wakes up to the sound of 26 00:01:44,120 --> 00:01:46,760 Speaker 1: pounding on her front door at the early hours the 27 00:01:46,840 --> 00:01:49,639 Speaker 1: morning and outside the house or a group of FBI 28 00:01:49,720 --> 00:01:52,960 Speaker 1: adem and they've come looking for her teenage son who 29 00:01:52,960 --> 00:01:55,800 Speaker 1: are calling Jack and the story and the reason is 30 00:01:55,840 --> 00:01:59,360 Speaker 1: that Jack has been stuck into the world of Islamic 31 00:01:59,440 --> 00:02:03,520 Speaker 1: radical them online. He's talking in forums with supporters of 32 00:02:03,560 --> 00:02:08,200 Speaker 1: the Atlantic State. He's discussing the possibility of attacks on 33 00:02:08,560 --> 00:02:11,440 Speaker 1: national landmarks like the White House and the Washington Monument, 34 00:02:11,639 --> 00:02:14,160 Speaker 1: and all of this has gotten the attention of the FBI, 35 00:02:14,440 --> 00:02:16,840 Speaker 1: which shows up to read the house and see whether 36 00:02:16,840 --> 00:02:19,639 Speaker 1: there's any sign that Jack is actually preparing to launch 37 00:02:19,639 --> 00:02:23,200 Speaker 1: a real terror attack. Was he charged. He was eventually 38 00:02:23,280 --> 00:02:26,480 Speaker 1: charged in the juvenile court with making terrorist threats against 39 00:02:26,480 --> 00:02:29,720 Speaker 1: the US and also with essentially obstructing investigation because he 40 00:02:29,800 --> 00:02:32,840 Speaker 1: deleted a chat app from his phone after the FBI 41 00:02:33,120 --> 00:02:36,880 Speaker 1: showed up, But ultimately he received a year of probation 42 00:02:36,960 --> 00:02:40,360 Speaker 1: that says didn't really find any solid evidence that he 43 00:02:40,480 --> 00:02:42,920 Speaker 1: was actually about to launch this sort of attack. And 44 00:02:42,960 --> 00:02:45,079 Speaker 1: he was sixteen at the time, so, you know, luckily 45 00:02:45,120 --> 00:02:47,880 Speaker 1: for him, the case ended up in juvenile court. His 46 00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:52,320 Speaker 1: mom said, people understand porn, they don't understand your kid 47 00:02:52,400 --> 00:02:55,600 Speaker 1: is doing isis. But she was talking about this as 48 00:02:55,639 --> 00:02:59,359 Speaker 1: an addiction. Yeah, So a lot of people who struggle 49 00:02:59,440 --> 00:03:03,200 Speaker 1: with extraism and members of extremist groups compare the kind 50 00:03:03,240 --> 00:03:07,119 Speaker 1: of psychological experiences being part of one of these movements 51 00:03:07,160 --> 00:03:09,760 Speaker 1: to an addiction. You know, trying to break out of 52 00:03:09,760 --> 00:03:13,320 Speaker 1: it produces similar kind of lingering effects as if you're 53 00:03:13,320 --> 00:03:16,560 Speaker 1: breaking an addiction to drugs or alcohol, and this kind 54 00:03:16,600 --> 00:03:18,720 Speaker 1: of thrill or the high get from being part of 55 00:03:18,760 --> 00:03:22,079 Speaker 1: it is also akin to the sort of experiences being 56 00:03:22,120 --> 00:03:24,120 Speaker 1: on drugs or being drunk or what have you. And 57 00:03:24,200 --> 00:03:26,560 Speaker 1: so that's a way of thinking about this problem that 58 00:03:26,840 --> 00:03:29,919 Speaker 1: anecdotal evidence supports, from which academics are beginning to study 59 00:03:29,919 --> 00:03:32,040 Speaker 1: in a more systematic way to see if there are 60 00:03:32,560 --> 00:03:35,680 Speaker 1: lessons of how you can combat this problem that stems 61 00:03:35,680 --> 00:03:38,760 Speaker 1: from that recognition of their similarities with addiction, and the 62 00:03:38,840 --> 00:03:42,360 Speaker 1: mom tried all sorts of things before she found Parents 63 00:03:42,400 --> 00:03:46,520 Speaker 1: for Peace. Her son Jack is autistic, and people who 64 00:03:46,600 --> 00:03:50,640 Speaker 1: are autistic are sometimes susceptible to the type of predatory 65 00:03:50,720 --> 00:03:53,480 Speaker 1: recruitment that can lead to extremism, and so she saw 66 00:03:53,520 --> 00:03:55,640 Speaker 1: all sorts of treatments for him. Him to a residential 67 00:03:55,680 --> 00:03:58,920 Speaker 1: school for kids that behavioral problems. She introduced him to 68 00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:02,680 Speaker 1: a rotating asks of doctors and therapists to try to 69 00:04:02,680 --> 00:04:06,520 Speaker 1: treat this problem, and eventually she found a group called 70 00:04:06,680 --> 00:04:10,000 Speaker 1: Parents for Peace, which is a nonprofit that has been 71 00:04:10,040 --> 00:04:15,600 Speaker 1: around and which specializes in helping people do radicalize, in 72 00:04:15,880 --> 00:04:18,799 Speaker 1: that sort of lurring and kind of coaxing them away 73 00:04:18,880 --> 00:04:23,120 Speaker 1: from extremist groups. How would you describe their treatment method. 74 00:04:23,520 --> 00:04:27,159 Speaker 1: It's difficult to describe precisely, but it's somewhere at the 75 00:04:27,240 --> 00:04:32,919 Speaker 1: intersection of addiction treatment, family counseling therapy, the kind of 76 00:04:32,960 --> 00:04:36,640 Speaker 1: cult deprogramming efforts of the nineties seventies. It's this sort 77 00:04:36,680 --> 00:04:39,960 Speaker 1: of hybrid approach. A lot of it is about figuring 78 00:04:39,960 --> 00:04:42,760 Speaker 1: out what the underlying problem is and trying to address that. 79 00:04:42,920 --> 00:04:45,120 Speaker 1: You know, maybe this person is drawn to an extremist 80 00:04:45,160 --> 00:04:47,280 Speaker 1: group because of their lonely Let's find a way for 81 00:04:47,360 --> 00:04:49,760 Speaker 1: them to make friends that they get that kind of 82 00:04:49,839 --> 00:04:53,560 Speaker 1: sense of camaraderie from somewhere other than a dangerous extremist group. 83 00:04:53,760 --> 00:04:57,240 Speaker 1: Some of it is about coaching the family to respond 84 00:04:57,680 --> 00:05:01,320 Speaker 1: to the loved ones extremism and productive way instead of 85 00:05:01,360 --> 00:05:03,320 Speaker 1: freaking out every time they show up you and on 86 00:05:03,440 --> 00:05:05,920 Speaker 1: video on their phone. Try to ask them open and 87 00:05:06,040 --> 00:05:08,640 Speaker 1: the questions about why they're drawn to that video, Try 88 00:05:08,720 --> 00:05:11,200 Speaker 1: to understand them, show them loves and attention and trying 89 00:05:11,200 --> 00:05:14,560 Speaker 1: to combat this underlying issue that might make them vulnerable 90 00:05:14,800 --> 00:05:18,560 Speaker 1: to conspiracy theories. That's sort of thing and the ultimately 91 00:05:18,640 --> 00:05:21,520 Speaker 1: what this group will sometime to do is introduce someone 92 00:05:21,560 --> 00:05:24,200 Speaker 1: who's in an extremist group to a former extremists, somebody 93 00:05:24,240 --> 00:05:26,280 Speaker 1: who's been in the group and left will kind of 94 00:05:26,320 --> 00:05:28,920 Speaker 1: mentor them the friend of them and try to coach 95 00:05:29,000 --> 00:05:32,919 Speaker 1: them away. The woman now in charge, Miriam Churchill, said, 96 00:05:33,240 --> 00:05:36,840 Speaker 1: I thought this is really interesting. Never argue with extremists, 97 00:05:36,960 --> 00:05:39,960 Speaker 1: don't react to angrily. It's tough not to try to 98 00:05:40,040 --> 00:05:43,560 Speaker 1: argue someone out of something. Yeah, definitely, I mean, certainly 99 00:05:43,680 --> 00:05:49,120 Speaker 1: the temptation when somebody starts voicing horrible white supremacist ideas 100 00:05:49,440 --> 00:05:52,520 Speaker 1: or kind of anti vactor sentiment is to fight back 101 00:05:52,560 --> 00:05:55,440 Speaker 1: and argue and prove them wrong. But what Miriam has 102 00:05:55,480 --> 00:05:57,640 Speaker 1: found and hurt kind of working with families is that 103 00:05:57,920 --> 00:06:02,080 Speaker 1: ultimately that's counterproductive. That feeling like you're under assault will 104 00:06:02,120 --> 00:06:04,320 Speaker 1: just make you want to dig in even further and 105 00:06:04,360 --> 00:06:07,640 Speaker 1: make you less likely to leave that type of conspiracy behind. 106 00:06:08,000 --> 00:06:09,680 Speaker 1: And you know, that kind of makes sense on a 107 00:06:09,800 --> 00:06:12,440 Speaker 1: sort of intuitive level, and so her advice is not 108 00:06:12,520 --> 00:06:15,400 Speaker 1: to do that again, to try to kind of understand 109 00:06:15,600 --> 00:06:18,919 Speaker 1: the underlying problems that might make you susceptible to believe 110 00:06:18,960 --> 00:06:20,880 Speaker 1: in these things, and then to try to combat those. 111 00:06:21,440 --> 00:06:26,039 Speaker 1: So extremism is the drug of choice. And in Jack's case, 112 00:06:26,120 --> 00:06:30,359 Speaker 1: he went from one extreme ideology to another. Yes, so 113 00:06:30,400 --> 00:06:33,320 Speaker 1: this is something that the group parents or piece actually 114 00:06:33,360 --> 00:06:36,360 Speaker 1: sees quite a lot, that people will switch from one 115 00:06:36,400 --> 00:06:38,960 Speaker 1: ideology to the other. And you know, certainly when I 116 00:06:39,000 --> 00:06:41,840 Speaker 1: was beginning my reporting, you know, I didn't understand that 117 00:06:41,880 --> 00:06:43,920 Speaker 1: at all. It seemed it didn't seem to make sense 118 00:06:43,960 --> 00:06:46,520 Speaker 1: to me how somebody could go from being an Islamic 119 00:06:46,600 --> 00:06:49,560 Speaker 1: radical one day to being a white supremacist the next day. 120 00:06:49,920 --> 00:06:52,200 Speaker 1: It didn't fit with my understanding of how this works. 121 00:06:52,279 --> 00:06:54,320 Speaker 1: But you know, actually when you when you think about 122 00:06:54,320 --> 00:06:56,440 Speaker 1: it more deeply, it does makes sense. You know, people 123 00:06:56,440 --> 00:06:59,520 Speaker 1: are drawn to extremism often not because of the substance 124 00:06:59,560 --> 00:07:02,440 Speaker 1: of the idea oology, but because being a part of 125 00:07:02,480 --> 00:07:05,919 Speaker 1: a group filled some sort of spiritual void and and 126 00:07:05,920 --> 00:07:08,719 Speaker 1: and the substance of the ideology is almost secondary to 127 00:07:08,800 --> 00:07:12,480 Speaker 1: the experience of subscribing to the ideology at all. And 128 00:07:12,520 --> 00:07:15,560 Speaker 1: so it makes sense that somebody might switch from from 129 00:07:15,600 --> 00:07:17,520 Speaker 1: from one form to another, and that's something that the 130 00:07:17,560 --> 00:07:20,400 Speaker 1: group seed a lot. So in Jack's kid, you know, 131 00:07:20,480 --> 00:07:23,000 Speaker 1: with the help of the lessons his mom and some 132 00:07:23,080 --> 00:07:25,320 Speaker 1: parents or peace and some of his kind of own 133 00:07:25,360 --> 00:07:28,480 Speaker 1: independent research videos he was watching online, he gradually starts 134 00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:32,760 Speaker 1: drifting away from Islamic extremism, eventually kind of renounces the Kuran, 135 00:07:33,720 --> 00:07:37,360 Speaker 1: become a sort of urgently anti Muslim, which is its 136 00:07:37,360 --> 00:07:40,000 Speaker 1: own sort of problem um. But then also at the 137 00:07:40,040 --> 00:07:44,640 Speaker 1: same time begins embracing we're at least flirting with light 138 00:07:44,640 --> 00:07:47,800 Speaker 1: wing extremism. Um. He gives ancestors who's gone to the 139 00:07:47,840 --> 00:07:50,680 Speaker 1: Confederacy in the Civil War and starts wearing a Confederate 140 00:07:50,680 --> 00:07:56,240 Speaker 1: flag baseball cap everywhere. He decorates his room with Confederate flags. UM. 141 00:07:56,240 --> 00:07:58,200 Speaker 1: And his mom, you know, doesn't think that he's becoming 142 00:07:58,240 --> 00:08:01,760 Speaker 1: a white supremacist exactly, you know, not expressing animus towards 143 00:08:01,840 --> 00:08:05,320 Speaker 1: other races or anything like that, but he is sort 144 00:08:05,320 --> 00:08:07,520 Speaker 1: of beginning to adopt some of the some of the 145 00:08:07,560 --> 00:08:11,320 Speaker 1: trappings of white supremacy UM, and you know, at times 146 00:08:11,440 --> 00:08:15,960 Speaker 1: or like express views that seems that seemed potentially problematic. 147 00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:18,640 Speaker 1: At one point he uses the phrase white power and 148 00:08:18,680 --> 00:08:22,880 Speaker 1: an argument with the sibling. Another time, his mom is 149 00:08:22,880 --> 00:08:25,440 Speaker 1: sort of urging him to stop wearing his Confederate tap 150 00:08:25,480 --> 00:08:27,320 Speaker 1: out in public, and he says, no, no, this is 151 00:08:27,360 --> 00:08:30,080 Speaker 1: my history, this is my heritage. So you can see 152 00:08:30,080 --> 00:08:32,360 Speaker 1: how that, you know, could easily, especially for someone with 153 00:08:32,520 --> 00:08:36,439 Speaker 1: his history, turn into um, a real real problem. Do 154 00:08:36,520 --> 00:08:40,120 Speaker 1: they call it deep programming or does that sound too cultish? Yeah, 155 00:08:40,200 --> 00:08:43,000 Speaker 1: parents are piece prefers. The term de radicalization, you know, 156 00:08:43,080 --> 00:08:46,520 Speaker 1: deep programming. It's never a term that's really been precisely defined, 157 00:08:46,559 --> 00:08:49,920 Speaker 1: but it's definitely associated with those kind of extreme methods 158 00:08:49,920 --> 00:08:53,520 Speaker 1: of in eighteen seventies when cult deprogrammers would literally kidnap 159 00:08:53,640 --> 00:08:58,000 Speaker 1: people who were in cults who subscribes to strange, exotic 160 00:08:58,200 --> 00:09:01,320 Speaker 1: religious principles that their parents didn't understand. They would kidnap 161 00:09:01,360 --> 00:09:04,720 Speaker 1: those people and deprived them of food until they were 162 00:09:04,760 --> 00:09:07,400 Speaker 1: prepared to leave behind whatever that the cult was. And 163 00:09:07,440 --> 00:09:09,079 Speaker 1: so a lot of the groups that are doing this 164 00:09:09,160 --> 00:09:11,240 Speaker 1: type of work now want to stay away from that 165 00:09:11,400 --> 00:09:14,160 Speaker 1: type of terminology, so they use still use the word 166 00:09:14,440 --> 00:09:17,559 Speaker 1: radicalization instead. Is there a lot of money in this, 167 00:09:18,160 --> 00:09:20,960 Speaker 1: So groups like Parents or Peace and another similar group 168 00:09:21,000 --> 00:09:24,320 Speaker 1: called Life After Hate our nonprofits that don't charge money. 169 00:09:24,600 --> 00:09:27,719 Speaker 1: They generate income through donations and government grants and those 170 00:09:27,720 --> 00:09:30,640 Speaker 1: works of means. But there's also a cadre of for 171 00:09:30,960 --> 00:09:35,800 Speaker 1: profit deprogrammers de radicalizers out there, and these tend to 172 00:09:35,840 --> 00:09:39,280 Speaker 1: be the sort of final legacy of that nineteen seventies era. 173 00:09:39,400 --> 00:09:41,280 Speaker 1: You know, these are people who are in cults and 174 00:09:41,360 --> 00:09:44,040 Speaker 1: who then made careers out of deep programming, and they 175 00:09:44,040 --> 00:09:46,760 Speaker 1: don't use the same extreme techniques at that period, but 176 00:09:47,200 --> 00:09:50,760 Speaker 1: they charge family tens of thousands of dollars to conduct 177 00:09:50,800 --> 00:09:54,200 Speaker 1: interventions to kind of insinuate themselves into the life of 178 00:09:54,200 --> 00:09:57,440 Speaker 1: a cult member and then eventually reveal themselves as you 179 00:09:57,480 --> 00:09:59,839 Speaker 1: know Ham as deprogrammer. And I'm here to take you 180 00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:01,839 Speaker 1: away from this, and I'm the persuade you why you 181 00:10:01,840 --> 00:10:05,120 Speaker 1: should leave. And this is fraught with risks. Obviously there's 182 00:10:05,120 --> 00:10:07,920 Speaker 1: no guarantee of success. You could spend twenty thousand dollars 183 00:10:07,920 --> 00:10:10,280 Speaker 1: one of these projects and then end up no better 184 00:10:10,280 --> 00:10:13,120 Speaker 1: than when you started. Or I heard stories about the 185 00:10:13,240 --> 00:10:16,720 Speaker 1: programs botching interventions, and so families leaves a lot of money, 186 00:10:16,720 --> 00:10:19,280 Speaker 1: and then also their family member who they were trying 187 00:10:19,280 --> 00:10:22,400 Speaker 1: to help is actually even more alienated ultimately, and so 188 00:10:22,400 --> 00:10:24,760 Speaker 1: there are all sorts of problems associated with this. So 189 00:10:24,840 --> 00:10:28,079 Speaker 1: Stephen Hassan is UM, you know, one of the most 190 00:10:28,200 --> 00:10:32,160 Speaker 1: well known kind of for profit deep programmers, the radicalizers. 191 00:10:32,200 --> 00:10:35,200 Speaker 1: He was a member of the Unification Church, you know, 192 00:10:35,240 --> 00:10:38,720 Speaker 1: back decades ago. You know, he considered a mooney UM. 193 00:10:39,080 --> 00:10:42,600 Speaker 1: He ended up leaving, leaving that group and starting a 194 00:10:42,720 --> 00:10:45,840 Speaker 1: career as a as a deep programmer UM. And so 195 00:10:45,920 --> 00:10:48,240 Speaker 1: he charged his five thousand dollars a day to work 196 00:10:48,280 --> 00:10:50,760 Speaker 1: with families who are trying to extract somebody from an 197 00:10:50,760 --> 00:10:54,400 Speaker 1: extremist group or from you know, a cult. UM. He's 198 00:10:54,440 --> 00:10:57,559 Speaker 1: recently kind of pivoted more from helping cult members to 199 00:10:57,640 --> 00:11:00,079 Speaker 1: helping people who are kind of stuck down the you 200 00:11:00,160 --> 00:11:02,800 Speaker 1: and on rabbit hole. Um. He published a book recently 201 00:11:02,840 --> 00:11:05,760 Speaker 1: called The Cult of Trump. Um, he's the sort of 202 00:11:05,760 --> 00:11:08,280 Speaker 1: guy who's on TB all the time talking about how, 203 00:11:08,760 --> 00:11:11,200 Speaker 1: you know, Trump supporters are brainwashed and that sort of thing. 204 00:11:11,280 --> 00:11:14,600 Speaker 1: He's basically trafficking in kind of theories about how this 205 00:11:14,679 --> 00:11:18,720 Speaker 1: works that are disputed by academics and then charging huge 206 00:11:18,720 --> 00:11:21,320 Speaker 1: amounts of money to try to help people. I mean, 207 00:11:21,320 --> 00:11:24,800 Speaker 1: there are certainly, you know, records of that kind of 208 00:11:24,840 --> 00:11:28,320 Speaker 1: successful cases that that he's worked on. But UM, it's 209 00:11:28,320 --> 00:11:32,400 Speaker 1: definitely a different, you know, costlier approach than what what 210 00:11:32,559 --> 00:11:38,160 Speaker 1: other groups are offered. Is that extreme cult deep programming 211 00:11:38,520 --> 00:11:42,880 Speaker 1: happening anymore. You know, there may be kind of anecdotal 212 00:11:42,920 --> 00:11:45,679 Speaker 1: examples of that happening occasionally now, but that's it's not 213 00:11:45,720 --> 00:11:47,960 Speaker 1: happening at anywhere near at the level that it did 214 00:11:48,000 --> 00:11:50,000 Speaker 1: in the seventies. And that's partly because there were legal 215 00:11:50,000 --> 00:11:52,040 Speaker 1: repercussions for the people who were doing this. There were 216 00:11:52,040 --> 00:11:56,200 Speaker 1: criminal prosecutions, there were civil suits, and and that you know, 217 00:11:56,280 --> 00:11:59,320 Speaker 1: really kind of changed how this works. Um. And you 218 00:11:59,360 --> 00:12:02,400 Speaker 1: know it's happening, it's happening much less often, if at all, anymore. 219 00:12:02,480 --> 00:12:04,200 Speaker 1: When when and when you talk to people who are 220 00:12:04,240 --> 00:12:06,960 Speaker 1: in the kind of culty programming space now, they don't say, oh, 221 00:12:07,000 --> 00:12:09,800 Speaker 1: we would never do anything like that. So as far 222 00:12:09,920 --> 00:12:13,840 Speaker 1: as groups that are free of charge, how many are 223 00:12:13,840 --> 00:12:17,320 Speaker 1: they're out there? It's really a handful, you know. I 224 00:12:17,400 --> 00:12:18,920 Speaker 1: know of two or three off the top and I 225 00:12:19,000 --> 00:12:20,920 Speaker 1: have there. Maybe there may be others, but it's a 226 00:12:21,040 --> 00:12:24,520 Speaker 1: very kind of small and and and still sort of 227 00:12:24,559 --> 00:12:27,960 Speaker 1: growing community. Um. This sort of work is really pioneered 228 00:12:27,960 --> 00:12:30,360 Speaker 1: in Europe. In the late nineties, there was an effort 229 00:12:30,480 --> 00:12:34,400 Speaker 1: in Norway to help right wing extremeists leave these sorts 230 00:12:34,400 --> 00:12:37,199 Speaker 1: of groups, and it only really these sorts of efforts 231 00:12:37,240 --> 00:12:39,079 Speaker 1: only really a game traction and that you asked over 232 00:12:39,120 --> 00:12:41,960 Speaker 1: the last decade. So we're sort of behind where we're 233 00:12:41,960 --> 00:12:46,640 Speaker 1: Europe is on this type of ward, and some defendants 234 00:12:46,880 --> 00:12:51,040 Speaker 1: charged in the January six riots are using this idea 235 00:12:51,240 --> 00:12:55,080 Speaker 1: of de radicalization at sentencing to try to get a 236 00:12:55,080 --> 00:12:58,760 Speaker 1: more lenient sentence. I mean, this is a fascinating aspect 237 00:12:58,800 --> 00:13:00,880 Speaker 1: of this type of work. What you're seeing is that 238 00:13:00,960 --> 00:13:06,400 Speaker 1: people who are facing prison sentences because of extremist activity 239 00:13:06,559 --> 00:13:08,600 Speaker 1: are able to say to judges, look, I'm trying to 240 00:13:08,640 --> 00:13:11,120 Speaker 1: get you outequalise I'm working with a group like Parents 241 00:13:11,120 --> 00:13:14,480 Speaker 1: for Peace, or I'm re educating myself and reading all 242 00:13:14,520 --> 00:13:17,720 Speaker 1: sorts of literature about racial inequality in America sentance and 243 00:13:18,080 --> 00:13:21,040 Speaker 1: that shows that I deserve a more lenient sentence. It's 244 00:13:21,080 --> 00:13:23,760 Speaker 1: really similar to someone who's charged with drunk driving who 245 00:13:23,840 --> 00:13:26,360 Speaker 1: starts going to a meetings and said, so ject, look, 246 00:13:26,360 --> 00:13:28,880 Speaker 1: I'm trying to get treatment. Give me a lenient sentence 247 00:13:28,920 --> 00:13:31,360 Speaker 1: and proving to you that if I'm allowed to return 248 00:13:31,400 --> 00:13:33,880 Speaker 1: to society all behave myself and won't be a threat 249 00:13:33,880 --> 00:13:35,880 Speaker 1: to other people. Now, of course there's a risk here. 250 00:13:35,920 --> 00:13:39,559 Speaker 1: There's a risk of dishonesty and manipulation and people abusing 251 00:13:39,600 --> 00:13:41,880 Speaker 1: these sorts of resources, and you know, that's something that 252 00:13:41,880 --> 00:13:43,319 Speaker 1: the courts are going to have to kind of figure 253 00:13:43,360 --> 00:13:46,480 Speaker 1: out how to sort of protect. And has Parents for 254 00:13:46,600 --> 00:13:49,920 Speaker 1: Peace been involved in any of these sentencings. The one 255 00:13:49,960 --> 00:13:51,960 Speaker 1: case that we're we've seen this play out kind of 256 00:13:51,960 --> 00:13:54,960 Speaker 1: most obviously is in Michigan. Tye Garbon, who was one 257 00:13:55,000 --> 00:13:57,640 Speaker 1: of the right wing extreamists who was charged with the 258 00:13:57,679 --> 00:14:00,720 Speaker 1: Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot back in twenty twenty. He was 259 00:14:00,760 --> 00:14:04,280 Speaker 1: the first of that group of conspirators to plead guilty, 260 00:14:04,600 --> 00:14:07,240 Speaker 1: and his lawyers reached out to Parents for Peace and 261 00:14:07,320 --> 00:14:10,240 Speaker 1: he spoke with the organization over zoom and had various 262 00:14:10,240 --> 00:14:12,520 Speaker 1: meetings with them talking about his personal history. They were 263 00:14:12,559 --> 00:14:14,640 Speaker 1: trying to kind of help him get to a place 264 00:14:14,679 --> 00:14:17,880 Speaker 1: where he's not further radicalized in prison. And then during 265 00:14:17,960 --> 00:14:20,840 Speaker 1: his sentencing, his lawyers brought this up repeatedly and argued 266 00:14:20,880 --> 00:14:22,960 Speaker 1: to the judge that he deserved more leading a sentence. 267 00:14:23,200 --> 00:14:27,320 Speaker 1: And it's difficult to pinpoint where that outreach fit into 268 00:14:27,440 --> 00:14:29,840 Speaker 1: the broader picture of his case, but he did end 269 00:14:29,880 --> 00:14:33,680 Speaker 1: up receiving a sentence that was significantly below the maximum 270 00:14:33,680 --> 00:14:35,760 Speaker 1: possible that he could have received. It was also because 271 00:14:35,800 --> 00:14:37,720 Speaker 1: he was the first in this group to police guilty. 272 00:14:37,760 --> 00:14:40,160 Speaker 1: He was cooperating that type of thing, but it certainly 273 00:14:40,200 --> 00:14:42,600 Speaker 1: didn't hurt that he was speaking the sort of help. 274 00:14:42,960 --> 00:14:46,000 Speaker 1: Is there any study being done to back up that 275 00:14:46,160 --> 00:14:50,400 Speaker 1: this is a process that works long term? So there's 276 00:14:50,440 --> 00:14:53,400 Speaker 1: some data from European efforts that suggests that it works 277 00:14:53,440 --> 00:14:56,520 Speaker 1: pretty well in terms of the work that parents pieces doing. 278 00:14:56,800 --> 00:14:59,360 Speaker 1: There's just way less data on that, and it's a 279 00:14:59,400 --> 00:15:02,640 Speaker 1: real quest and mark they're certainly anecdotal examples of this working, 280 00:15:02,640 --> 00:15:05,760 Speaker 1: But can they show systematically that they have refined an 281 00:15:05,760 --> 00:15:08,520 Speaker 1: approach that really addresses this issue in a meaningful way. 282 00:15:08,800 --> 00:15:12,280 Speaker 1: And they're working with researchers at Harvard and Boston University 283 00:15:12,280 --> 00:15:15,120 Speaker 1: who are just now beginning to work. Is like tracking 284 00:15:15,160 --> 00:15:17,800 Speaker 1: cases over the long term, and that means not just 285 00:15:18,080 --> 00:15:21,280 Speaker 1: does this person leave the extremist group and reject terrorism 286 00:15:21,320 --> 00:15:23,680 Speaker 1: or white supremacy or whatever two months later, it's like 287 00:15:23,720 --> 00:15:25,680 Speaker 1: where are they two years later? Where are they four 288 00:15:25,760 --> 00:15:28,320 Speaker 1: years later? You know, how does their life change after 289 00:15:28,360 --> 00:15:31,080 Speaker 1: the group's intervention. That's work they'll take a really long 290 00:15:31,120 --> 00:15:33,960 Speaker 1: time to do and it's only only really starting now. 291 00:15:34,400 --> 00:15:38,320 Speaker 1: How much call is there for this type of intervention. 292 00:15:38,840 --> 00:15:40,840 Speaker 1: I think there's a huge amount of demand that Parents 293 00:15:40,920 --> 00:15:44,320 Speaker 1: or Peace saw threefold increase and calls to its national 294 00:15:44,440 --> 00:15:47,280 Speaker 1: hotline during the pandemic from before the pandemic. You know, 295 00:15:47,320 --> 00:15:49,720 Speaker 1: it's people stay at home, are spending more time online, 296 00:15:49,760 --> 00:15:52,040 Speaker 1: you know, all this sorts of phenomena that we're familiar with. 297 00:15:52,240 --> 00:15:55,800 Speaker 1: And after January six, you're also seeing assert in family 298 00:15:55,960 --> 00:15:59,440 Speaker 1: seeking treatments for loved ones who are being stuck down 299 00:15:59,440 --> 00:16:02,200 Speaker 1: these rabbits. So it's certainly something that's in demand. There's 300 00:16:02,200 --> 00:16:04,680 Speaker 1: no question that extremism is a big problem in the 301 00:16:04,720 --> 00:16:07,040 Speaker 1: modern US and that we need to figure out a 302 00:16:07,040 --> 00:16:09,400 Speaker 1: way to deal with it. And a lot of attention 303 00:16:09,440 --> 00:16:12,400 Speaker 1: has focused on how do we get social media companies 304 00:16:12,480 --> 00:16:15,720 Speaker 1: to stop spreading this information that leads to extremism, and 305 00:16:15,720 --> 00:16:17,720 Speaker 1: that's certainly a big problem and one that needs to 306 00:16:17,760 --> 00:16:19,640 Speaker 1: be addressed. But what these groups are trying to do 307 00:16:19,760 --> 00:16:22,640 Speaker 1: is address a different sort of problem, which is, Okay, 308 00:16:22,720 --> 00:16:25,400 Speaker 1: you've got a family member who is already an extremist. 309 00:16:25,440 --> 00:16:27,640 Speaker 1: What do you do then? And that's a complicated question. 310 00:16:28,040 --> 00:16:40,200 Speaker 1: Thanks David. That's David Yaffie Bellani, Bloomberg Legal reporter. The 311 00:16:40,280 --> 00:16:44,640 Speaker 1: demands for justice and police accountability during the demonstrations following 312 00:16:44,640 --> 00:16:49,360 Speaker 1: George Floyd's murder revived questions about the controversial doctrine of 313 00:16:49,440 --> 00:16:53,400 Speaker 1: qualified immunity, But this week the Supreme Court sided with 314 00:16:53,480 --> 00:16:56,720 Speaker 1: police in a pair of cases alleging excessive force by 315 00:16:56,840 --> 00:17:01,200 Speaker 1: officers in California and Oklahoma. The Justice has ruled unanimously 316 00:17:01,600 --> 00:17:05,400 Speaker 1: that the officers were protected by qualified immunity and could 317 00:17:05,440 --> 00:17:09,000 Speaker 1: not be sued because previous case law hadn't given them 318 00:17:09,040 --> 00:17:13,320 Speaker 1: clear guidance that their conduct violated the constitution. Joining me 319 00:17:13,359 --> 00:17:17,000 Speaker 1: as an expert on qualified immunity, Joanna Schwartz, a professor 320 00:17:17,040 --> 00:17:19,639 Speaker 1: at u c l A Law School, Joanna explain what 321 00:17:19,760 --> 00:17:24,480 Speaker 1: qualified immunity is. So. Qualified immunity is a legal defense 322 00:17:24,560 --> 00:17:29,040 Speaker 1: in civil cases, and the defense means that a police 323 00:17:29,080 --> 00:17:33,720 Speaker 1: officer or other government official who has violated the Constitution 324 00:17:34,359 --> 00:17:39,080 Speaker 1: is protected from being sued unless there's clearly established law 325 00:17:39,400 --> 00:17:44,120 Speaker 1: showing that what they did was unconstitutional. And the Supreme 326 00:17:44,119 --> 00:17:48,840 Speaker 1: Court in recent years has offered more and more restrictive 327 00:17:49,119 --> 00:17:51,680 Speaker 1: descriptions of what it means to clearly establish the law, 328 00:17:51,840 --> 00:17:54,280 Speaker 1: so that they've now really sent a message that you 329 00:17:54,359 --> 00:17:58,240 Speaker 1: need a prior court case where the almost exact same 330 00:17:58,280 --> 00:18:02,160 Speaker 1: thing happened before and ruled unconstitutional in order to clearly 331 00:18:02,240 --> 00:18:07,720 Speaker 1: establish the law. In both cases, the justices overturned lower 332 00:18:07,760 --> 00:18:11,239 Speaker 1: court decisions that went against the officers. Can you just 333 00:18:11,240 --> 00:18:13,720 Speaker 1: tell us a little bit about the cases. One was 334 00:18:13,800 --> 00:18:16,320 Speaker 1: from the Ninth Circuit, one was from the Tenth Circuit. 335 00:18:16,400 --> 00:18:20,160 Speaker 1: They were both cases where police were called about some 336 00:18:20,480 --> 00:18:24,000 Speaker 1: domestic incident. You know the fact in a slightly difference 337 00:18:24,040 --> 00:18:26,879 Speaker 1: in the case out of the Ninth Circuit, officers in 338 00:18:27,160 --> 00:18:31,800 Speaker 1: arresting person put them down on the ground and put 339 00:18:31,880 --> 00:18:35,600 Speaker 1: their knee on the person's back, albeit briefly. And in 340 00:18:35,640 --> 00:18:38,800 Speaker 1: the case out of the Tenth Circuit, the man was 341 00:18:39,400 --> 00:18:44,120 Speaker 1: near his garage the police arrived, and it sounds like 342 00:18:44,160 --> 00:18:48,280 Speaker 1: the man sort of stepped back into his garage, had 343 00:18:48,320 --> 00:18:51,960 Speaker 1: a hammer that he swung sort of like a baseball bat, 344 00:18:52,000 --> 00:18:55,480 Speaker 1: it says in the opinion, several feet away from the officers, 345 00:18:55,840 --> 00:18:59,000 Speaker 1: and then the officers shot him. The Court said, it's 346 00:18:59,040 --> 00:19:03,320 Speaker 1: not enough that rule be suggested by then existing precedent. 347 00:19:03,920 --> 00:19:07,080 Speaker 1: The rules contours must be so well defined that it's 348 00:19:07,080 --> 00:19:10,280 Speaker 1: clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful 349 00:19:10,320 --> 00:19:14,639 Speaker 1: in the situation he confronted. Our officers really aware of 350 00:19:14,680 --> 00:19:18,800 Speaker 1: what these court cases say, or is this standard sort 351 00:19:18,840 --> 00:19:22,480 Speaker 1: of a ruse on the Court's part. It's a terrific question. 352 00:19:22,640 --> 00:19:24,800 Speaker 1: I think the shortest answer is it is a bit 353 00:19:24,840 --> 00:19:28,840 Speaker 1: of a ruse. When the Supreme Court explains why there 354 00:19:28,880 --> 00:19:31,960 Speaker 1: needs to be a prior court decision with nearly identical fact, 355 00:19:32,200 --> 00:19:35,960 Speaker 1: they talk about notice that the officer needs to be unnoticed, 356 00:19:36,080 --> 00:19:39,439 Speaker 1: that the contours of the constitution are hazy and we 357 00:19:39,560 --> 00:19:43,399 Speaker 1: need a clear articulation of what is unconstitutional for an 358 00:19:43,440 --> 00:19:46,719 Speaker 1: officer to be unnoticed. But you are absolutely right. Officers 359 00:19:46,880 --> 00:19:50,600 Speaker 1: are not educated about the fact and holdings of the 360 00:19:50,640 --> 00:19:53,560 Speaker 1: court decisions that the Supreme Court says are necessary to 361 00:19:53,560 --> 00:19:56,159 Speaker 1: clearly establish the law. And I actually, in an article 362 00:19:56,240 --> 00:19:59,920 Speaker 1: that was published earlier this year, studied hundreds of policy 363 00:20:00,200 --> 00:20:04,120 Speaker 1: and trainings for California law enforcement agencies about the use 364 00:20:04,160 --> 00:20:06,520 Speaker 1: of force, which is the issue that is the basis 365 00:20:06,520 --> 00:20:10,439 Speaker 1: for these two decisions. And what I found was officers 366 00:20:10,480 --> 00:20:14,280 Speaker 1: are trained about the sort of high level framework that 367 00:20:14,359 --> 00:20:17,560 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court articulated in a case called Grand versus 368 00:20:17,680 --> 00:20:21,359 Speaker 1: connor about the reasonableness of force depending on the totality 369 00:20:21,400 --> 00:20:25,280 Speaker 1: of circumstances given the perspective of the officer at the time. 370 00:20:25,640 --> 00:20:28,280 Speaker 1: But they are not trained about the facts and holdings 371 00:20:28,320 --> 00:20:31,159 Speaker 1: of the court decisions that the Supreme Court says are 372 00:20:31,240 --> 00:20:34,280 Speaker 1: necessary to clearly establish the law. Instead, they're taught those 373 00:20:34,280 --> 00:20:36,720 Speaker 1: broad principles and taught how to apply them with various 374 00:20:36,800 --> 00:20:39,920 Speaker 1: hypotheticals that are not drawn some court cases. And if 375 00:20:39,960 --> 00:20:42,400 Speaker 1: you think for a moment about what it would mean 376 00:20:42,520 --> 00:20:48,679 Speaker 1: for officers actually to rely upon these prior decisions, it's fantastical. 377 00:20:49,040 --> 00:20:52,280 Speaker 1: There are hundreds or thousands of opinions that could clearly 378 00:20:52,359 --> 00:20:54,720 Speaker 1: establish the law just for use of force cases. And 379 00:20:54,760 --> 00:20:57,159 Speaker 1: then there's all sorts of other things that police officers 380 00:20:57,160 --> 00:21:00,280 Speaker 1: and other government officials do that also have our own 381 00:21:00,280 --> 00:21:03,719 Speaker 1: bodies of case laws. To learn about those cases. You know, 382 00:21:03,880 --> 00:21:07,240 Speaker 1: in California, you get I think it's twenty four hours 383 00:21:07,240 --> 00:21:10,399 Speaker 1: every two years of training learning about those cases. Spending 384 00:21:10,400 --> 00:21:12,680 Speaker 1: just five minutes on those cases would take up all 385 00:21:12,800 --> 00:21:15,879 Speaker 1: of the training hours that police officers currently have. And 386 00:21:15,920 --> 00:21:19,440 Speaker 1: then you have to expect that officers would actually retain 387 00:21:19,680 --> 00:21:23,280 Speaker 1: and remember the fact and holdings of those cases, and then, 388 00:21:23,400 --> 00:21:26,720 Speaker 1: in the split second that they are required to make 389 00:21:26,720 --> 00:21:29,240 Speaker 1: the kinds of decisions that sometimes lead to use as 390 00:21:29,280 --> 00:21:33,919 Speaker 1: of force, be able to distinguish between the precise facts 391 00:21:34,240 --> 00:21:39,280 Speaker 1: in these various cases. It simply is fantastical. It is implausible. 392 00:21:39,320 --> 00:21:42,720 Speaker 1: It makes no sense at all as a standard, and 393 00:21:42,760 --> 00:21:46,119 Speaker 1: that is justified by notice goals. And so then what 394 00:21:46,280 --> 00:21:49,600 Speaker 1: is the purpose? I returned to where you started with 395 00:21:49,640 --> 00:21:51,440 Speaker 1: your question. It feels like a bit of a route. 396 00:21:51,800 --> 00:21:54,840 Speaker 1: And in the case here involving the California Police officer, 397 00:21:55,359 --> 00:21:59,040 Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit said that existing precedent did put the 398 00:21:59,080 --> 00:22:02,199 Speaker 1: officer on no notice. And in the case involving the 399 00:22:02,200 --> 00:22:06,880 Speaker 1: Oklahoma police officers, the ten Circuit pointed to several cases 400 00:22:06,920 --> 00:22:10,919 Speaker 1: that it said clearly established that the conduct was unlawful. 401 00:22:11,359 --> 00:22:14,760 Speaker 1: So are the justices saying, no, there has to be 402 00:22:14,800 --> 00:22:20,080 Speaker 1: a case that we decided that's exactly on point. Well, 403 00:22:20,280 --> 00:22:26,640 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court since about has been writing in several 404 00:22:26,680 --> 00:22:32,680 Speaker 1: different qualified immunity opinions that Supreme Court decisions clearly established 405 00:22:32,760 --> 00:22:36,720 Speaker 1: the law, but that they'll only assume for the purposes 406 00:22:36,760 --> 00:22:40,880 Speaker 1: of argument, that Circuit court decisions, Court of Appeals decisions 407 00:22:40,880 --> 00:22:44,520 Speaker 1: can also clearly establish the law. And they've said this 408 00:22:44,680 --> 00:22:48,280 Speaker 1: multiple times. They've never actually come out and said that 409 00:22:48,480 --> 00:22:51,840 Speaker 1: only Supreme Court cases can clearly establish the law. But 410 00:22:52,000 --> 00:22:55,800 Speaker 1: every time they issue a decision that has that kind 411 00:22:55,840 --> 00:23:00,760 Speaker 1: of caveat, it's very shocking and surprising given that the 412 00:23:00,840 --> 00:23:04,639 Speaker 1: Supreme Court only decides a handful of cases, you know, 413 00:23:04,720 --> 00:23:09,000 Speaker 1: involving civil rights issues and the ability to sue every year, 414 00:23:09,640 --> 00:23:13,119 Speaker 1: and when they do, they very rarely rule on the 415 00:23:13,240 --> 00:23:16,359 Speaker 1: question that the Supreme Court says is necessary to clearly 416 00:23:16,400 --> 00:23:18,560 Speaker 1: establish the law, which is a ruling on whether the 417 00:23:18,600 --> 00:23:22,960 Speaker 1: Constitution was violated. And note that in these cases. In 418 00:23:23,080 --> 00:23:25,720 Speaker 1: these decisions that the Supreme Court issued where they said 419 00:23:25,760 --> 00:23:28,080 Speaker 1: there was no clearly established law, there was not a 420 00:23:28,119 --> 00:23:32,280 Speaker 1: prior court case holding similar conduct on constitutional They also 421 00:23:32,320 --> 00:23:36,360 Speaker 1: didn't rule on the constitutionality of the conduct in these cases, 422 00:23:36,480 --> 00:23:40,120 Speaker 1: so they did nothing to clarify the law moving forward. 423 00:23:40,920 --> 00:23:44,920 Speaker 1: There was no noted dissent. Did that surprise you at all? 424 00:23:45,560 --> 00:23:50,800 Speaker 1: It didn't. It didn't. There have been rumbling within the 425 00:23:50,880 --> 00:23:56,280 Speaker 1: Supreme Court that qualified immunity doctrine should change. Justice Thomas 426 00:23:56,280 --> 00:23:58,680 Speaker 1: has said that it should be reconsidered. Justice Podo Mayor 427 00:23:58,840 --> 00:24:01,840 Speaker 1: has said that it sends a message to police that 428 00:24:01,920 --> 00:24:06,800 Speaker 1: they can shoot first and think later. And there was 429 00:24:06,840 --> 00:24:11,000 Speaker 1: a decision in November of case called Taylor versus Rio 430 00:24:11,119 --> 00:24:15,800 Speaker 1: Jus where the Court seemed to be backing away from 431 00:24:15,800 --> 00:24:19,120 Speaker 1: its most robust description of what clearly established law was. 432 00:24:19,200 --> 00:24:23,359 Speaker 1: In that case, which involves prisoner who has kept in 433 00:24:23,640 --> 00:24:28,119 Speaker 1: a cell for several days that was completely undersanitary, unfit 434 00:24:28,200 --> 00:24:32,720 Speaker 1: for human habitation. The Supreme Court said, you don't need 435 00:24:32,720 --> 00:24:35,560 Speaker 1: a prior case for it to be obvious that it 436 00:24:35,640 --> 00:24:39,000 Speaker 1: was unconstitutional to put this person in these conditions for 437 00:24:39,080 --> 00:24:41,879 Speaker 1: this amount of time. And when the Supreme Court issued 438 00:24:41,920 --> 00:24:46,720 Speaker 1: that decision. I and others who studied this issue thought 439 00:24:46,840 --> 00:24:50,560 Speaker 1: that it could be a indication that the Court was 440 00:24:50,800 --> 00:24:55,280 Speaker 1: stepping back from its most extreme descriptions of the doctor 441 00:24:55,359 --> 00:24:58,159 Speaker 1: and what was necessary to clearly establish the law. So 442 00:24:59,119 --> 00:25:05,600 Speaker 1: with these two unsigned unanimous precurium opinions, it seems like 443 00:25:06,320 --> 00:25:09,280 Speaker 1: the Court was not opening the door quite as widely 444 00:25:09,320 --> 00:25:13,600 Speaker 1: as I had hoped to a vision of qualified immunity 445 00:25:13,680 --> 00:25:17,720 Speaker 1: that that didn't require clearly established law at this level 446 00:25:17,720 --> 00:25:19,840 Speaker 1: of precision that they seem to do in these two cames. 447 00:25:19,920 --> 00:25:23,639 Speaker 1: Do you think the differences between police officers, who the 448 00:25:23,720 --> 00:25:26,919 Speaker 1: court sees is having to make split second decisions and 449 00:25:27,080 --> 00:25:30,800 Speaker 1: prison guards It could be It certainly is true that 450 00:25:30,920 --> 00:25:34,400 Speaker 1: the officers in the prison case had a lot more 451 00:25:34,440 --> 00:25:38,680 Speaker 1: time to deliberate about the steps that they were taking. 452 00:25:38,960 --> 00:25:43,919 Speaker 1: But then it seems to me like the more sensible 453 00:25:44,480 --> 00:25:50,120 Speaker 1: answer is to reach the constitutional question and make a decision, 454 00:25:50,400 --> 00:25:54,240 Speaker 1: issue a decision that can then offer some clarity in 455 00:25:54,280 --> 00:25:59,359 Speaker 1: these circumstances. The idea that the Court is recognizing in 456 00:25:59,400 --> 00:26:03,920 Speaker 1: a comedy, the split second decisions police might make through 457 00:26:04,000 --> 00:26:08,720 Speaker 1: qualified immunity, which is we've said, is a doctrine based 458 00:26:08,760 --> 00:26:11,800 Speaker 1: on this idea of notice that has no basis in 459 00:26:11,840 --> 00:26:16,600 Speaker 1: reality really feels like a missed opportunity for the court 460 00:26:16,640 --> 00:26:19,960 Speaker 1: to offer some clarity about the law. The doctrine of 461 00:26:20,040 --> 00:26:25,560 Speaker 1: qualified immunity has come under increased scrutiny following the murder 462 00:26:25,600 --> 00:26:31,119 Speaker 1: of George Floyd and other acts of excessive force by police. 463 00:26:31,440 --> 00:26:35,199 Speaker 1: Does it affect the way police officers act to know 464 00:26:35,480 --> 00:26:39,520 Speaker 1: that they're basically going to be covered in a civil 465 00:26:39,560 --> 00:26:46,440 Speaker 1: case afterwards. So one important thing to remember about qualified immunity, 466 00:26:46,520 --> 00:26:49,600 Speaker 1: and I think it gets obscured a lot in the 467 00:26:49,680 --> 00:26:54,400 Speaker 1: current debate, is that qualified immunity is not what shields 468 00:26:54,600 --> 00:26:58,720 Speaker 1: police officers from paying settlements and judgments from their own 469 00:26:58,760 --> 00:27:03,960 Speaker 1: bank accounts. It's been described and defenders of qualified immunity 470 00:27:04,080 --> 00:27:07,720 Speaker 1: has said that it's necessary to protect officers from being 471 00:27:07,760 --> 00:27:12,160 Speaker 1: bankrupted for lawsuits based on, you know, reasonable mistakes made 472 00:27:12,160 --> 00:27:19,160 Speaker 1: in a split second. But officers are already protected from 473 00:27:19,160 --> 00:27:23,520 Speaker 1: having to pay in these cases because states and local 474 00:27:23,560 --> 00:27:28,280 Speaker 1: governments have what are called indemnification rules and policies that 475 00:27:28,440 --> 00:27:32,880 Speaker 1: provide that when an officer is stued, their employer will 476 00:27:32,920 --> 00:27:36,639 Speaker 1: pay the settlement for judgment. It's a matter of law 477 00:27:37,359 --> 00:27:40,160 Speaker 1: that they are obligated to do so, and there are 478 00:27:40,640 --> 00:27:44,840 Speaker 1: some exceptions that are carved out into those statutes when 479 00:27:45,280 --> 00:27:51,360 Speaker 1: officers have acted maliciously or are criminally prosecuted. But when 480 00:27:51,400 --> 00:27:55,600 Speaker 1: I studied police and domestication practices around the country, I 481 00:27:55,680 --> 00:28:00,240 Speaker 1: found that eight percent of the dollars that are paid 482 00:28:00,400 --> 00:28:05,440 Speaker 1: to people in police as conduct suits come from government budgets, 483 00:28:05,920 --> 00:28:10,400 Speaker 1: not from police officers bank accounts. So qualified immunity does 484 00:28:10,440 --> 00:28:14,040 Speaker 1: not provide that shield. And I think the Fourth Amendment 485 00:28:14,080 --> 00:28:20,240 Speaker 1: already provides the shield to protect reasonable officers from constitutional violations. 486 00:28:21,119 --> 00:28:24,040 Speaker 1: So what does ending qualified immunity or what does qualified 487 00:28:24,040 --> 00:28:26,639 Speaker 1: immunity do, and what would end being qualified immunity do? 488 00:28:27,480 --> 00:28:32,280 Speaker 1: I think that that qualified immunity right now makes the 489 00:28:32,440 --> 00:28:36,960 Speaker 1: law unclear for law enforcement and for courts and for 490 00:28:37,000 --> 00:28:41,640 Speaker 1: the general public. There are parts of this country where 491 00:28:41,680 --> 00:28:45,960 Speaker 1: courts have not ruled yet that it is protected by 492 00:28:45,960 --> 00:28:49,720 Speaker 1: the First Amendment to record the police, a concept that 493 00:28:50,120 --> 00:28:55,240 Speaker 1: has been critically important to our current conversation about policing 494 00:28:55,400 --> 00:28:57,920 Speaker 1: and an issue that has been particularly relevant since the 495 00:28:58,000 --> 00:29:01,880 Speaker 1: advent of smartphones. But in some parts of the country, 496 00:29:02,080 --> 00:29:04,720 Speaker 1: courts have not yet ruled on that question, and I 497 00:29:04,760 --> 00:29:07,160 Speaker 1: think the reason for that can be traced right back 498 00:29:07,200 --> 00:29:11,200 Speaker 1: to qualified immunity, because courts can grant qualified immunity without 499 00:29:11,320 --> 00:29:15,640 Speaker 1: ruling on whether the Constitution was violated. And that's just 500 00:29:15,720 --> 00:29:19,000 Speaker 1: one example of the way in which the law becomes 501 00:29:19,160 --> 00:29:24,160 Speaker 1: less clear because of qualified immunity. Without qualified immunity, there 502 00:29:24,160 --> 00:29:27,440 Speaker 1: would be more clarity that could then be incorporated into 503 00:29:27,680 --> 00:29:33,160 Speaker 1: police policies and trainings and into our general understanding. And 504 00:29:33,200 --> 00:29:36,280 Speaker 1: I also agree with Justice so to Mayor that these 505 00:29:36,320 --> 00:29:42,760 Speaker 1: decisions with qualifying facts, where officers are shielded from liability 506 00:29:42,880 --> 00:29:45,840 Speaker 1: because there doesn't happen to be a prior court case 507 00:29:46,080 --> 00:29:51,400 Speaker 1: with virtually identical facts, sends a shoot first, think later 508 00:29:52,120 --> 00:29:56,360 Speaker 1: message to police. So I think that ending qualified immunity 509 00:29:56,480 --> 00:30:00,120 Speaker 1: or greatly limiting it would have very important effect for 510 00:30:00,320 --> 00:30:04,400 Speaker 1: law enforcement. But it still would not mean that officers 511 00:30:04,560 --> 00:30:09,200 Speaker 1: would be personally financially responsible for paying settlements and judgments 512 00:30:09,200 --> 00:30:11,960 Speaker 1: in these cases, or that they would be found to 513 00:30:12,040 --> 00:30:15,840 Speaker 1: have violated the Constitution when they made reasonable mistakes. So 514 00:30:15,920 --> 00:30:19,880 Speaker 1: it seems like the likely path to change this qualified 515 00:30:19,920 --> 00:30:23,280 Speaker 1: immunity doctrine is through legislation. Do you see that happening 516 00:30:23,320 --> 00:30:25,240 Speaker 1: at the state level. I know that there are I 517 00:30:25,280 --> 00:30:29,320 Speaker 1: think seven state qualified immunity bills have been enacted. There 518 00:30:29,440 --> 00:30:34,400 Speaker 1: is motion and activity on the state level, and I 519 00:30:34,440 --> 00:30:38,640 Speaker 1: think that the gold standard really is Colorado, where a 520 00:30:38,680 --> 00:30:42,040 Speaker 1: bill was passed in June, right after the murder of 521 00:30:42,080 --> 00:30:45,640 Speaker 1: George Floyd, and I think, buoyed by a sort of 522 00:30:45,880 --> 00:30:50,840 Speaker 1: shared sentiment in that moment that something really needed to change. 523 00:30:51,160 --> 00:30:53,800 Speaker 1: I think that their bill is the most ambitious, But 524 00:30:53,840 --> 00:30:57,280 Speaker 1: there have been other bills that have followed in New 525 00:30:57,320 --> 00:31:01,160 Speaker 1: Mexico and in New York City and some other places 526 00:31:01,200 --> 00:31:04,280 Speaker 1: as well. There have also been many states in which 527 00:31:04,720 --> 00:31:09,080 Speaker 1: qualified immunity bills have been introduced, and there have been hearings. 528 00:31:09,120 --> 00:31:12,200 Speaker 1: I've participated in some of those hearings, and they have 529 00:31:12,400 --> 00:31:17,720 Speaker 1: been shelved for the moment or rejected really in each 530 00:31:17,800 --> 00:31:22,240 Speaker 1: time based on what I consider to be groundless fears 531 00:31:22,280 --> 00:31:26,800 Speaker 1: about bankrupt officers and lawsuits that challenge reasonable conduct, of 532 00:31:26,920 --> 00:31:29,800 Speaker 1: the typical fears about what a world without qualified immunity 533 00:31:29,800 --> 00:31:32,080 Speaker 1: would look like that that are not based in reality. 534 00:31:32,520 --> 00:31:35,600 Speaker 1: Is there anything happening on the federal level. In the 535 00:31:35,600 --> 00:31:40,000 Speaker 1: summer of the House passed the George Flood Justice and 536 00:31:40,000 --> 00:31:44,440 Speaker 1: Policing Act, which included, among many, many different provisions and 537 00:31:44,680 --> 00:31:50,400 Speaker 1: ends to qualified immunity, and that did not move forward. Then, 538 00:31:50,680 --> 00:31:54,240 Speaker 1: nearing the anniversary of George Flood's murder, that bill was 539 00:31:54,440 --> 00:31:58,480 Speaker 1: reintroduced and re passed in the House, and again it 540 00:31:58,640 --> 00:32:02,800 Speaker 1: stalled in the Senate. In the summer of tim Scott 541 00:32:02,920 --> 00:32:08,320 Speaker 1: described qualified immunity reform as a poison pill to the negotiations, 542 00:32:08,400 --> 00:32:13,480 Speaker 1: and in one it seemed perhaps that there was going 543 00:32:13,560 --> 00:32:18,840 Speaker 1: to be some common ground for a shift to qualified immunity, 544 00:32:18,840 --> 00:32:22,200 Speaker 1: a limitation to qualified immunity, But the negotiations in that 545 00:32:22,400 --> 00:32:24,720 Speaker 1: bill have fallen apart as well. Thanks for being on 546 00:32:24,760 --> 00:32:27,800 Speaker 1: the show, Joanna. That's Professor Joanna Schwartz of u c 547 00:32:27,960 --> 00:32:30,280 Speaker 1: l A Law School. And that's it for the sedition 548 00:32:30,280 --> 00:32:33,000 Speaker 1: of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get 549 00:32:33,000 --> 00:32:36,200 Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You 550 00:32:36,240 --> 00:32:40,200 Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www 551 00:32:40,280 --> 00:32:44,800 Speaker 1: dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcasts, Last Law. I'm Shun 552 00:32:44,880 --> 00:32:46,880 Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg