WEBVTT - De-radicalizing Extremists From QAnon to Jihad

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloombird Law with June Brusso from Bloombird Radio.

0:00:09.400 --> 0:00:16.040
<v Speaker 1>He actually became Abdulah Haking Mohammed. He was no longer

0:00:16.960 --> 0:00:22.400
<v Speaker 1>Carlos Bledso. Martin Blesdoe's son, Carlos wants a bright, happy,

0:00:22.440 --> 0:00:26.520
<v Speaker 1>go lucky hip hop fan, had fallen with Islamic radicals

0:00:26.520 --> 0:00:30.000
<v Speaker 1>as a college student in Tennessee. His sister says they

0:00:30.040 --> 0:00:34.559
<v Speaker 1>transformed him. They instill into your head that what you're

0:00:34.600 --> 0:00:38.040
<v Speaker 1>doing is right, and you're doing it for your new family,

0:00:38.760 --> 0:00:43.360
<v Speaker 1>which is the extremists. When Carlos shot and killed a

0:00:43.479 --> 0:00:47.200
<v Speaker 1>soldier at a US military recruiting office in two thousand nine,

0:00:47.520 --> 0:00:51.160
<v Speaker 1>the family struggled with anger and grief. With nowhere to turn,

0:00:51.640 --> 0:00:55.040
<v Speaker 1>they decided to help others who faced the same question

0:00:55.160 --> 0:00:57.720
<v Speaker 1>they had. What do you do when a loved one

0:00:57.920 --> 0:01:01.880
<v Speaker 1>subscribes to a radical idea of g whether it's jihad,

0:01:02.040 --> 0:01:06.400
<v Speaker 1>white supremacy, q and on or something else. Parents for Peace.

0:01:06.480 --> 0:01:09.880
<v Speaker 1>I feel like it's going to bring these families closer

0:01:10.680 --> 0:01:13.600
<v Speaker 1>so that we can cry on each other showers, and

0:01:13.720 --> 0:01:18.280
<v Speaker 1>for those that may be questioning what their child are doing,

0:01:19.000 --> 0:01:21.679
<v Speaker 1>I think this will open their eyes. The demand for

0:01:21.720 --> 0:01:24.639
<v Speaker 1>the services of Parents for Peace has never been higher.

0:01:25.000 --> 0:01:28.360
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Yaffee Bellini, who's

0:01:28.360 --> 0:01:31.360
<v Speaker 1>written about the group. David start by telling us about

0:01:31.440 --> 0:01:33.880
<v Speaker 1>the raid on the house of a young man who

0:01:33.920 --> 0:01:37.240
<v Speaker 1>also had been radicalized. This was back in November of

0:01:38.760 --> 0:01:41.559
<v Speaker 1>and a mother in the southern US who were calling

0:01:41.600 --> 0:01:44.039
<v Speaker 1>any and the story wakes up to the sound of

0:01:44.120 --> 0:01:46.760
<v Speaker 1>pounding on her front door at the early hours the

0:01:46.840 --> 0:01:49.639
<v Speaker 1>morning and outside the house or a group of FBI

0:01:49.720 --> 0:01:52.960
<v Speaker 1>adem and they've come looking for her teenage son who

0:01:52.960 --> 0:01:55.800
<v Speaker 1>are calling Jack and the story and the reason is

0:01:55.840 --> 0:01:59.360
<v Speaker 1>that Jack has been stuck into the world of Islamic

0:01:59.440 --> 0:02:03.520
<v Speaker 1>radical them online. He's talking in forums with supporters of

0:02:03.560 --> 0:02:08.200
<v Speaker 1>the Atlantic State. He's discussing the possibility of attacks on

0:02:08.560 --> 0:02:11.440
<v Speaker 1>national landmarks like the White House and the Washington Monument,

0:02:11.639 --> 0:02:14.160
<v Speaker 1>and all of this has gotten the attention of the FBI,

0:02:14.440 --> 0:02:16.840
<v Speaker 1>which shows up to read the house and see whether

0:02:16.840 --> 0:02:19.639
<v Speaker 1>there's any sign that Jack is actually preparing to launch

0:02:19.639 --> 0:02:23.200
<v Speaker 1>a real terror attack. Was he charged. He was eventually

0:02:23.280 --> 0:02:26.480
<v Speaker 1>charged in the juvenile court with making terrorist threats against

0:02:26.480 --> 0:02:29.720
<v Speaker 1>the US and also with essentially obstructing investigation because he

0:02:29.800 --> 0:02:32.840
<v Speaker 1>deleted a chat app from his phone after the FBI

0:02:33.120 --> 0:02:36.880
<v Speaker 1>showed up, But ultimately he received a year of probation

0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:40.360
<v Speaker 1>that says didn't really find any solid evidence that he

0:02:40.480 --> 0:02:42.920
<v Speaker 1>was actually about to launch this sort of attack. And

0:02:42.960 --> 0:02:45.079
<v Speaker 1>he was sixteen at the time, so, you know, luckily

0:02:45.120 --> 0:02:47.880
<v Speaker 1>for him, the case ended up in juvenile court. His

0:02:48.000 --> 0:02:52.320
<v Speaker 1>mom said, people understand porn, they don't understand your kid

0:02:52.400 --> 0:02:55.600
<v Speaker 1>is doing isis. But she was talking about this as

0:02:55.639 --> 0:02:59.359
<v Speaker 1>an addiction. Yeah, So a lot of people who struggle

0:02:59.440 --> 0:03:03.200
<v Speaker 1>with extraism and members of extremist groups compare the kind

0:03:03.240 --> 0:03:07.119
<v Speaker 1>of psychological experiences being part of one of these movements

0:03:07.160 --> 0:03:09.760
<v Speaker 1>to an addiction. You know, trying to break out of

0:03:09.760 --> 0:03:13.320
<v Speaker 1>it produces similar kind of lingering effects as if you're

0:03:13.320 --> 0:03:16.560
<v Speaker 1>breaking an addiction to drugs or alcohol, and this kind

0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:18.720
<v Speaker 1>of thrill or the high get from being part of

0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:22.079
<v Speaker 1>it is also akin to the sort of experiences being

0:03:22.120 --> 0:03:24.120
<v Speaker 1>on drugs or being drunk or what have you. And

0:03:24.200 --> 0:03:26.560
<v Speaker 1>so that's a way of thinking about this problem that

0:03:26.840 --> 0:03:29.919
<v Speaker 1>anecdotal evidence supports, from which academics are beginning to study

0:03:29.919 --> 0:03:32.040
<v Speaker 1>in a more systematic way to see if there are

0:03:32.560 --> 0:03:35.680
<v Speaker 1>lessons of how you can combat this problem that stems

0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:38.760
<v Speaker 1>from that recognition of their similarities with addiction, and the

0:03:38.840 --> 0:03:42.360
<v Speaker 1>mom tried all sorts of things before she found Parents

0:03:42.400 --> 0:03:46.520
<v Speaker 1>for Peace. Her son Jack is autistic, and people who

0:03:46.600 --> 0:03:50.640
<v Speaker 1>are autistic are sometimes susceptible to the type of predatory

0:03:50.720 --> 0:03:53.480
<v Speaker 1>recruitment that can lead to extremism, and so she saw

0:03:53.520 --> 0:03:55.640
<v Speaker 1>all sorts of treatments for him. Him to a residential

0:03:55.680 --> 0:03:58.920
<v Speaker 1>school for kids that behavioral problems. She introduced him to

0:03:59.000 --> 0:04:02.680
<v Speaker 1>a rotating asks of doctors and therapists to try to

0:04:02.680 --> 0:04:06.520
<v Speaker 1>treat this problem, and eventually she found a group called

0:04:06.680 --> 0:04:10.000
<v Speaker 1>Parents for Peace, which is a nonprofit that has been

0:04:10.040 --> 0:04:15.600
<v Speaker 1>around and which specializes in helping people do radicalize, in

0:04:15.880 --> 0:04:18.799
<v Speaker 1>that sort of lurring and kind of coaxing them away

0:04:18.880 --> 0:04:23.120
<v Speaker 1>from extremist groups. How would you describe their treatment method.

0:04:23.520 --> 0:04:27.159
<v Speaker 1>It's difficult to describe precisely, but it's somewhere at the

0:04:27.240 --> 0:04:32.919
<v Speaker 1>intersection of addiction treatment, family counseling therapy, the kind of

0:04:32.960 --> 0:04:36.640
<v Speaker 1>cult deprogramming efforts of the nineties seventies. It's this sort

0:04:36.680 --> 0:04:39.960
<v Speaker 1>of hybrid approach. A lot of it is about figuring

0:04:39.960 --> 0:04:42.760
<v Speaker 1>out what the underlying problem is and trying to address that.

0:04:42.920 --> 0:04:45.120
<v Speaker 1>You know, maybe this person is drawn to an extremist

0:04:45.160 --> 0:04:47.280
<v Speaker 1>group because of their lonely Let's find a way for

0:04:47.360 --> 0:04:49.760
<v Speaker 1>them to make friends that they get that kind of

0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:53.560
<v Speaker 1>sense of camaraderie from somewhere other than a dangerous extremist group.

0:04:53.760 --> 0:04:57.240
<v Speaker 1>Some of it is about coaching the family to respond

0:04:57.680 --> 0:05:01.320
<v Speaker 1>to the loved ones extremism and productive way instead of

0:05:01.360 --> 0:05:03.320
<v Speaker 1>freaking out every time they show up you and on

0:05:03.440 --> 0:05:05.920
<v Speaker 1>video on their phone. Try to ask them open and

0:05:06.040 --> 0:05:08.640
<v Speaker 1>the questions about why they're drawn to that video, Try

0:05:08.720 --> 0:05:11.200
<v Speaker 1>to understand them, show them loves and attention and trying

0:05:11.200 --> 0:05:14.560
<v Speaker 1>to combat this underlying issue that might make them vulnerable

0:05:14.800 --> 0:05:18.560
<v Speaker 1>to conspiracy theories. That's sort of thing and the ultimately

0:05:18.640 --> 0:05:21.520
<v Speaker 1>what this group will sometime to do is introduce someone

0:05:21.560 --> 0:05:24.200
<v Speaker 1>who's in an extremist group to a former extremists, somebody

0:05:24.240 --> 0:05:26.280
<v Speaker 1>who's been in the group and left will kind of

0:05:26.320 --> 0:05:28.920
<v Speaker 1>mentor them the friend of them and try to coach

0:05:29.000 --> 0:05:32.919
<v Speaker 1>them away. The woman now in charge, Miriam Churchill, said,

0:05:33.240 --> 0:05:36.840
<v Speaker 1>I thought this is really interesting. Never argue with extremists,

0:05:36.960 --> 0:05:39.960
<v Speaker 1>don't react to angrily. It's tough not to try to

0:05:40.040 --> 0:05:43.560
<v Speaker 1>argue someone out of something. Yeah, definitely, I mean, certainly

0:05:43.680 --> 0:05:49.120
<v Speaker 1>the temptation when somebody starts voicing horrible white supremacist ideas

0:05:49.440 --> 0:05:52.520
<v Speaker 1>or kind of anti vactor sentiment is to fight back

0:05:52.560 --> 0:05:55.440
<v Speaker 1>and argue and prove them wrong. But what Miriam has

0:05:55.480 --> 0:05:57.640
<v Speaker 1>found and hurt kind of working with families is that

0:05:57.920 --> 0:06:02.080
<v Speaker 1>ultimately that's counterproductive. That feeling like you're under assault will

0:06:02.120 --> 0:06:04.320
<v Speaker 1>just make you want to dig in even further and

0:06:04.360 --> 0:06:07.640
<v Speaker 1>make you less likely to leave that type of conspiracy behind.

0:06:08.000 --> 0:06:09.680
<v Speaker 1>And you know, that kind of makes sense on a

0:06:09.800 --> 0:06:12.440
<v Speaker 1>sort of intuitive level, and so her advice is not

0:06:12.520 --> 0:06:15.400
<v Speaker 1>to do that again, to try to kind of understand

0:06:15.600 --> 0:06:18.919
<v Speaker 1>the underlying problems that might make you susceptible to believe

0:06:18.960 --> 0:06:20.880
<v Speaker 1>in these things, and then to try to combat those.

0:06:21.440 --> 0:06:26.039
<v Speaker 1>So extremism is the drug of choice. And in Jack's case,

0:06:26.120 --> 0:06:30.359
<v Speaker 1>he went from one extreme ideology to another. Yes, so

0:06:30.400 --> 0:06:33.320
<v Speaker 1>this is something that the group parents or piece actually

0:06:33.360 --> 0:06:36.360
<v Speaker 1>sees quite a lot, that people will switch from one

0:06:36.400 --> 0:06:38.960
<v Speaker 1>ideology to the other. And you know, certainly when I

0:06:39.000 --> 0:06:41.840
<v Speaker 1>was beginning my reporting, you know, I didn't understand that

0:06:41.880 --> 0:06:43.920
<v Speaker 1>at all. It seemed it didn't seem to make sense

0:06:43.960 --> 0:06:46.520
<v Speaker 1>to me how somebody could go from being an Islamic

0:06:46.600 --> 0:06:49.560
<v Speaker 1>radical one day to being a white supremacist the next day.

0:06:49.920 --> 0:06:52.200
<v Speaker 1>It didn't fit with my understanding of how this works.

0:06:52.279 --> 0:06:54.320
<v Speaker 1>But you know, actually when you when you think about

0:06:54.320 --> 0:06:56.440
<v Speaker 1>it more deeply, it does makes sense. You know, people

0:06:56.440 --> 0:06:59.520
<v Speaker 1>are drawn to extremism often not because of the substance

0:06:59.560 --> 0:07:02.440
<v Speaker 1>of the idea oology, but because being a part of

0:07:02.480 --> 0:07:05.919
<v Speaker 1>a group filled some sort of spiritual void and and

0:07:05.920 --> 0:07:08.719
<v Speaker 1>and the substance of the ideology is almost secondary to

0:07:08.800 --> 0:07:12.480
<v Speaker 1>the experience of subscribing to the ideology at all. And

0:07:12.520 --> 0:07:15.560
<v Speaker 1>so it makes sense that somebody might switch from from

0:07:15.600 --> 0:07:17.520
<v Speaker 1>from one form to another, and that's something that the

0:07:17.560 --> 0:07:20.400
<v Speaker 1>group seed a lot. So in Jack's kid, you know,

0:07:20.480 --> 0:07:23.000
<v Speaker 1>with the help of the lessons his mom and some

0:07:23.080 --> 0:07:25.320
<v Speaker 1>parents or peace and some of his kind of own

0:07:25.360 --> 0:07:28.480
<v Speaker 1>independent research videos he was watching online, he gradually starts

0:07:28.560 --> 0:07:32.760
<v Speaker 1>drifting away from Islamic extremism, eventually kind of renounces the Kuran,

0:07:33.720 --> 0:07:37.360
<v Speaker 1>become a sort of urgently anti Muslim, which is its

0:07:37.360 --> 0:07:40.000
<v Speaker 1>own sort of problem um. But then also at the

0:07:40.040 --> 0:07:44.640
<v Speaker 1>same time begins embracing we're at least flirting with light

0:07:44.640 --> 0:07:47.800
<v Speaker 1>wing extremism. Um. He gives ancestors who's gone to the

0:07:47.840 --> 0:07:50.680
<v Speaker 1>Confederacy in the Civil War and starts wearing a Confederate

0:07:50.680 --> 0:07:56.240
<v Speaker 1>flag baseball cap everywhere. He decorates his room with Confederate flags. UM.

0:07:56.240 --> 0:07:58.200
<v Speaker 1>And his mom, you know, doesn't think that he's becoming

0:07:58.240 --> 0:08:01.760
<v Speaker 1>a white supremacist exactly, you know, not expressing animus towards

0:08:01.840 --> 0:08:05.320
<v Speaker 1>other races or anything like that, but he is sort

0:08:05.320 --> 0:08:07.520
<v Speaker 1>of beginning to adopt some of the some of the

0:08:07.560 --> 0:08:11.320
<v Speaker 1>trappings of white supremacy UM, and you know, at times

0:08:11.440 --> 0:08:15.960
<v Speaker 1>or like express views that seems that seemed potentially problematic.

0:08:16.080 --> 0:08:18.640
<v Speaker 1>At one point he uses the phrase white power and

0:08:18.680 --> 0:08:22.880
<v Speaker 1>an argument with the sibling. Another time, his mom is

0:08:22.880 --> 0:08:25.440
<v Speaker 1>sort of urging him to stop wearing his Confederate tap

0:08:25.480 --> 0:08:27.320
<v Speaker 1>out in public, and he says, no, no, this is

0:08:27.360 --> 0:08:30.080
<v Speaker 1>my history, this is my heritage. So you can see

0:08:30.080 --> 0:08:32.360
<v Speaker 1>how that, you know, could easily, especially for someone with

0:08:32.520 --> 0:08:36.439
<v Speaker 1>his history, turn into um, a real real problem. Do

0:08:36.520 --> 0:08:40.120
<v Speaker 1>they call it deep programming or does that sound too cultish? Yeah,

0:08:40.200 --> 0:08:43.000
<v Speaker 1>parents are piece prefers. The term de radicalization, you know,

0:08:43.080 --> 0:08:46.520
<v Speaker 1>deep programming. It's never a term that's really been precisely defined,

0:08:46.559 --> 0:08:49.920
<v Speaker 1>but it's definitely associated with those kind of extreme methods

0:08:49.920 --> 0:08:53.520
<v Speaker 1>of in eighteen seventies when cult deprogrammers would literally kidnap

0:08:53.640 --> 0:08:58.000
<v Speaker 1>people who were in cults who subscribes to strange, exotic

0:08:58.200 --> 0:09:01.320
<v Speaker 1>religious principles that their parents didn't understand. They would kidnap

0:09:01.360 --> 0:09:04.720
<v Speaker 1>those people and deprived them of food until they were

0:09:04.760 --> 0:09:07.400
<v Speaker 1>prepared to leave behind whatever that the cult was. And

0:09:07.440 --> 0:09:09.079
<v Speaker 1>so a lot of the groups that are doing this

0:09:09.160 --> 0:09:11.240
<v Speaker 1>type of work now want to stay away from that

0:09:11.400 --> 0:09:14.160
<v Speaker 1>type of terminology, so they use still use the word

0:09:14.440 --> 0:09:17.559
<v Speaker 1>radicalization instead. Is there a lot of money in this,

0:09:18.160 --> 0:09:20.960
<v Speaker 1>So groups like Parents or Peace and another similar group

0:09:21.000 --> 0:09:24.320
<v Speaker 1>called Life After Hate our nonprofits that don't charge money.

0:09:24.600 --> 0:09:27.719
<v Speaker 1>They generate income through donations and government grants and those

0:09:27.720 --> 0:09:30.640
<v Speaker 1>works of means. But there's also a cadre of for

0:09:30.960 --> 0:09:35.800
<v Speaker 1>profit deprogrammers de radicalizers out there, and these tend to

0:09:35.840 --> 0:09:39.280
<v Speaker 1>be the sort of final legacy of that nineteen seventies era.

0:09:39.400 --> 0:09:41.280
<v Speaker 1>You know, these are people who are in cults and

0:09:41.360 --> 0:09:44.040
<v Speaker 1>who then made careers out of deep programming, and they

0:09:44.040 --> 0:09:46.760
<v Speaker 1>don't use the same extreme techniques at that period, but

0:09:47.200 --> 0:09:50.760
<v Speaker 1>they charge family tens of thousands of dollars to conduct

0:09:50.800 --> 0:09:54.200
<v Speaker 1>interventions to kind of insinuate themselves into the life of

0:09:54.200 --> 0:09:57.440
<v Speaker 1>a cult member and then eventually reveal themselves as you

0:09:57.480 --> 0:09:59.839
<v Speaker 1>know Ham as deprogrammer. And I'm here to take you

0:10:00.000 --> 0:10:01.839
<v Speaker 1>away from this, and I'm the persuade you why you

0:10:01.840 --> 0:10:05.120
<v Speaker 1>should leave. And this is fraught with risks. Obviously there's

0:10:05.120 --> 0:10:07.920
<v Speaker 1>no guarantee of success. You could spend twenty thousand dollars

0:10:07.920 --> 0:10:10.280
<v Speaker 1>one of these projects and then end up no better

0:10:10.280 --> 0:10:13.120
<v Speaker 1>than when you started. Or I heard stories about the

0:10:13.240 --> 0:10:16.720
<v Speaker 1>programs botching interventions, and so families leaves a lot of money,

0:10:16.720 --> 0:10:19.280
<v Speaker 1>and then also their family member who they were trying

0:10:19.280 --> 0:10:22.400
<v Speaker 1>to help is actually even more alienated ultimately, and so

0:10:22.400 --> 0:10:24.760
<v Speaker 1>there are all sorts of problems associated with this. So

0:10:24.840 --> 0:10:28.079
<v Speaker 1>Stephen Hassan is UM, you know, one of the most

0:10:28.200 --> 0:10:32.160
<v Speaker 1>well known kind of for profit deep programmers, the radicalizers.

0:10:32.200 --> 0:10:35.200
<v Speaker 1>He was a member of the Unification Church, you know,

0:10:35.240 --> 0:10:38.720
<v Speaker 1>back decades ago. You know, he considered a mooney UM.

0:10:39.080 --> 0:10:42.600
<v Speaker 1>He ended up leaving, leaving that group and starting a

0:10:42.720 --> 0:10:45.840
<v Speaker 1>career as a as a deep programmer UM. And so

0:10:45.920 --> 0:10:48.240
<v Speaker 1>he charged his five thousand dollars a day to work

0:10:48.280 --> 0:10:50.760
<v Speaker 1>with families who are trying to extract somebody from an

0:10:50.760 --> 0:10:54.400
<v Speaker 1>extremist group or from you know, a cult. UM. He's

0:10:54.440 --> 0:10:57.559
<v Speaker 1>recently kind of pivoted more from helping cult members to

0:10:57.640 --> 0:11:00.079
<v Speaker 1>helping people who are kind of stuck down the you

0:11:00.160 --> 0:11:02.800
<v Speaker 1>and on rabbit hole. Um. He published a book recently

0:11:02.840 --> 0:11:05.760
<v Speaker 1>called The Cult of Trump. Um, he's the sort of

0:11:05.760 --> 0:11:08.280
<v Speaker 1>guy who's on TB all the time talking about how,

0:11:08.760 --> 0:11:11.200
<v Speaker 1>you know, Trump supporters are brainwashed and that sort of thing.

0:11:11.280 --> 0:11:14.600
<v Speaker 1>He's basically trafficking in kind of theories about how this

0:11:14.679 --> 0:11:18.720
<v Speaker 1>works that are disputed by academics and then charging huge

0:11:18.720 --> 0:11:21.320
<v Speaker 1>amounts of money to try to help people. I mean,

0:11:21.320 --> 0:11:24.800
<v Speaker 1>there are certainly, you know, records of that kind of

0:11:24.840 --> 0:11:28.320
<v Speaker 1>successful cases that that he's worked on. But UM, it's

0:11:28.320 --> 0:11:32.400
<v Speaker 1>definitely a different, you know, costlier approach than what what

0:11:32.559 --> 0:11:38.160
<v Speaker 1>other groups are offered. Is that extreme cult deep programming

0:11:38.520 --> 0:11:42.880
<v Speaker 1>happening anymore. You know, there may be kind of anecdotal

0:11:42.920 --> 0:11:45.679
<v Speaker 1>examples of that happening occasionally now, but that's it's not

0:11:45.720 --> 0:11:47.960
<v Speaker 1>happening at anywhere near at the level that it did

0:11:48.000 --> 0:11:50.000
<v Speaker 1>in the seventies. And that's partly because there were legal

0:11:50.000 --> 0:11:52.040
<v Speaker 1>repercussions for the people who were doing this. There were

0:11:52.040 --> 0:11:56.200
<v Speaker 1>criminal prosecutions, there were civil suits, and and that you know,

0:11:56.280 --> 0:11:59.320
<v Speaker 1>really kind of changed how this works. Um. And you

0:11:59.360 --> 0:12:02.400
<v Speaker 1>know it's happening, it's happening much less often, if at all, anymore.

0:12:02.480 --> 0:12:04.200
<v Speaker 1>When when and when you talk to people who are

0:12:04.240 --> 0:12:06.960
<v Speaker 1>in the kind of culty programming space now, they don't say, oh,

0:12:07.000 --> 0:12:09.800
<v Speaker 1>we would never do anything like that. So as far

0:12:09.920 --> 0:12:13.840
<v Speaker 1>as groups that are free of charge, how many are

0:12:13.840 --> 0:12:17.320
<v Speaker 1>they're out there? It's really a handful, you know. I

0:12:17.400 --> 0:12:18.920
<v Speaker 1>know of two or three off the top and I

0:12:19.000 --> 0:12:20.920
<v Speaker 1>have there. Maybe there may be others, but it's a

0:12:21.040 --> 0:12:24.520
<v Speaker 1>very kind of small and and and still sort of

0:12:24.559 --> 0:12:27.960
<v Speaker 1>growing community. Um. This sort of work is really pioneered

0:12:27.960 --> 0:12:30.360
<v Speaker 1>in Europe. In the late nineties, there was an effort

0:12:30.480 --> 0:12:34.400
<v Speaker 1>in Norway to help right wing extremeists leave these sorts

0:12:34.400 --> 0:12:37.199
<v Speaker 1>of groups, and it only really these sorts of efforts

0:12:37.240 --> 0:12:39.079
<v Speaker 1>only really a game traction and that you asked over

0:12:39.120 --> 0:12:41.960
<v Speaker 1>the last decade. So we're sort of behind where we're

0:12:41.960 --> 0:12:46.640
<v Speaker 1>Europe is on this type of ward, and some defendants

0:12:46.880 --> 0:12:51.040
<v Speaker 1>charged in the January six riots are using this idea

0:12:51.240 --> 0:12:55.080
<v Speaker 1>of de radicalization at sentencing to try to get a

0:12:55.080 --> 0:12:58.760
<v Speaker 1>more lenient sentence. I mean, this is a fascinating aspect

0:12:58.800 --> 0:13:00.880
<v Speaker 1>of this type of work. What you're seeing is that

0:13:00.960 --> 0:13:06.400
<v Speaker 1>people who are facing prison sentences because of extremist activity

0:13:06.559 --> 0:13:08.600
<v Speaker 1>are able to say to judges, look, I'm trying to

0:13:08.640 --> 0:13:11.120
<v Speaker 1>get you outequalise I'm working with a group like Parents

0:13:11.120 --> 0:13:14.480
<v Speaker 1>for Peace, or I'm re educating myself and reading all

0:13:14.520 --> 0:13:17.720
<v Speaker 1>sorts of literature about racial inequality in America sentance and

0:13:18.080 --> 0:13:21.040
<v Speaker 1>that shows that I deserve a more lenient sentence. It's

0:13:21.080 --> 0:13:23.760
<v Speaker 1>really similar to someone who's charged with drunk driving who

0:13:23.840 --> 0:13:26.360
<v Speaker 1>starts going to a meetings and said, so ject, look,

0:13:26.360 --> 0:13:28.880
<v Speaker 1>I'm trying to get treatment. Give me a lenient sentence

0:13:28.920 --> 0:13:31.360
<v Speaker 1>and proving to you that if I'm allowed to return

0:13:31.400 --> 0:13:33.880
<v Speaker 1>to society all behave myself and won't be a threat

0:13:33.880 --> 0:13:35.880
<v Speaker 1>to other people. Now, of course there's a risk here.

0:13:35.920 --> 0:13:39.559
<v Speaker 1>There's a risk of dishonesty and manipulation and people abusing

0:13:39.600 --> 0:13:41.880
<v Speaker 1>these sorts of resources, and you know, that's something that

0:13:41.880 --> 0:13:43.319
<v Speaker 1>the courts are going to have to kind of figure

0:13:43.360 --> 0:13:46.480
<v Speaker 1>out how to sort of protect. And has Parents for

0:13:46.600 --> 0:13:49.920
<v Speaker 1>Peace been involved in any of these sentencings. The one

0:13:49.960 --> 0:13:51.960
<v Speaker 1>case that we're we've seen this play out kind of

0:13:51.960 --> 0:13:54.960
<v Speaker 1>most obviously is in Michigan. Tye Garbon, who was one

0:13:55.000 --> 0:13:57.640
<v Speaker 1>of the right wing extreamists who was charged with the

0:13:57.679 --> 0:14:00.720
<v Speaker 1>Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot back in twenty twenty. He was

0:14:00.760 --> 0:14:04.280
<v Speaker 1>the first of that group of conspirators to plead guilty,

0:14:04.600 --> 0:14:07.240
<v Speaker 1>and his lawyers reached out to Parents for Peace and

0:14:07.320 --> 0:14:10.240
<v Speaker 1>he spoke with the organization over zoom and had various

0:14:10.240 --> 0:14:12.520
<v Speaker 1>meetings with them talking about his personal history. They were

0:14:12.559 --> 0:14:14.640
<v Speaker 1>trying to kind of help him get to a place

0:14:14.679 --> 0:14:17.880
<v Speaker 1>where he's not further radicalized in prison. And then during

0:14:17.960 --> 0:14:20.840
<v Speaker 1>his sentencing, his lawyers brought this up repeatedly and argued

0:14:20.880 --> 0:14:22.960
<v Speaker 1>to the judge that he deserved more leading a sentence.

0:14:23.200 --> 0:14:27.320
<v Speaker 1>And it's difficult to pinpoint where that outreach fit into

0:14:27.440 --> 0:14:29.840
<v Speaker 1>the broader picture of his case, but he did end

0:14:29.880 --> 0:14:33.680
<v Speaker 1>up receiving a sentence that was significantly below the maximum

0:14:33.680 --> 0:14:35.760
<v Speaker 1>possible that he could have received. It was also because

0:14:35.800 --> 0:14:37.720
<v Speaker 1>he was the first in this group to police guilty.

0:14:37.760 --> 0:14:40.160
<v Speaker 1>He was cooperating that type of thing, but it certainly

0:14:40.200 --> 0:14:42.600
<v Speaker 1>didn't hurt that he was speaking the sort of help.

0:14:42.960 --> 0:14:46.000
<v Speaker 1>Is there any study being done to back up that

0:14:46.160 --> 0:14:50.400
<v Speaker 1>this is a process that works long term? So there's

0:14:50.440 --> 0:14:53.400
<v Speaker 1>some data from European efforts that suggests that it works

0:14:53.440 --> 0:14:56.520
<v Speaker 1>pretty well in terms of the work that parents pieces doing.

0:14:56.800 --> 0:14:59.360
<v Speaker 1>There's just way less data on that, and it's a

0:14:59.400 --> 0:15:02.640
<v Speaker 1>real quest and mark they're certainly anecdotal examples of this working,

0:15:02.640 --> 0:15:05.760
<v Speaker 1>But can they show systematically that they have refined an

0:15:05.760 --> 0:15:08.520
<v Speaker 1>approach that really addresses this issue in a meaningful way.

0:15:08.800 --> 0:15:12.280
<v Speaker 1>And they're working with researchers at Harvard and Boston University

0:15:12.280 --> 0:15:15.120
<v Speaker 1>who are just now beginning to work. Is like tracking

0:15:15.160 --> 0:15:17.800
<v Speaker 1>cases over the long term, and that means not just

0:15:18.080 --> 0:15:21.280
<v Speaker 1>does this person leave the extremist group and reject terrorism

0:15:21.320 --> 0:15:23.680
<v Speaker 1>or white supremacy or whatever two months later, it's like

0:15:23.720 --> 0:15:25.680
<v Speaker 1>where are they two years later? Where are they four

0:15:25.760 --> 0:15:28.320
<v Speaker 1>years later? You know, how does their life change after

0:15:28.360 --> 0:15:31.080
<v Speaker 1>the group's intervention. That's work they'll take a really long

0:15:31.120 --> 0:15:33.960
<v Speaker 1>time to do and it's only only really starting now.

0:15:34.400 --> 0:15:38.320
<v Speaker 1>How much call is there for this type of intervention.

0:15:38.840 --> 0:15:40.840
<v Speaker 1>I think there's a huge amount of demand that Parents

0:15:40.920 --> 0:15:44.320
<v Speaker 1>or Peace saw threefold increase and calls to its national

0:15:44.440 --> 0:15:47.280
<v Speaker 1>hotline during the pandemic from before the pandemic. You know,

0:15:47.320 --> 0:15:49.720
<v Speaker 1>it's people stay at home, are spending more time online,

0:15:49.760 --> 0:15:52.040
<v Speaker 1>you know, all this sorts of phenomena that we're familiar with.

0:15:52.240 --> 0:15:55.800
<v Speaker 1>And after January six, you're also seeing assert in family

0:15:55.960 --> 0:15:59.440
<v Speaker 1>seeking treatments for loved ones who are being stuck down

0:15:59.440 --> 0:16:02.200
<v Speaker 1>these rabbits. So it's certainly something that's in demand. There's

0:16:02.200 --> 0:16:04.680
<v Speaker 1>no question that extremism is a big problem in the

0:16:04.720 --> 0:16:07.040
<v Speaker 1>modern US and that we need to figure out a

0:16:07.040 --> 0:16:09.400
<v Speaker 1>way to deal with it. And a lot of attention

0:16:09.440 --> 0:16:12.400
<v Speaker 1>has focused on how do we get social media companies

0:16:12.480 --> 0:16:15.720
<v Speaker 1>to stop spreading this information that leads to extremism, and

0:16:15.720 --> 0:16:17.720
<v Speaker 1>that's certainly a big problem and one that needs to

0:16:17.760 --> 0:16:19.640
<v Speaker 1>be addressed. But what these groups are trying to do

0:16:19.760 --> 0:16:22.640
<v Speaker 1>is address a different sort of problem, which is, Okay,

0:16:22.720 --> 0:16:25.400
<v Speaker 1>you've got a family member who is already an extremist.

0:16:25.440 --> 0:16:27.640
<v Speaker 1>What do you do then? And that's a complicated question.

0:16:28.040 --> 0:16:40.200
<v Speaker 1>Thanks David. That's David Yaffie Bellani, Bloomberg Legal reporter. The

0:16:40.280 --> 0:16:44.640
<v Speaker 1>demands for justice and police accountability during the demonstrations following

0:16:44.640 --> 0:16:49.360
<v Speaker 1>George Floyd's murder revived questions about the controversial doctrine of

0:16:49.440 --> 0:16:53.400
<v Speaker 1>qualified immunity, But this week the Supreme Court sided with

0:16:53.480 --> 0:16:56.720
<v Speaker 1>police in a pair of cases alleging excessive force by

0:16:56.840 --> 0:17:01.200
<v Speaker 1>officers in California and Oklahoma. The Justice has ruled unanimously

0:17:01.600 --> 0:17:05.400
<v Speaker 1>that the officers were protected by qualified immunity and could

0:17:05.440 --> 0:17:09.000
<v Speaker 1>not be sued because previous case law hadn't given them

0:17:09.040 --> 0:17:13.320
<v Speaker 1>clear guidance that their conduct violated the constitution. Joining me

0:17:13.359 --> 0:17:17.000
<v Speaker 1>as an expert on qualified immunity, Joanna Schwartz, a professor

0:17:17.040 --> 0:17:19.639
<v Speaker 1>at u c l A Law School, Joanna explain what

0:17:19.760 --> 0:17:24.480
<v Speaker 1>qualified immunity is. So. Qualified immunity is a legal defense

0:17:24.560 --> 0:17:29.040
<v Speaker 1>in civil cases, and the defense means that a police

0:17:29.080 --> 0:17:33.720
<v Speaker 1>officer or other government official who has violated the Constitution

0:17:34.359 --> 0:17:39.080
<v Speaker 1>is protected from being sued unless there's clearly established law

0:17:39.400 --> 0:17:44.120
<v Speaker 1>showing that what they did was unconstitutional. And the Supreme

0:17:44.119 --> 0:17:48.840
<v Speaker 1>Court in recent years has offered more and more restrictive

0:17:49.119 --> 0:17:51.680
<v Speaker 1>descriptions of what it means to clearly establish the law,

0:17:51.840 --> 0:17:54.280
<v Speaker 1>so that they've now really sent a message that you

0:17:54.359 --> 0:17:58.240
<v Speaker 1>need a prior court case where the almost exact same

0:17:58.280 --> 0:18:02.160
<v Speaker 1>thing happened before and ruled unconstitutional in order to clearly

0:18:02.240 --> 0:18:07.720
<v Speaker 1>establish the law. In both cases, the justices overturned lower

0:18:07.760 --> 0:18:11.239
<v Speaker 1>court decisions that went against the officers. Can you just

0:18:11.240 --> 0:18:13.720
<v Speaker 1>tell us a little bit about the cases. One was

0:18:13.800 --> 0:18:16.320
<v Speaker 1>from the Ninth Circuit, one was from the Tenth Circuit.

0:18:16.400 --> 0:18:20.160
<v Speaker 1>They were both cases where police were called about some

0:18:20.480 --> 0:18:24.000
<v Speaker 1>domestic incident. You know the fact in a slightly difference

0:18:24.040 --> 0:18:26.879
<v Speaker 1>in the case out of the Ninth Circuit, officers in

0:18:27.160 --> 0:18:31.800
<v Speaker 1>arresting person put them down on the ground and put

0:18:31.880 --> 0:18:35.600
<v Speaker 1>their knee on the person's back, albeit briefly. And in

0:18:35.640 --> 0:18:38.800
<v Speaker 1>the case out of the Tenth Circuit, the man was

0:18:39.400 --> 0:18:44.120
<v Speaker 1>near his garage the police arrived, and it sounds like

0:18:44.160 --> 0:18:48.280
<v Speaker 1>the man sort of stepped back into his garage, had

0:18:48.320 --> 0:18:51.960
<v Speaker 1>a hammer that he swung sort of like a baseball bat,

0:18:52.000 --> 0:18:55.480
<v Speaker 1>it says in the opinion, several feet away from the officers,

0:18:55.840 --> 0:18:59.000
<v Speaker 1>and then the officers shot him. The Court said, it's

0:18:59.040 --> 0:19:03.320
<v Speaker 1>not enough that rule be suggested by then existing precedent.

0:19:03.920 --> 0:19:07.080
<v Speaker 1>The rules contours must be so well defined that it's

0:19:07.080 --> 0:19:10.280
<v Speaker 1>clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful

0:19:10.320 --> 0:19:14.639
<v Speaker 1>in the situation he confronted. Our officers really aware of

0:19:14.680 --> 0:19:18.800
<v Speaker 1>what these court cases say, or is this standard sort

0:19:18.840 --> 0:19:22.480
<v Speaker 1>of a ruse on the Court's part. It's a terrific question.

0:19:22.640 --> 0:19:24.800
<v Speaker 1>I think the shortest answer is it is a bit

0:19:24.840 --> 0:19:28.840
<v Speaker 1>of a ruse. When the Supreme Court explains why there

0:19:28.880 --> 0:19:31.960
<v Speaker 1>needs to be a prior court decision with nearly identical fact,

0:19:32.200 --> 0:19:35.960
<v Speaker 1>they talk about notice that the officer needs to be unnoticed,

0:19:36.080 --> 0:19:39.439
<v Speaker 1>that the contours of the constitution are hazy and we

0:19:39.560 --> 0:19:43.399
<v Speaker 1>need a clear articulation of what is unconstitutional for an

0:19:43.440 --> 0:19:46.719
<v Speaker 1>officer to be unnoticed. But you are absolutely right. Officers

0:19:46.880 --> 0:19:50.600
<v Speaker 1>are not educated about the fact and holdings of the

0:19:50.640 --> 0:19:53.560
<v Speaker 1>court decisions that the Supreme Court says are necessary to

0:19:53.560 --> 0:19:56.159
<v Speaker 1>clearly establish the law. And I actually, in an article

0:19:56.240 --> 0:19:59.920
<v Speaker 1>that was published earlier this year, studied hundreds of policy

0:20:00.200 --> 0:20:04.120
<v Speaker 1>and trainings for California law enforcement agencies about the use

0:20:04.160 --> 0:20:06.520
<v Speaker 1>of force, which is the issue that is the basis

0:20:06.520 --> 0:20:10.439
<v Speaker 1>for these two decisions. And what I found was officers

0:20:10.480 --> 0:20:14.280
<v Speaker 1>are trained about the sort of high level framework that

0:20:14.359 --> 0:20:17.560
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court articulated in a case called Grand versus

0:20:17.680 --> 0:20:21.359
<v Speaker 1>connor about the reasonableness of force depending on the totality

0:20:21.400 --> 0:20:25.280
<v Speaker 1>of circumstances given the perspective of the officer at the time.

0:20:25.640 --> 0:20:28.280
<v Speaker 1>But they are not trained about the facts and holdings

0:20:28.320 --> 0:20:31.159
<v Speaker 1>of the court decisions that the Supreme Court says are

0:20:31.240 --> 0:20:34.280
<v Speaker 1>necessary to clearly establish the law. Instead, they're taught those

0:20:34.280 --> 0:20:36.720
<v Speaker 1>broad principles and taught how to apply them with various

0:20:36.800 --> 0:20:39.920
<v Speaker 1>hypotheticals that are not drawn some court cases. And if

0:20:39.960 --> 0:20:42.400
<v Speaker 1>you think for a moment about what it would mean

0:20:42.520 --> 0:20:48.679
<v Speaker 1>for officers actually to rely upon these prior decisions, it's fantastical.

0:20:49.040 --> 0:20:52.280
<v Speaker 1>There are hundreds or thousands of opinions that could clearly

0:20:52.359 --> 0:20:54.720
<v Speaker 1>establish the law just for use of force cases. And

0:20:54.760 --> 0:20:57.159
<v Speaker 1>then there's all sorts of other things that police officers

0:20:57.160 --> 0:21:00.280
<v Speaker 1>and other government officials do that also have our own

0:21:00.280 --> 0:21:03.719
<v Speaker 1>bodies of case laws. To learn about those cases. You know,

0:21:03.880 --> 0:21:07.240
<v Speaker 1>in California, you get I think it's twenty four hours

0:21:07.240 --> 0:21:10.399
<v Speaker 1>every two years of training learning about those cases. Spending

0:21:10.400 --> 0:21:12.680
<v Speaker 1>just five minutes on those cases would take up all

0:21:12.800 --> 0:21:15.879
<v Speaker 1>of the training hours that police officers currently have. And

0:21:15.920 --> 0:21:19.440
<v Speaker 1>then you have to expect that officers would actually retain

0:21:19.680 --> 0:21:23.280
<v Speaker 1>and remember the fact and holdings of those cases, and then,

0:21:23.400 --> 0:21:26.720
<v Speaker 1>in the split second that they are required to make

0:21:26.720 --> 0:21:29.240
<v Speaker 1>the kinds of decisions that sometimes lead to use as

0:21:29.280 --> 0:21:33.919
<v Speaker 1>of force, be able to distinguish between the precise facts

0:21:34.240 --> 0:21:39.280
<v Speaker 1>in these various cases. It simply is fantastical. It is implausible.

0:21:39.320 --> 0:21:42.720
<v Speaker 1>It makes no sense at all as a standard, and

0:21:42.760 --> 0:21:46.119
<v Speaker 1>that is justified by notice goals. And so then what

0:21:46.280 --> 0:21:49.600
<v Speaker 1>is the purpose? I returned to where you started with

0:21:49.640 --> 0:21:51.440
<v Speaker 1>your question. It feels like a bit of a route.

0:21:51.800 --> 0:21:54.840
<v Speaker 1>And in the case here involving the California Police officer,

0:21:55.359 --> 0:21:59.040
<v Speaker 1>the Ninth Circuit said that existing precedent did put the

0:21:59.080 --> 0:22:02.199
<v Speaker 1>officer on no notice. And in the case involving the

0:22:02.200 --> 0:22:06.880
<v Speaker 1>Oklahoma police officers, the ten Circuit pointed to several cases

0:22:06.920 --> 0:22:10.919
<v Speaker 1>that it said clearly established that the conduct was unlawful.

0:22:11.359 --> 0:22:14.760
<v Speaker 1>So are the justices saying, no, there has to be

0:22:14.800 --> 0:22:20.080
<v Speaker 1>a case that we decided that's exactly on point. Well,

0:22:20.280 --> 0:22:26.640
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court since about has been writing in several

0:22:26.680 --> 0:22:32.680
<v Speaker 1>different qualified immunity opinions that Supreme Court decisions clearly established

0:22:32.760 --> 0:22:36.720
<v Speaker 1>the law, but that they'll only assume for the purposes

0:22:36.760 --> 0:22:40.880
<v Speaker 1>of argument, that Circuit court decisions, Court of Appeals decisions

0:22:40.880 --> 0:22:44.520
<v Speaker 1>can also clearly establish the law. And they've said this

0:22:44.680 --> 0:22:48.280
<v Speaker 1>multiple times. They've never actually come out and said that

0:22:48.480 --> 0:22:51.840
<v Speaker 1>only Supreme Court cases can clearly establish the law. But

0:22:52.000 --> 0:22:55.800
<v Speaker 1>every time they issue a decision that has that kind

0:22:55.840 --> 0:23:00.760
<v Speaker 1>of caveat, it's very shocking and surprising given that the

0:23:00.840 --> 0:23:04.639
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court only decides a handful of cases, you know,

0:23:04.720 --> 0:23:09.000
<v Speaker 1>involving civil rights issues and the ability to sue every year,

0:23:09.640 --> 0:23:13.119
<v Speaker 1>and when they do, they very rarely rule on the

0:23:13.240 --> 0:23:16.359
<v Speaker 1>question that the Supreme Court says is necessary to clearly

0:23:16.400 --> 0:23:18.560
<v Speaker 1>establish the law, which is a ruling on whether the

0:23:18.600 --> 0:23:22.960
<v Speaker 1>Constitution was violated. And note that in these cases. In

0:23:23.080 --> 0:23:25.720
<v Speaker 1>these decisions that the Supreme Court issued where they said

0:23:25.760 --> 0:23:28.080
<v Speaker 1>there was no clearly established law, there was not a

0:23:28.119 --> 0:23:32.280
<v Speaker 1>prior court case holding similar conduct on constitutional They also

0:23:32.320 --> 0:23:36.360
<v Speaker 1>didn't rule on the constitutionality of the conduct in these cases,

0:23:36.480 --> 0:23:40.120
<v Speaker 1>so they did nothing to clarify the law moving forward.

0:23:40.920 --> 0:23:44.920
<v Speaker 1>There was no noted dissent. Did that surprise you at all?

0:23:45.560 --> 0:23:50.800
<v Speaker 1>It didn't. It didn't. There have been rumbling within the

0:23:50.880 --> 0:23:56.280
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court that qualified immunity doctrine should change. Justice Thomas

0:23:56.280 --> 0:23:58.680
<v Speaker 1>has said that it should be reconsidered. Justice Podo Mayor

0:23:58.840 --> 0:24:01.840
<v Speaker 1>has said that it sends a message to police that

0:24:01.920 --> 0:24:06.800
<v Speaker 1>they can shoot first and think later. And there was

0:24:06.840 --> 0:24:11.000
<v Speaker 1>a decision in November of case called Taylor versus Rio

0:24:11.119 --> 0:24:15.800
<v Speaker 1>Jus where the Court seemed to be backing away from

0:24:15.800 --> 0:24:19.120
<v Speaker 1>its most robust description of what clearly established law was.

0:24:19.200 --> 0:24:23.359
<v Speaker 1>In that case, which involves prisoner who has kept in

0:24:23.640 --> 0:24:28.119
<v Speaker 1>a cell for several days that was completely undersanitary, unfit

0:24:28.200 --> 0:24:32.720
<v Speaker 1>for human habitation. The Supreme Court said, you don't need

0:24:32.720 --> 0:24:35.560
<v Speaker 1>a prior case for it to be obvious that it

0:24:35.640 --> 0:24:39.000
<v Speaker 1>was unconstitutional to put this person in these conditions for

0:24:39.080 --> 0:24:41.879
<v Speaker 1>this amount of time. And when the Supreme Court issued

0:24:41.920 --> 0:24:46.720
<v Speaker 1>that decision. I and others who studied this issue thought

0:24:46.840 --> 0:24:50.560
<v Speaker 1>that it could be a indication that the Court was

0:24:50.800 --> 0:24:55.280
<v Speaker 1>stepping back from its most extreme descriptions of the doctor

0:24:55.359 --> 0:24:58.159
<v Speaker 1>and what was necessary to clearly establish the law. So

0:24:59.119 --> 0:25:05.600
<v Speaker 1>with these two unsigned unanimous precurium opinions, it seems like

0:25:06.320 --> 0:25:09.280
<v Speaker 1>the Court was not opening the door quite as widely

0:25:09.320 --> 0:25:13.600
<v Speaker 1>as I had hoped to a vision of qualified immunity

0:25:13.680 --> 0:25:17.720
<v Speaker 1>that that didn't require clearly established law at this level

0:25:17.720 --> 0:25:19.840
<v Speaker 1>of precision that they seem to do in these two cames.

0:25:19.920 --> 0:25:23.639
<v Speaker 1>Do you think the differences between police officers, who the

0:25:23.720 --> 0:25:26.919
<v Speaker 1>court sees is having to make split second decisions and

0:25:27.080 --> 0:25:30.800
<v Speaker 1>prison guards It could be It certainly is true that

0:25:30.920 --> 0:25:34.400
<v Speaker 1>the officers in the prison case had a lot more

0:25:34.440 --> 0:25:38.680
<v Speaker 1>time to deliberate about the steps that they were taking.

0:25:38.960 --> 0:25:43.919
<v Speaker 1>But then it seems to me like the more sensible

0:25:44.480 --> 0:25:50.120
<v Speaker 1>answer is to reach the constitutional question and make a decision,

0:25:50.400 --> 0:25:54.240
<v Speaker 1>issue a decision that can then offer some clarity in

0:25:54.280 --> 0:25:59.359
<v Speaker 1>these circumstances. The idea that the Court is recognizing in

0:25:59.400 --> 0:26:03.920
<v Speaker 1>a comedy, the split second decisions police might make through

0:26:04.000 --> 0:26:08.720
<v Speaker 1>qualified immunity, which is we've said, is a doctrine based

0:26:08.760 --> 0:26:11.800
<v Speaker 1>on this idea of notice that has no basis in

0:26:11.840 --> 0:26:16.600
<v Speaker 1>reality really feels like a missed opportunity for the court

0:26:16.640 --> 0:26:19.960
<v Speaker 1>to offer some clarity about the law. The doctrine of

0:26:20.040 --> 0:26:25.560
<v Speaker 1>qualified immunity has come under increased scrutiny following the murder

0:26:25.600 --> 0:26:31.119
<v Speaker 1>of George Floyd and other acts of excessive force by police.

0:26:31.440 --> 0:26:35.199
<v Speaker 1>Does it affect the way police officers act to know

0:26:35.480 --> 0:26:39.520
<v Speaker 1>that they're basically going to be covered in a civil

0:26:39.560 --> 0:26:46.440
<v Speaker 1>case afterwards. So one important thing to remember about qualified immunity,

0:26:46.520 --> 0:26:49.600
<v Speaker 1>and I think it gets obscured a lot in the

0:26:49.680 --> 0:26:54.400
<v Speaker 1>current debate, is that qualified immunity is not what shields

0:26:54.600 --> 0:26:58.720
<v Speaker 1>police officers from paying settlements and judgments from their own

0:26:58.760 --> 0:27:03.960
<v Speaker 1>bank accounts. It's been described and defenders of qualified immunity

0:27:04.080 --> 0:27:07.720
<v Speaker 1>has said that it's necessary to protect officers from being

0:27:07.760 --> 0:27:12.160
<v Speaker 1>bankrupted for lawsuits based on, you know, reasonable mistakes made

0:27:12.160 --> 0:27:19.160
<v Speaker 1>in a split second. But officers are already protected from

0:27:19.160 --> 0:27:23.520
<v Speaker 1>having to pay in these cases because states and local

0:27:23.560 --> 0:27:28.280
<v Speaker 1>governments have what are called indemnification rules and policies that

0:27:28.440 --> 0:27:32.880
<v Speaker 1>provide that when an officer is stued, their employer will

0:27:32.920 --> 0:27:36.639
<v Speaker 1>pay the settlement for judgment. It's a matter of law

0:27:37.359 --> 0:27:40.160
<v Speaker 1>that they are obligated to do so, and there are

0:27:40.640 --> 0:27:44.840
<v Speaker 1>some exceptions that are carved out into those statutes when

0:27:45.280 --> 0:27:51.360
<v Speaker 1>officers have acted maliciously or are criminally prosecuted. But when

0:27:51.400 --> 0:27:55.600
<v Speaker 1>I studied police and domestication practices around the country, I

0:27:55.680 --> 0:28:00.240
<v Speaker 1>found that eight percent of the dollars that are paid

0:28:00.400 --> 0:28:05.440
<v Speaker 1>to people in police as conduct suits come from government budgets,

0:28:05.920 --> 0:28:10.400
<v Speaker 1>not from police officers bank accounts. So qualified immunity does

0:28:10.440 --> 0:28:14.040
<v Speaker 1>not provide that shield. And I think the Fourth Amendment

0:28:14.080 --> 0:28:20.240
<v Speaker 1>already provides the shield to protect reasonable officers from constitutional violations.

0:28:21.119 --> 0:28:24.040
<v Speaker 1>So what does ending qualified immunity or what does qualified

0:28:24.040 --> 0:28:26.639
<v Speaker 1>immunity do, and what would end being qualified immunity do?

0:28:27.480 --> 0:28:32.280
<v Speaker 1>I think that that qualified immunity right now makes the

0:28:32.440 --> 0:28:36.960
<v Speaker 1>law unclear for law enforcement and for courts and for

0:28:37.000 --> 0:28:41.640
<v Speaker 1>the general public. There are parts of this country where

0:28:41.680 --> 0:28:45.960
<v Speaker 1>courts have not ruled yet that it is protected by

0:28:45.960 --> 0:28:49.720
<v Speaker 1>the First Amendment to record the police, a concept that

0:28:50.120 --> 0:28:55.240
<v Speaker 1>has been critically important to our current conversation about policing

0:28:55.400 --> 0:28:57.920
<v Speaker 1>and an issue that has been particularly relevant since the

0:28:58.000 --> 0:29:01.880
<v Speaker 1>advent of smartphones. But in some parts of the country,

0:29:02.080 --> 0:29:04.720
<v Speaker 1>courts have not yet ruled on that question, and I

0:29:04.760 --> 0:29:07.160
<v Speaker 1>think the reason for that can be traced right back

0:29:07.200 --> 0:29:11.200
<v Speaker 1>to qualified immunity, because courts can grant qualified immunity without

0:29:11.320 --> 0:29:15.640
<v Speaker 1>ruling on whether the Constitution was violated. And that's just

0:29:15.720 --> 0:29:19.000
<v Speaker 1>one example of the way in which the law becomes

0:29:19.160 --> 0:29:24.160
<v Speaker 1>less clear because of qualified immunity. Without qualified immunity, there

0:29:24.160 --> 0:29:27.440
<v Speaker 1>would be more clarity that could then be incorporated into

0:29:27.680 --> 0:29:33.160
<v Speaker 1>police policies and trainings and into our general understanding. And

0:29:33.200 --> 0:29:36.280
<v Speaker 1>I also agree with Justice so to Mayor that these

0:29:36.320 --> 0:29:42.760
<v Speaker 1>decisions with qualifying facts, where officers are shielded from liability

0:29:42.880 --> 0:29:45.840
<v Speaker 1>because there doesn't happen to be a prior court case

0:29:46.080 --> 0:29:51.400
<v Speaker 1>with virtually identical facts, sends a shoot first, think later

0:29:52.120 --> 0:29:56.360
<v Speaker 1>message to police. So I think that ending qualified immunity

0:29:56.480 --> 0:30:00.120
<v Speaker 1>or greatly limiting it would have very important effect for

0:30:00.320 --> 0:30:04.400
<v Speaker 1>law enforcement. But it still would not mean that officers

0:30:04.560 --> 0:30:09.200
<v Speaker 1>would be personally financially responsible for paying settlements and judgments

0:30:09.200 --> 0:30:11.960
<v Speaker 1>in these cases, or that they would be found to

0:30:12.040 --> 0:30:15.840
<v Speaker 1>have violated the Constitution when they made reasonable mistakes. So

0:30:15.920 --> 0:30:19.880
<v Speaker 1>it seems like the likely path to change this qualified

0:30:19.920 --> 0:30:23.280
<v Speaker 1>immunity doctrine is through legislation. Do you see that happening

0:30:23.320 --> 0:30:25.240
<v Speaker 1>at the state level. I know that there are I

0:30:25.280 --> 0:30:29.320
<v Speaker 1>think seven state qualified immunity bills have been enacted. There

0:30:29.440 --> 0:30:34.400
<v Speaker 1>is motion and activity on the state level, and I

0:30:34.440 --> 0:30:38.640
<v Speaker 1>think that the gold standard really is Colorado, where a

0:30:38.680 --> 0:30:42.040
<v Speaker 1>bill was passed in June, right after the murder of

0:30:42.080 --> 0:30:45.640
<v Speaker 1>George Floyd, and I think, buoyed by a sort of

0:30:45.880 --> 0:30:50.840
<v Speaker 1>shared sentiment in that moment that something really needed to change.

0:30:51.160 --> 0:30:53.800
<v Speaker 1>I think that their bill is the most ambitious, But

0:30:53.840 --> 0:30:57.280
<v Speaker 1>there have been other bills that have followed in New

0:30:57.320 --> 0:31:01.160
<v Speaker 1>Mexico and in New York City and some other places

0:31:01.200 --> 0:31:04.280
<v Speaker 1>as well. There have also been many states in which

0:31:04.720 --> 0:31:09.080
<v Speaker 1>qualified immunity bills have been introduced, and there have been hearings.

0:31:09.120 --> 0:31:12.200
<v Speaker 1>I've participated in some of those hearings, and they have

0:31:12.400 --> 0:31:17.720
<v Speaker 1>been shelved for the moment or rejected really in each

0:31:17.800 --> 0:31:22.240
<v Speaker 1>time based on what I consider to be groundless fears

0:31:22.280 --> 0:31:26.800
<v Speaker 1>about bankrupt officers and lawsuits that challenge reasonable conduct, of

0:31:26.920 --> 0:31:29.800
<v Speaker 1>the typical fears about what a world without qualified immunity

0:31:29.800 --> 0:31:32.080
<v Speaker 1>would look like that that are not based in reality.

0:31:32.520 --> 0:31:35.600
<v Speaker 1>Is there anything happening on the federal level. In the

0:31:35.600 --> 0:31:40.000
<v Speaker 1>summer of the House passed the George Flood Justice and

0:31:40.000 --> 0:31:44.440
<v Speaker 1>Policing Act, which included, among many, many different provisions and

0:31:44.680 --> 0:31:50.400
<v Speaker 1>ends to qualified immunity, and that did not move forward. Then,

0:31:50.680 --> 0:31:54.240
<v Speaker 1>nearing the anniversary of George Flood's murder, that bill was

0:31:54.440 --> 0:31:58.480
<v Speaker 1>reintroduced and re passed in the House, and again it

0:31:58.640 --> 0:32:02.800
<v Speaker 1>stalled in the Senate. In the summer of tim Scott

0:32:02.920 --> 0:32:08.320
<v Speaker 1>described qualified immunity reform as a poison pill to the negotiations,

0:32:08.400 --> 0:32:13.480
<v Speaker 1>and in one it seemed perhaps that there was going

0:32:13.560 --> 0:32:18.840
<v Speaker 1>to be some common ground for a shift to qualified immunity,

0:32:18.840 --> 0:32:22.200
<v Speaker 1>a limitation to qualified immunity, But the negotiations in that

0:32:22.400 --> 0:32:24.720
<v Speaker 1>bill have fallen apart as well. Thanks for being on

0:32:24.760 --> 0:32:27.800
<v Speaker 1>the show, Joanna. That's Professor Joanna Schwartz of u c

0:32:27.960 --> 0:32:30.280
<v Speaker 1>l A Law School. And that's it for the sedition

0:32:30.280 --> 0:32:33.000
<v Speaker 1>of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

0:32:33.000 --> 0:32:36.200
<v Speaker 1>the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You

0:32:36.240 --> 0:32:40.200
<v Speaker 1>can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

0:32:40.280 --> 0:32:44.800
<v Speaker 1>dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcasts, Last Law. I'm Shun

0:32:44.880 --> 0:32:46.880
<v Speaker 1>Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg