standard furniture gateway grey - Hallo friend furniture stands lover, At this time sharing furniture stands entitled standard furniture gateway grey, I have provided furniture stands ideas. hopefully content of posts that I wrote this home design, Furniture Decorating, interior, furniture stands can be useful. OK, following its coverage of furniture stands ideas..

About : standard furniture gateway grey
Title : standard furniture gateway grey

standard furniture gateway grey

- good afternoon and welcome to the university of st.thomas school of law. it is a privilege and apleasure to have you here. i know we're all busy and it means a lot that you took time out of your schedule to join us for thisimportant conversation, finding common groundbetween public safety and racial justice -all for the common good. i'm rob vischer, i'm thedean here at the law school.

i have to say a word ofgratitude to our co-sponsors for today's event, the murphy institute and the holloran center and a special word of thanksto tom and patty holloran who have joined us todayfor this conversation. i invite all of you to extend your time here talking aboutthese important issues tonight by joining us after theprogram for a light reception. i'm confident that this willbe just one of many programs

to be held throughoutthe twin cities community exploring this criticallyimportant intersection of public safety and criminaljustice and racial justice. as a catholic universityit is vitally important that st. thomas be a championfor these conversations. if universities exist only toenhance workforce readiness or conduct socially beneficial research, we have settled for an incomplete vision of higher education's potential.

pope john paul the seconddescribed a catholic university as a authentic communitywith a common dedication to the truth and a common vision of the dignity of the human person. now is the time in the midst of seemingly intractable racial strife, when we need todemonstrate what this means in the real world and why it matters. earlier this year, thestar tribune did a survey

on black lives matter. six percent of white minnesotans had a favourable view of the group, while 94% of black minnesotans had a favorable view of the group. those statistics areremarkable and sobering. we come to this conversation from very different vantage points on a range of difficult,often painful issues.

our goal tonight is not to reach consensus but to listen and learn from each other. in doing so, we are resisting the increasingly commontendency to choose sides and then treat that choice as the end of moral reflection on the matter. instead, we must aspireto help one another walk in the shoes of those on both sides who are too easily demonized

to help translate justifiable anger into social change, and to help build bridgesacross the racial divide, not through arm's length pronouncements, but thought the messinessof mutual understanding. it requires long difficult work to permit your story to shape my story, but it is work that hasnever been more important. i'll now turn the programover to one of our moderators,

school of law distinguishedsenior fellow, hank shea. thank you all for joining us. (applause) - let me begin by justsummarizing the format which is not apparent from your programmes on how we're going to proceed today. the first hour will be aseries of presentations, initial remarks by eachof our invited speakers. we did it two groupsbecause it's difficult

to sit up in these chairs for two hours, but the second hour is wherewe're really hoping to have an engaged dialogue. and, we'll have all eight of us up here. mark hosstler, mycolleague here at st. tomas will be co-moderatingthe question and answer section of the event. note cards should be available either on your seats or when you came in.

please write out a questionand at some point hold them up. students will collectthem throughout the event. they'll be brought up here, and we'll get to as manyquestions as possible in that second hour. and for those questions we can't get to, we hope you'll stay for the reception at six o'clock afterwards so we can continue the conversation.

it's now my honor andprivilege to introduce the three speakers i have to my left here, your right here, today. dr. cedrick alexander is at the far end. as you can read in the program, he has had an amazingcareer in law enforcement. some of you may recognize him from cnn, he's a regular there as alaw enforcement analyst. he's also the head of public safety

for dekalb county in atlanta, georgia. what's not in the bio,are some interesting facts that he got a bachelor's and a master's from a school now knownas st. thomas university in miami, florida. and then after some other years, he went to wright stateuniversity in dayton, ohio, and got his doctoral degreein clinical psychology. and i'm guessing he's one of the very few,

maybe the only police head in the country with a phd in clinical psychology. in addition to being on cnn, he's appeared on abc, cbs andnbc nightly news programs. in the middle is mike freeman. many of you recognize him asour hennepin county attorney. 17 years, i guess will be 18years at the end of this year, he has served hennepin countyas the chief county attorney. the program sets out in detail

what it means to be the chief executive of the largest publiclaw office in the state. mike received his bachelorsfrom rutgers university and his law degree from the university ofminnesota law school. and seated right next to meis chief mike mike goldstein. he's the director of publicsafety for plymouth, minnesota. the program details hisextensive involvement in associations, committees, task forces,

all throughout the state of minnesota. he received his bachelor's degree from the university of st.thomas in criminal justice. he received his masters fromthe university of st. thomas in public safety, educationand administration and he also is an adjunct professor at the university of st. thomas. so please join me in greetingour initial three speakers. so welcome to you all.

dr. alexander, let's start with you and briefly tell us why you took the time to come up from atlanta, georgia today to be here in minneapolis. - well to be quite honest with you, if i had known the weatherwould be this great, i would have left atlanta earlier, (laughter) because it's been a hotblistering summer there.

but anyway, thank you, and i also would liketo thank the law school and professor shea and everyone who's responsibleinviting me to be here today, to be here with you. and this is my second visitto minneapolis this year, i was here earlier this year in february, which i had a totallydifferent experience, but it is great to be back here,

and great to be among agreat community as well too, as minneapolis and allthe surrounding areas. but part of my journey overthe last number of years in the profession, both as a psychologist and as a law enforcement official, really kind of mergedtogether unknowingly, without any real plan to it. when i left policing years ago, my goal was to be a psychologist

and stay, there having been, had been in the profession about 15 years, but life, as we all know,takes us down different roads and for me, it took me, brought me back into thelaw enforcement profession, not knowing that one day in august of 2014, a name that we allbecame so familiar with, michael brown, and allthe subsequent events

that took place after that, just became more of a tipping point of a social issue in thiscountry that has been going on for a very, very long time, in fact, ever since the very beginning of policing. so part of what i try to do, is i travel across this country, i'm grateful of being here today, is really to share some of my thoughts

and ideas and experiences that i have had in terms of how i think about advancing policing and community in this country. i think we all would agree that we're in this very unusualplace in america's history on a lot of different fronts. but if we think specificallyabout police and community, i think we all would agree that that is a very challenged

and still a very volatile situation that we live in every day. but the most important part of all this is we all have identified what much of the problem is, has been. the greatest challenge we'regoing to have going forward, as i stated to about a dozenlaw students here today, during lunch, is findingresolution and resolve around some of america's oldest

and still most pervasive social issues that affect us as a nation today. and even coming into a new year, where we're gonna have new leadership at a national level and the challenges and the thoughts and the perceptions that we all have as we struggle through this election processis gonna be paramount. but at the end of the day,they will only hold an office

for x period of time, but forthe citizens of this nation, across this great nation andthe diversity that it stands and it stands for, ithink this is a great time for our young people, our students, all of us as americansto meet this challenge that is in front of us andattempt to find a way to resolve. often times we will hearthat in this country, we don't talk enough about race. and my thought about that,quite frankly is this:

is that we have not talked about it. it is a very difficult and challenging subject to talk about. it is a subject that is fueledwith our own experiences, in terms of how we were raised and what our histories may happen to be, where ever we may happen to be from and how we got to this nation and so it becomes verycomplex and convoluted.

but i think at some point,it is a conversation we, as everyday americans, haveto have with each other, taking ourselves out ofour own comfort zone. but what i think is most important in this day and time that we live in, particularly being a country that is under attack, if you will. because we know thatthere are people out there that's trying to do harm to us

and no more importanttime in america's history is as important for policeand community to be together. because as a country, as a nation, we're only as strong as our partnerships in our communities and we as americans. and what i would suggest, is that we talk in our conversations, which would be a lot easier to do and a lot less threatening to everyone,

is to share our ideas and our values that we all share as americans. and i think as americans weall would want the same thing. we want healthy neighborhoods, we want good schools, we wantthe best for our children, the best for ourselves. we want safe communities, we want opportunities for economic success and we want opportunities for our children

to have a good education and have a good jump start into life. those are the valuesthat everyone one of us in this room share. and those are the things, i think, that are critically importantfor us to talk about. but throughout this evening,i hope we get an opportunity to talk about and share what it is that we're gonna do going forward

in order to bring about some change, particularly as it relatesto police and community and how do we advance policing and how do we advance our communities, in this year and the years to come? this is a very criticalpoint in america's history and it's a very defining point, but i think it's alsoa very exciting point where we all can be part of something

that is truly, truly biggerthan all of us together. and as a nation and as acountry and as americans, i think we share andhave an opportunity here to create a country that has been greater than ever before and whereit's also great for everyone. not looking backwards but looking forward in terms of how do wemove past our differences and accept more the thingsthat we do share in common because, quite frankly, as we get to know

people who are muchdifferent than ourselves, we will find that we share similarities than we do differences andthat take courage as well too. thank you and thank you for having me. - so chief goldstein, would you be willing to give us the local lawenforcement perspective on how you maintain public safety, while also achieving justicefor all citizens in minnesota? - i'd be happy to.

and i think, because ibarely fit in this chair, with all of this on, i'm going to go over here for a moment. i want to thank the university for the opportunity to be here, st. thomas is near and dear to my heart and it's a real honor tobe before all of you today. i want to build on dr.alexander's comments and i hope that some of thereflections that i offer

provide some more concreteof what we're doing in our organization and what i hope other departments will do ifthey're not already doing so, to help bridge this importantgap that we need to bridge. i need to offer the following preface, i'm speaking from myprofessional experience, than that i representthe city of plymouth, plymouth public safety department. i sit on many boards, i'mone of the vice presidents

of our chief's associationhere in minnesota, but i'm not speakingon their behalf today, i'm speaking from my perspective. i think it's really good that we're here. it's really important that we're here and my friend who is anassistant special agent in charge at the fbi, his name is brian turner. and brian has a lot of opportunities to engage with community in his role.

and he talks about inorder to build a bridge, which is what we're trying to do today, you have to start on eachside and meet in the middle. so i hope that's thepremise we can start with. so the question i'vebeen asked to address, is finding common ground between maintaining public safety and achieving racial justice. so if we have to find common ground,

the supposition is that itcurrently does not exist or that it does notexist in an ideal manner. under the original intent of how american lawenforcement was established, it's really unfortunatethat we have to even answer that question, right, or ask it. our law enforcement system was founded on the same principles that established the london metropolitan police department

under the leadership of sir robert peel. under his still very relevantprinciples, he stated, "the public are the police andthe police are the public." the public are the police andthe police are the public. police officers are part of the community and should not be apartfrom the community, we need to have that understanding. police need to recognize this, community members need to recognize this.

we are working towardsa common good together. the police and the citizenrymust have mutual respect in order for the policingsystem to be effective. there must be local control and limited authority of the police. and from my experience, ibelieve this exists, right? in many communities across the country and certainly thecommunity that i represent. i believe that there is more success

than failure in american law enforcement, but i'm keenly awarethat the overall ideal of why we're here todayhas not been reached. while racial injustice may unfortunately existin some circumstances, this is not a practicethat i condone or tolerate. and as i stated in a recentarticle in the star tribune, i'm disappointed that we as a society have not evolved further than we have.

so i want to kind of offerthe following premise. like other professions, law enforcement is an evolving industry and from my perspective,is entering into a new era. since the mid 1800's,american law enforcement has undergone a metamorphosisthrough three different eras. the political era the reformera and the professional era. and i'm not sure other segments of the criminal justice system

have gone through that many changes. with the many events overthe last couple of years, as dr. alexander pointed out,starting in august of 2014, i believe america is headed into a new era and despite the many difficulties and challenging circumstancesthat currently exist, i am encouraged that throughconstructive dialogue and thoughtful consideration,law enforcement, in conjunction with thecommunity's support,

will enter into this new era that is supported by a seminal document, the presidential task force's21st century policing report that was created througha non-partisan effort. for the first time in recent history, there is a common platform for all law enforcementagencies to adhere to, as this important reportis a critical roadmap for all law enforcement organizations

across the united states. but i have to make a distinction here. whether you agree or not, minnesota law enforcementis ahead of the pack. minnesota is the only state in the country that requires a college degreefor it's police officers and the training standardswithin this state are further advanced than what you'll find in many other statesacross this great country.

with the establishment of theminnesota post board in 1979, the legislature empowered the post board to licence peace officersand to set certain training and policy development requirements that all officers inminnesota must adhere to and all organizations must adhere to. and this also includes the educational and training objectives thathigher education must also meet as higher ed is minnesota'sgateway into this vocation.

so here's the crux of all of this right, while minnesota is unique wecannot rest on our laurels. as such, the 21st century policing report provides a foundation for all law enforcement agencies to strive for. for many of us in minnesota,some of the aspects of this report and it's recommendations are not necessarily novel. but for others across the country,

it sets a common denominator. again for the first time,there is a carefully crafted and well vetted document, that outlines the best policing practices for all agencies to strive for. for those who are notfamiliar with the document, it has six main sections orwhat the authors call pillars. building trust and legitimacy, policy and oversight,

technology and social media, community policing and crimeprevention or crime reduction, training and education andofficer wellness and safety. in plymouth, these pillars have been the cornerstone for our success. are we perfect? no. but we do believe incontinuous improvement. in our organization wepractice servant leadership.

our personnel selection process seeks out those who havea natural desire to serve. they are people of characterwho put people first that exhibit foresight andwho lead with moral authority. we like other departmentshave established credit, credibility and legitimacywith our community through our transparency, openchannels of communication, dedication to uncommon service, and prudent oversight and great training.

our training includesde-escalation techniques and we've been doing thatfor a couple of decades. further, we will, and we haveand will continue to train on mental health crisisissues, cultural competency and other mandated training requirements and every officer in ourorganization has been trained in the 21st century policing report. but the one elementthat i want to highlight as it relates to the report,

has to do with officerwellness and safety. let me set the stage,people do not call 9-1-1 to tell us it's their birthday. they don't call us to say,"hey, i got promoted today." they call us with a problem. we are the only, right,wrong, or indifferent, 24-7 social service agencythat is typically available. our calls for servicerange from the mundane to the high profile critical incidents.

from broken water heaters,to animal complaints, to theft reports, to heart attacks, to domestic violence calls. and as such, our personnelmust wear many hats. that of a social worker, a chemical health professional, a mental health crisis worker, an emergency medical technician, a hometown security specialist,

a parent, a guardian, and from time to time, yes, a warrior. it's not an easy task and in some cases, split second, life savingdecisions must be made and not just by the mostsenior management levels, but by those on the lowest rung of the organizational ladder. which happens to be the mostimportant rung on the ladder. what i hope is that wecan take the conversations

that we're gettingthrough this interaction, to provide a better futurethan what we have today. i'm been told i need to stop, because i have a few more things to say and i'll get to those later, but the one thing i needto point out is this: at a recent community engagement with the us attorney's office, the fbi, and other local law enforcement leaders,

we were meeting with faithleaders in north minneapolis, who are from north minneapolis and they stated thatthey want good policing, but that they cannot have broken police officers policing their streets. if we want to find common ground, we have to provide a healthy environment for our officers andi'll speak to that later. that's one of the stepping stones

that we need to do on our side. and again, i don't like calling sides, because we're in this together, but with that, i think we'll find success moving forward where wecan find common ground and build a brighter future. thank you. - nice job mike. - so mike freeman willgive us the challenges,

as well as the efforts underway to find this intersection between public safety and racial justice. - being in a law school, asa long time ago law student, i am supposed to follow the rules. professor, i'm not sure i'mgoing to follow your rules. because i'm going to startwith some of the basics. because it seems to me,that fairness and justice and communication beginsat home and in the office.

and we, up at he hennepincounty attorney's office, as the largest public law office in the state of minnesota,strive very hard to do that. i going to talk about three themes today: enhancing communication and understanding, education and a review ofpractices and procedures, and expanding opportunities for peaceful and creative dialogue. to do our job right,

prosecutors must continually enhance communication and understanding. that's why i made thedecision to discontinue the use of the grand jury in police cases involving deadly force that result in the death of a civilian. why? 23 citizens might be a superior determiner of facts than one prosecutor,

but we don't know who that 23 citizens are and you do know who that one prosecutor is and you can hold him or heraccountable at the ballot box. the second is the wholequestion of transparency. by history tradition and statute,grand juries are private. that's one of the strengthsof the grand juries, it's also one its severemisgivings and limitations today. because if you use a grand jury, you cannot say what evidence

was presented to that grand jury. in a recent case, when weannounced the decision, we had a 60 page report on the facts, a detailed explanation of the law, all the police reports, all the forensic evidence, including dna, the autopsy, everything we had, with the exception of what the feds have, they won't share, we released.

so each of you can go to our website and decide and review thefacts of the decision i made. because of the lack ofaccountability or transparency, we won't use a grand jury ina police officer case again. this is breaking withthe tradition of 40 years in this county and 900 years since early britain,but today's requirements require some new directions. so that is the direction we're taking.

the second point is educationand review of practices. well, when i became headof the county attorney, 3% of our lawyers were people of color. that might've reflected thepopulation of hennepin county in 1991, but it certainly doesn't today. and today we have over 19% of our lawyers who are people of color andwe're going to do even better. because if you're a somali individual who's been victimized in a case

and the first person you seein the county attorney's office is a victim witness advocate who wear's the same clothesand speaks the same language as you do, that's helpful. in a similar fashion, if you are charged with a serious crime and your lawyer is talking about the otherlawyer and you notice, if you're african-american,he's african-american, i think that's positive,

because we have somecommon ground to build on. we have better mentoring, we have better performance management, we have better instructionthan ever before. you know, when i first becamecounty attorney in 1991, the transgender movement had just begun, it was not well-understood. and we have had cases withtransgender individuals. well, we brought inspecific transgender people

to help us understand the culture and things we need to be concerned about. in a similar fashion, most of us are aware that implied bias exists in all of us. and we're going to havea nationally known expert talking to every single person in the county attorney's office. from attorneys, toparalegals, to secretaries because we need to understand

better dealing with that phenomena. we need to evaluate what we do. we brought in an outsideagency to evaluate whether there was racialbias in our charging, on our disposition of juvenile cases. with one exception, diversion, they found no explicit bias and we're working to resolvethe question of diversion, which really was a communication one.

in adults cases we'vealways used diversion. diversion is not goingforward with the case, allowing the person to workthrough the issues they had, society perhaps will requestsome sentence to service or other things, but trying to keep it out of the criminal justice system. if we do it pre-charging,there is no criminal record. that means a juvenile in particular, or low level adult offender,keeps there record clear.

it's not that many people are using that record against them, but some are. and once it gets out in the data world, we can't put the genie back in the bottle. what we can do, is make sure there was never a record in the first place. let's talk about drug reform. most of us acknowledge that the claimed, "war on drugs", didn't work.

it particularly didn't work for low level offenders and possessors. many of whom's problem isnot greed but addiction and so i've worked for six years to try to get the legislature to finally make some changes theymade this last session, to do exactly that. let's lower the levels of incarceration. let's lower the consequencesfor lower level people

and move forward, trying to focus on the big time dealers,which are the real problem. and in my office, minnesota law allows a prosecutor tocharge 5th degree possession, a felony offence, for one, twoor three pills of oxyconton, if you have those in yourpocket without a prescription. i think that's absurd. our policy now is thatwe will not do that, except in the rarest of cases.

now let me finish with the most important part of finding common ground. that's dialogue. that's discussion. that's doing what we're doing today. that's sitting down in a eraand an aura of mutual respect, to try to talk andunderstand with other people. we try to do that in thecounty attorney's office. we participate in court watchesand neighborhood groups.

i personally have reachedout to many people on the issue of whether we should disband using the grand juries and i learned a lot and i'm thankful for those who spent the time to help educate me. so what we need is moredialogue, not less. we need it peacefully, we needit with our voices lowered. we need it from both sidesand then we can make, build on common ground.

- okay, so we're goingto go sit down here. - very good, very good. - good afternoon. my name's mark oslerand i have the privilege of teaching here at st. thomas. i also have the privilege this afternoon of introducing our next three panelists, which is a remarkable group. we're first going tohear from nkechi taifa,

and she's seated in the middle here. she is the advocacy directorfor criminal justice at the open societyfoundation in washington d.c. she is a remarkable person. she led the effort to fight the 100 to one crack to powder ratio inthe sentencing guidelines, for years and succeeded in 2010, when the fair sentencingact was passed by congress. it was a huge change and a rare victory

where sentences went down instead of up. she also leads the justiceroundtable, which is a group, a coalition of groups, that meet quarterly and it's a remarkablething to be in a room with people from allthese different groups working towards a common goal. within the national discourse,she has been a fierce and persistent voice and one that i always take care to listen to

and we're lucky to have her here today. next, we're going to hear from r.t. rybak, the former mayor of minneapolis. people may not know this, but he was also a crime reporter forthe minneapolis tribune before it was the startribune, even i believe. and he recently wrote a piece, back in august for the star tribune that, i rarely say this about anythingthat's in the newspaper,

but i agreed with all of it. and one of the things that he wrote that i thought was really remarkable as a clear and plain truth was this: "those of us who are white,have to finally recognize "what black people haveknown for a long time. "we are often treated verydifferently by the police." and at the far end hereis nekima levy-pounds, and nekima, among other things,

did great work here at theuniversity of st. thomas. she founded the community justice clinic and also co-foundedbrotherhood incorporated, which works with young black men. she is the president ofthe minneapolis naacp. like hank shea, she's one of the people, that when i visited here and i found that she was teaching here, it made me want to move here from texas

and work at st. thomas. she has what i think is fairlycalled a prophetic voice and i mean that in a very simple way and that is, that prophets want people to hear a truth that often,they don't want to hear and she tells that truth. first, we are going to hear from our guest fromwashington, miss taifa. - now i'm going to fight with this.

thank you so very much. thank you, dean vischer and the law school for having me here. i want to really personallythank professor mark osler for inviting me toparticipate on this panel. over the past few years, we have developed a very strong partnershipon a very critical issue, that of the president's clemency power. and i also want to thankyou for the opportunity

to finally meet someonewho you have often said that i should meet, nekima levy-pounds. i'm not quite sure why our paths have not previously crossed in person, but they have surely passedeach other in our passion. and it's really glad to meet you r.t., really looking forward to working with you greatly in the future. and i also want to givea special shout-out

to one of your own, i don'tknow if she's here today, but actually she is my shero,judge pamela alexander. who in the early 90s, in theearly 90s and she is here. when i was first working on the issue of the disparity betweencrack and powder cocaine, when no one else wasworking on that issue, she was the inspiration. i really credit her asthe catalyst for really, nearly 20 years later,

the work that she did in hennepin county finally was the catalyst forthe federal law changing, so i just wanted to really thank her. this sound is not quite right. okay, is it okay to just let it lean? okay.- we're going to get some expert advice here.- okay, so. let's talk about what we'rehere to talk about today. about a year ago, my policyassociate, a young black woman,

jasmine mickens wrote ablog that was published in the open society voice, that's entitled, i am sandra bland, and itwas her personal realization that because of the hue of her skin, there was an increased possibility that during a police encounter, she could become the next hashtag or victim strollingacross the banner of cnn. she stated that she fearsany interaction with police,

because she said there is not an outfit, a college degree, a job title or even a law that could protect her. she states that thesenever ending instances of police violence remind her that in our criminal justice system, her life is no more valuablethan the pack of cds alton sterling was carryingor the bag of skittles that trayvon martin was carrying.

she wrote that she or any of us could be sandra bland,the african-american woman who mysteriously died in police custody after asserting her rights after an illegal stop of her vehicle. the lengthy history of police violence against people of color is legion. a colleague, linda burnham, provided an excellent historicalanalysis this summer

entitled, baton rouge,falcon heights, and dallas and permit me to share justa bit of it at this time. linda explains that a thick strand in the history of us policing is rooted back in theslave patrols of the 1960s, the 19th century, excuseme, called paddy rollers. paddy rollers were authorized to stop, question, search, harassand summarily punish any black person they encountered.

they regularly entered the plantation living quarters of enslaved people, leaving terror and grief in their stead. together with the hunters of runaways, these patrols had a crystal clear mandate to keep blacks enslaved and root out any possibility of rebellion. "how far have we come,really?", she questions. having extricated ourselves from a system,

a bottomless and blatant cruelty, we have evolved to a system that depends on the paddy rollers oftoday, i.e. the police, to constrain and contain a population, that while no longersubjected to chattle slavery, is nevertheless ruthlessly exploited, criminally neglected andjustifiably aggrieved. and all of this, on top ofthe foundational failure to financially repair or compensate

the formerly enslavedand their descendants. so today's paddy rollers are expected to contain any overflow of bitterness and anger on the part of the exploited, neglected and aggrieved. maintaining order in a fundamentally and racially disordered system. and their mandate is as clearas that of their forefathers. to constrain a populationwho's designated role

is to absorb absurdidlyhigh rates of unemployment and make itself available forlow wage, low status work, without complaint, much less rebellion. year after year, decade afterdecade, century after century, although the players changeand the scene shifts, the script irrefutably remainsthe same, unequal justice. i doesn't matter whetherthe issue is vigilantism or police brutality, prosecutorial abuse or unjust sentencing.

that as a race, blackpeople have been subjected to a double standard of justice. doesn't matter if we're talking about fred hampton and mark clark of the black panther party murdered by police in their beds in 1969. abner louima, sodomized by police at the police station. the 41 shots pummeled into amadou diallo

by officers who claimedthat they could not tell the difference between a wallet and a gun. eleanor bumpurs, murdered in her home for resisting an eviction. oscar grant dead on the bartplatform on new year's eve. sean bell murdered bypolice on his wedding day. the difference between the police violence against blacks of yesterdayand that of today, can be seen in those 81seconds of videotape,

filmed by a private citizen, of the vicious beating of rodney king, which brought into national focus, the blatant police brutality that is a tragic part of theafrican-american experience and ushered in the genesis ofthe modern age of technology. michael brown, tamir rice, aiyana jones, eric garner, freddiegray, philando castile, police violence against blackteens at a texas pool party.

the list is endlessand continues unabated. so we have touched on the history and its continuation down to today, but are there otherfactors that contribute to the problem of police violence? absolutely. a variety of other factors, on top of the historical context, contribute to the problemof police violence.

some of which include the increased militarization of local law enforcement, unfettered police discretion, the infamous police code of silence, inadequate disciplinary measures by police departments and administrators, and the ineffectivenessof current remedies. there is a bright spot, andit was touched on earlier. that bright spot is thenon-partisan police task force

on 21st century policing, the president's task force excuse me. it is a bright spot becausethose pillars can serve to seek, to abate the issues that have been endemic to policing in this country. but i just want to conclude with something very provocative if i can. and it's something that linda burnham said earlier in that article

about baton rouge andfalcon heights, et cetera. she says that "despite proposed remedies "that tells us aboutnarratives and debates "about good cops and badcops, better training, "police, community policing, "all of that is important, butit is entirely insufficient." she says that "no doubt, thepaddy rollers of the 1850s "could have been trained toreign in their brutality." she says, "whether cruel orkind, restrained or rouge,

"their job was to police and by policing, "maintain a system of inequality. "today's police," she says,as i'm coming to a stop, "can be better trained torecognize implicit bias. "to dial back on aggression "and de-escalate tense encounters." that's critical and great,but none of that changes the core mandate in poor black communities to control, contain, andconstrain by any means necessary,

a population that has everyreason to be rebellious. so i'm just going to conclude, i'm going to let my colleague come up here and clean my stuff up because we really needa guardian mentality of cops as opposed to a warrior mentality. so r.t. take it away. - next we'll hear from mayor rybak. - if i talk from my seat, canpeople in the back hear me?

- nope. - thank you very much. one of the things thatimportant in this discussion is to recognize we all bring our own personal experiences to the table and i think that's one of the things that's important about that,is that unless we do that, we won't recognize that different people bring different experiences.

here's mine. i was the former mayor of minneapolis but i was also a white kid ina middle class neighborhood who's parents owned a drugstore in neighborhoods where our customers wereprimarily people of color. my family's economicwell-being was dependent on african-americans and native americans in this community and that ispart of the experience i had. when my father died andmom ran that drug store,

those relationships continued. but my mother also was help up at gunpoint two nights in a row and i do not think crimeis an abstract issue. my experience was as amayor and in that case, there were some things thatwere extraordinarily difficult. i think you saw me on television a lot. i went out to a lot of scenes of crime and i was at places wherethere was injustice done

and i saw it with my eyes and i was in places wherethere was a desperate plea to please protect my neighborhoods and build a deeper bond with police. i was proud of the work that collectively, we as a community did onyouth violence prevention where a community based effort used a public health approach to get way, way, way upstreamand really dramatically

drive down crime in this community and i'm a mayor who believes that the single biggest disappointment of my 12 years in office was the inability to really move the dial on relations with people of color, especially black peopleand the minneapolis police. but i think the experiencei bring to the table, that is most searing to me,

was the one of a police reporter. 1979, '80, '82, '83 and that whole period. and during that period oftime, night after night, going out to crime scenes indifferent parts of the city, not as a participant, but as an observer, attempting to be a neutral as i could, bringing my stuff to the plate,i saw a couple of things. and i saw that there were two communities that were not treated equitably

by the minneapolis police department. african-americans, especiallyafrican-american men, and members of the gayand lesbian community; we didn't say glbt back then. over the arc of my adult lifetime, part of that changed dramatically, starting with police chiefbouza and moving forward, a police department thathad deep endemic issues with the gay and lesbian community,

evolved dramatically. i was very proud toappoint one of the first openly lesbian police chiefsin the country, janee harteau. but i didn't have to govery far to find her. she was a deputy chief and at every level of the police department, there were members of the glbt community who were deeply inpartnership with the community and the community waspart of the department.

that tells us there isprogress to be made. what also tells us something however, is during that exact same period of time, relatively little progress was made with the african-american community. that does tell us somethingelse and i believe deeply that part of what that tells us that race matters in this discussion. this is not about fair policing alone.

this is about our abilityto put race on the table to understand theextraordinarily complex issues white people have withafrican-americans and power, both preventing it and harnessing it, in a community that is builtin part on slave labor. we need to recognize there aredeep endemic issues of race and police departments can't solve them, but they are at front end of that and we've got to put race on the table.

before we will not be--(applause) wait, i have a couple of minutes so, i want to get to that pointin a little more depth, but there are a number of nuances along with those very bigissues we put on the table. number one, i was elected on 9-11, i won the primary on 9-11. and after 9-11 somethingdramatic happened. the federal budget, thestate budgets plunged

and all of the resourcespolice departments had for community police departments and all the communitypolicing were eviscerated. we had virtually no resourcesfor the community officers, the other people out therebuilding relationships. all of those dollars shiftedto homeland security. an enormous new responsibilityput on police departments. you couldn't find money anywhere for a community police officer,

but i could find millions of dollars for tanks and vests and turtle suits. and what happened during that period, often inadvertently, was thatpolice departments in america were militarized withall the best intentions of dealing with a new responsibility. and one of the lastswearing in ceremonies, the police that i looked at, i watched that new class of recruits

march up that aisle in military precision and sit down like awell ordered department and say how great that wasthat they did that work, but also recognize that we were training people for the wrong job. if we had marched them down with police relationsand community relations they had done, instead ofhow to use a turtle suit, we would have gottenmuch, much further along.

it's clear that we have totrain a different sort of police officer, but wealso have to get real with each other, that police officers are protecting us from alot of things we don't want. privilege is important in this discussion. especially in the context of race and what white people bring to the table. but there's another privilege. we all have as non police officers,

the privilege that my family doesn't have to worry aboutme walking out on the street because someone else's family member is sending their loved oneinto harm's way every night and as somebody who putpolice officers in harm's way under my direction every single night, we have to get real about whatwe're asking police to do. that requires a discussion about how much, for starters, we can take off that plate.

the drug laws in america are broken. i don't believe in decriminalization, i believe in eitherhaving it legal or not. if we decriminalize, wecontinue to have dollars flowing into the gangsthat are making a profit off drugs and they simplyhave fewer penalties. every time a person buysmarijuana in this community, you are potentially paying for a bullet that goes into the head ofa kid in north minneapolis.

get real about what our drug use and our drugs laws are doing to police, to community and just gethonest about it and solve that. that is one of many many things we can do. i don't have enough time toget into the other points, but i want to make one final point. it is absolutely true that we need to, quote, unquote bring both sides together, but we need to recognizethat this is different.

if those two people upthere in the balcony got into a fight and one ofyou was charged to moderate, you'd go up and ask one person their side and another person their side. when you are dealing withan enforcement agency, with a majority cultureand a minority culture with a history of great disparity, that is not a conversationthat people enter into equally and so those of us who--(applause)

i'm running out of time. those of us who arewhite, need to recognize that it's not dangerousto say black lives matter, because there really hasn't been that big a threat that white lives don't. we need to recognize that that needs to be a very honest conversation, in which we begin with the fact that there is disparity in the discussion

and we have to de-pollenizeall of that conversation before we move into this. this is a winnable battle,which is a weird thing to say after laying that all on the table. but if any community can do it, we can. but i also believe we need to recognize, as we enter into that,we need to understand the privilege of race and the privilege of being protected by peoplein danger every night.

- professor levy-pounds. it's a privilege and an honor to be here. i want to thank dean vischerand my former colleagues, mark osler and hank shea for their work in putting this forum together and thank all of you forengaging in this discussion. i think that it is vitally important that we be willing to have a difficult conversationabout race in america,

because a lot of the issues that we're talking about,surrounding policing are part of our unreconciledracial history in this country. for some reason, we have a notion that the problems thatwe talk about in policing are based upon individualcircumstances in each case. as a matter of fact, whenwe look at the videos, we dissect the videos,we have conversations around whether a grand jury should

or should not be involved in a case, whether or not the officer was justified in the use of force, whether or not theperson was up to no good and they deserved to be killed. i believe that, in addition to identifying the specific issuesand facts in each case, we have to dissect andunpack the systemic issues that have lead to a crisis in policing

in the united states andin the state of minnesota. we are not exempt orimmune from the problems with the culture of policing, although we like to patourselves on the back and talk about how progressive we are and how educated we are, how wealthy we are in comparison to other states in this country. we have a significant problemsurrounding racial injustice

in terms of the way that police officers interfacewith people of color. i witnessed this personally as someone who moved here to thestate of minnesota in 2003, to start teaching atst. thomas law school. by 2005, after i put asidethe mainstream newspapers and started reading theafrican-american papers, i realized that i hadbeen sold a false sense of reality about the quality of life

for african-americansand other people of color in the state of minnesota. i was told at the time, bysomeone at a different law school about how great minnesota was, how wonderful it would be, you know, to raise my children here, how our distressed communitiesaren't so distressed. and that was my mentality forthe first couple of years. but as i started reading theafrican-american newspapers,

i started to see a completelydifferent side of the story where there were tremendousdisparities across every key indicator of quality of life facing people of color. accounts of police brutality and also general denial on the part of mainstream minnesotans about theseriousness of this issue. when we talk about matters ofracial injustice and policing a lot of times we want to look at folks

in the south and point the finger as though the problemsonly exist in the south. but the reality is thatin places like minnesota, we are behind the ball in terms of taking these issuesseriously and understanding that what is happeningwithin communities of color represents a seriouscrisis and it's a departure from how we articulate how well people are doing inthe state of minnesota.

i happen to live in north minneapolis, which you heard referenced earlier and i cannot tell youhow distressing it is to drive through the city and constantly seepolice officers present. and not as officerfriendly on many occasions. there are often negative encounters, between police and community. i have seen a police officer grab a child,

around 10 years old, by his shirt and slam him on a police car. i was sitting in my carabout to go into a building and i witnessed thismyself and i confronted the officer when i sawthat happening and he said, "ma'am, you don't knowwhat this child did." and i said, "sir, there's a system of law "to address what this child did, "not you taking mattersinto your own hands

"and slamming a childon top of a vehicle." i've seen people being pulled out of the windows of their vehicles, like they are animals and not humans. when you see these thingshappening in your own backyard, it's hard to sit back and cast a blind eye and focus just on the letter of the law, instead of looking atthe spirit of the law. in a lot of these instances,

we look at the laws on the books and we say the systemwill work itself out. that our system of justice is effective. but like st. augustine said,an unjust law is no law at all. and we have far too many lawson the books that are unjust. if you look at our low level ordinances in the city of minneapolis which mirror low level ordinances across the nation, we see we are kicking thepoor while they're down.

in the city of minneapolisuntil last spring, spring of 2015, it was a crime for people to spit on the sidewalk. my law students at st. thomas did research about that particular law andother low level ordinances in the city of minneapolis and what we found was thatthe law against spitting was the result of a tuberculosis scare that hit the city of minneapolis,

where it was thought at the time that you could transmittuberculosis through spitting and so they outlawed it. now we know that medicalevidence has come forward saying that that's no longer the case. however, the law against spitting was used a pretext to stop, frisk, harass and criminalizeyoung african-american men in the city of minneapolis.

and we're thinking, why is it 2015 and no one has goneback, looked at the laws and low level ordinances on the books, conducted research,looked at the disparities, and made a change to those laws. instead, when we confrontedmembers of our city government what we received were excuses about why it would be difficult in this political climate totake those laws off the books.

and yet we rose up and we fought anyway. law students from st.thomas, gathered with people from the community to advocate against the repeal of that particular law and a repeal against lurking. even though i was a lawprofessor for 14 years, i still can't tell you what lurking is and yet, that was a lawthat was on the books where people were beingcriminalized for lurking.

what we need to do, is to look at the laws that we have on the books. we need to determine whether or not they actually promote public safety or whether they are harming citizens who are simply minding their own business walking down the street,spitting on the sidewalk or standing around andbeing viewed as criminals. the reality is, many peoplewho have low level records,

such as petty misdemeanors or misdemeanors are being denied access toemployment opportunities and housing for something that's known as collateral consequences. it's really sad, in today's day and age where we talk about thisnotion of the american dream and people being able to achieve success, that we would bring theminto a new form of slavery through our criminal justice system.

and this is not just a newphenomena for the 21st century. if you look historically at the 13th amendment to the constitution, which was brought into law in 1865, we will see that congressopen the door to slavery through the criminal justice system. the 13th amendment wassupposed to abolish slavery, but it says, i'm paraphrasing here, that neither slavery norinvoluntary servitude

shall be allowed, except if one has been duly convicted of a crime. now knowing the tremendous harms that slavery caused in this country, the fact that theafrican-american community is still suffering the effects from the legacy and thebrutality of slavery. why would our governmentleaders open the door to slavery through ourcriminal justice system?

we heard earlier about policing starting out as slave patrols. well i would argue, thatwhen you look at the impacts of policing in inner-city communities, it rivals some of the same issues that were present in the 1800s. in terms of african-americansnot feeling free in their own neighborhoodsto walk the streets. and yes we know that there are some people

in various communities who commit crimes. and like dr. king said,it's true and deplorable that some negros commit crimes, but they are derivative crimes. the greater crimes arethose of the white society. and what he was talking about, is the fact that we have set upconditions that make it very difficult for the poorest of the poor to survive and have adecent quality of life.

and rather than opening thedoor to economic opportunity and correcting the wrongs of the past, we allow police forces topatrol those neighborhoods and to criminalize peoplewho are often engaged in non violent low level offences. the time for change is now. we all have a responsibilityto shift the paradigm, instead of continuingalong with the status-quo. because as we have seen,

with the killing of jamar clark at the hands of theminneapolis police department, the killing of philando castile at the hands of the st.anthony police department, this is not just somethingthat's impacting people in other parts of the country. it's happening righthere in our own backyard, so what are we going to do about it? - we have to rearrange a little bit.

so again, just to remind everybody, if you want to write a question out, please write it out hold it up and the students will bring them up and we will get them circulated up here. i want to give everybody a chance to respond to anythingthat they've just heard or clarify or add to anycomments they made before. - i heard a lot of great things.

one thing i wanted to touch on, and nekima i think youdid a really great job that we've got to get real about race. i have never seen a policeofficer take a child or some of those other things, but i'm a white guy that wasa mayor and a crime reporter, it's highly unlikely that i will. but i have seen enough videos to recognize an inequitable policedepartment coverage, i get that,

but i also have been theremany, many, many times when there have been policeofficers, white officers, very quietly doing remarkablework with people of color too. and it is important for us to recognize. (short applause) i have an idea, let'snot clap for anything, so that we listen, okay? (audience laughing) i so appreciate, but i justthink it's really important

for us to get into the nuances. the lurking ordinance, forinstance, you are totally right and you and others did a great service by coming in and looking atthose low level offences. i'm old enough and unfortunately, was in the mayor position enough to be with domestic abuse victims who wanted us to understand how to get that personoutside their window.

as you brought light tothat, it clarified for me, that the lurking ordinance that we used for that was too broad. great work. what we need to dohowever, is put that also within the context of public safety because we do need to havea very honest conversation. okay, do we want that personoutside the window or not? do i want to walk down thestreet and see panhandlers?

we've chosen to say yes, we've said, we don't want them to come up and ask me, so we've chosen to do that. the public needs to be part of deciding what we're going to ask our cops to do and we just have to, one by one, look through these issues. and that kind of workwe did was really great, but i do believe we need to fuse in

what it is for those people of color in high crime neighborhoods who desperately ask for that too. the police cars that you rightfully see are over-representedin those neighborhoods. i've also been in those neighborhoods when i'm asked to desperately send more. so we just need to understandhow to put all that together. - [moderator] mike?

- thank you, i just wanted to piggyback on what mayor rybak had to say. within the public sector, we abide by this social contract, right. and so with us, we are doing what our community is asking of us, right. they want professional,progressive, proactive policing that's done impartially andit's done consistently that way. we're there to enforce laws,we're there to be guardians,

we're there to protect civil rights in a republic where the majority rules and with all of the external and internal influencesthat law enforcement and others have to contend with, it really is an impossible mandate and criminologists writeabout that impossible mandate. so i know that the socialcontract that we have has to change and it will change

and it will be a part of this new era. what it looks like, i don't know, but this is the startof that process right? here today and in other conversations that are happening across the country. because we need to know,what do you want from us? what laws do you want us to enforce? and if you don't want us to enforce them, then we got to get them off the books.

because we're left in a bit of a dilemma because we want to adhereto what our community wants but if you don't want itwe've got to know about it and this is where this begins. so thanks. - [moderator] nekima? - i just want to respond to a couple of things that were said. so r.t., we all know thatthere are good cops out there.

part of the problem is that any time you talk about misconduct amongst officers or systemic issues of policing, people automatically get defensive and they don't want tofocus on the nuances of what we're talking about, in terms of how the system functions. so i think that we can all agree there are good cops out there.

however, i argue, that acop who witnesses abuse on the part of a fellowofficer and remains silent or falsifies a report is not a good cop. so we need to be honest aboutthat conversation as well. we also need to rethinkour system of policing and what is the purpose. a lot of the low level ordinances that i referenced earlier,come out of this notion of broken windowspolicing, which many of us,

especially people of color,feel is not only ineffective, but it widens the net of who was brought into thecriminal justice system and causes a lot unnecessary tension between police and community members because officers are constantly coming into those inner-city communities. and when we're talkingabout enforcing certain laws when we look at the war on drugs,

we know that that haslargely been a failure. over the last 40 years, the war on drugs has become a war on poor people of color and children and more recently women. so mothers of these children who are winding up in the system because of their connectionto men who deal drugs. many of the folks who have been caught up in the war on drugs are lowlevel and mid level dealers.

so we still have the kingpins,the high level dealers out there making themoney and recruiting those they see as expendable to bebrought into the drug war. and then we use police as agents to go into those inner-city communities to catch those low level dealers. and the reality is thatif you are a person that's dealing drugs,you don't have a pension, you don't have benefits,

you don't have a steadypaycheck, your life is in danger. so if you had alternatives,like job opportunities, it decreases the likelihood that people will become involved in thedrug trade to begin with. so those are some of the conversations that i think that we need to be having as it relates to this overarching issue of policing. - yeah, i think we need to really look at the issue of police discretion.

i was so glad to hear thathere in minnesota there are, well that the training isreally good, from what i-- - no, it is not.- (laughing) okay, okay. well let me just say,because police officers exercise so much discretion, it's really criticallyimportant that they be trained. there is a scenario that isparticularly unique, i think, to police culture, is aquote i heard one time and it always stuck in my head.

it says, "as one goesdown the police hierarchy, "discretion increases." i want to repeat that, asone goes down the hierarchy, discretion increases, whichmeans the cop on the street, on the block, has much more discretion than the executive in the officeand there's an issue there. there's a issue becauseif that police officer is not trained appropriately,they're going to not use discretion in the wayin which they should.

there was a lapd transmissionin one of those cases, rampart whatever backthen, 70s or whatever, that said, evidence in thecase and the quote went, "they give me a stick they give me a gun, "they pay me 50 gs to have some fun." now if that's the mentalitythat the cop on the street has, the low level person whohas the most discretion, then that's one of thegenesis of the problems that we face in policing.

so training is absolutely key. - can i just say onething on the training? i think that it's great that we have high standards in this state, but i believe we've made a mistake in connoting a collegeeducation with what's needed. i would much rather havea police officer have a bachelor's degree in human relations than a bachelor's degree from a college.

i don't believe we needa college degree anywhere nearly as much as weneed cultural competency. i also believe one of the problems here is who is at the table. we want to have police at thetable aggressively on this, but the dynamic of who gets elected within police departments is very strange. it is very often the most extreme voices. minneapolis' head of the union, bob kroll,

is absolutely not representative and is, i don't even believe, on the chart of reality of where policing is. you know, people across the world are asking questions about america because of what donald trump says. but donald trump doesn't, i believe, represent the majority of america and bob kroll doesn't represent

the majority of police officers. so that is about policeofficers getting real in their elections and theywhisper this back and forth, that they got to lookeach other in the eye and say, "no more sendingextremists out there." what we need to do is send good cops who represent the majorityvalues of good cops, to go out and have the goodtough honest conversations. and bob kroll's not going to do that.

and any cop listening,you look in the mirror and ask yourself does bob kroll represent the cops of this town? he does not and he's doinga tremendous disservice to the hundreds of good cops that i know. - [moderator] mike freeman. - you know ,i think that we need to look into the future,not just in the past. the city of minneapolis, chief harteau,

had all of her officers take implicit bias training last year. that's impressive. she talked about increasedde-escalation training, which i think is absolutelycritical to have. she's talked aboutmental illness training, she's talked about crisis intervention. all of those training things are badly needed by cops and done.

chief goldstein has done all those. we don't hear nearly the problems with the police in plymouth because he had the foresight, and the size of the department. changing the attitudes ofof the 800 plus members in minneapolis' police force isworse than moving the titanic. it takes time. but i'm at least impressed that

the last couple of chiefsare moving in that direction and we ought to support. secondly, you know, we can talkabout prior grievances a lot and that helps to set the stage, but sometime in this discussion, we need to talk about whatwe're doing going forward. we need to talk about howwe can sit down and talk and i'm very encouragedabout being here today and talking with the folks.

i think all of us want to talk. it's very interesting, just recently, you saw the difference between the folks in st. anthony who got upand yelled at each other and hugged with each other in the end and what happened in falcon heights, where the whole thing disintegrated. it was because, i believe, in st. anthony there were strong feelings,

just as strong as elsewhere,but there was respect for each other and awillingness to listen. the old man taught me a lot of things. now one of the most valuable things is, you don't learn anythingwhen your mouth is open and i think he was right. - dr. alexander, i have aquestion from a student. i think it might'vebeen one of the students who came to lunch today, i'm guessing.

if you were giving a talk about police and their relationship to the community to a group of black andlatino middle school students at an underfunded and failing school, what would you say to them? for example, how would you explain the concept of having certain rights, inalienable rights, when youth at risk have very little realisticopportunity to exercise them.

- that's got to be the hardestquestion of the century. so let me say this, letme say a couple of things if i may in regards to some of the things i've just heard on stage. this is a very complicatedconvoluted issue, but i think as a country, as a nation, i think we need to come toterms with the fact of this. is that, this relationship between police and communities of color

has been longstandingfor a very long time. going back to slaveryall the way up to today. and i think we have to note that. i think we have to be conscious of it, i think we also have to accept the fact, really, because you didnot see a 10 year old kid slammed up against a car doesnot mean it does not happen. - absolutely. - i just means, you didn't see it.

- exactly. - now, with the onset oftechnology that is out there for many years. historically blacks havealways said in communities, black and brown communities, is that the mistreatmentof police is very apparent, but no one wanted to accept it or believe it merely because they said it. but now we can turn on our television

every other day we actually see a man running down the streetand somebody shoots, a police officer shootshim in the back eight times and there's no way in whichyou cannot question that. so we have the severityof these cases that exist. they're in our mind, they're in our psyche and they're very real. i think what we have to do, quite frankly, how we recruit from day one,

i don't care how much educationwe give our men and women. i don't care what school they're from or what community they are from. i think we have to recruit people who truly want to beguardians to our community. and i think you cannotkeep a police officer, in a community that is inundatedwith a lot of violence, you can't leave themthere all their careers, because they're human beings too.

and they suffer eventuallywhat is called ptsd, we all commonly hear about it. i think we have to pullthose officers out, we got to make sure thatthose officers are healthy as stated in the 21st centurytask force report, pillar six. and so we got to take care of them, but we got to train different, we got to recruit different and then we gotta hold bosses responsible,

their supervisors responsible for their actions out on their streets, because i can train them in the academy, but once they get to those streets, i got to have responsible police officers who are senior officerstheoretically in time, but not necessarily inmaturity, to be responsible in making sure that theydo their jobs as well. now to your question,

and you're going to have tostart the clock over here again. to your question, anytimethat you're talking to young kids of color, particularly if they'regrowing up in a very challenged community, a neighborhood, their reality is not your reality, merely because of a number of reasons. one is developmentally wherethey are at 13, 14 and 15, they're figuring out who they are

and they're also strugglingwith the normalcy of where they are developmentally, but they're also strugglingwith the abnormality of living in a community in which they themselves feel very threatened. in which in a community inwhich they do not feel safe. so it's not what i'm going to say to them, it's what i'm going toallow them to say to me, because i need to hear and digest

their reality and approve and accept whatever it is that they're experiencing and not negate the factthat in their youth that what they're saying is not true or try to attempt to tell them that what they're saying has no value, because i didn't grow upthe way that they did. we can't equate everyonewho's black as being the same. i did not grow up poor idid not in an inner-city,

but does that mean i havea better understanding of what their troubles are? than anybody else canhave, what we have to have about ourselves is humanity,a love for people, period. regardless of where they'refrom or what they're doing. that's what we have to have and that is what so often is missing. for, for those young kidsin those communities, i don't need to say anything.

i need to listen andvalidate what they are, what they're telling me and how they feel. that's what's important,because i can never, ever find a word for them that's going to makethem feel any difference. because when that meeting is over with me and i walk out of that classroom and i go back to where i live and those kids go across thestreet to where they live,

their reality is quite different. and i need to at least have an opportunity for them to feel validatedin their reality, in terms of where they are. in terms of trying to tell them, what they're experiencing is not true. - [moderator] alright, ithink i'm going to direct this question to mr. freeman. it reads, i recently heardthat 80% of the youth

in detention in hennepin countyare african-american males. how do we move furtheralong in our race relations and our policingpractices, given that fact? - well i'm not certain thatfigure is absolutely correct, but there is a disproportionate number of young men of color,particularly african-americans, in the juvenile justice system. i would be lying if i said otherwise. what we have done in thejuvenile justice system however,

is reduce the percentage of kids in the juvenile detentionfacility, by nearly two thirds. and that, we reduced it for kids of color and we reduced it for white kids. we've substantially reduced, we no longer arrest kidswho don't show up in court. many times, we found out, they didn't know they were supposed to orthey forgot or whatever. and if the dentist can remindyou, two days ahead of time

that you got to come in, so can we. so we try to make somepractical responses like that. we've also are fully aware that other than the most violentand serious juvenile offenders, they are usually not well served being removed totally fromtheir family and sent away, off to a detention facility. that simply doesn't workand i think the system was sending too many folkswho really didn't need to be.

people need to be with their families and that's part of, we hope, restoring them and at thesame time, protecting society. i think we're doing better, but there's no question,there's a disproportionate number of african-americanmales in our system. there are a whole lot of reasons for that that are different than the alleged racism of the cops or the county attorneys

or the judges that we also need to deal with in this process. but let me assure themaker of the question, we know it and we'redoing something about it and i'm very proud with the juvenile detentionalternative initiative conducted by many people,including judge alexander, that we made some real progress. because only the kids thatcommit the most serious actions,

who really need to be removedfrom the home should be. a kid deserves to be home. - i have a question foranyone on the panel here. should every policeofficer wear a body camera that is turned on while they're on duty and if not, why not? - no. vehemently no. and here's a reality of thatand here's why i say that.

i want transparency justas much as the next person, but if you can find anyone going forward, who's going to take ajob, put on a camera, you and i are partners and we're riding down the street, talking about our kids and their education or talking about a personal issue or just being human beings on any job, as you would be on any job,walking around an office

or in roll call and every part of our conversation is recorded, i promise you, you willnot get a police officer to sign up anywhere in america. it ain't going to happen. - [moderator] dr. how about if we modify and say how about if they turn it on when they have a citizen encounter. - now let's talk about whenwe should use body cameras.

it's the interaction that that officer has with those in the community. that is important, if thewhole idea behind body cameras are to be transparentduring that interaction, during a call for service, on a traffic stop, whateverthe case may happen to be. that is important information. it's within the contextof doing their duty at that specific time

and that's what you want to have, because the research points out, that not only does it change the behavior of the police officer, in terms of his or her interaction with the public, it also changes the public's interaction with the police as well too. so the other piece youalso need to consider in your community where you're taxpayers

is that you're goingto pay for the benefit of the storage of all of that footage and all of that informationand it is very costly. i think it's well worth it, but if you get a slightbump in your tax bill, talk to this guy here. - not anymore. (laughing) - but body cameras are important,

it's a part of where weare today in our society. i think they're importantfor law enforcement. i think they are a tool,i think they're good tool and if used appropriatelyand used properly, they're going to benefit us overall, in terms of the work that we're doing as we're advancing this profession into the 21st century. - so i'll just piggyback off

of the body camera conversation. so we just had legislation passed, in the state of minnesota,surrounding body cameras and several civil rights organizations, including the naacp and civilliberties organizations, including the aclu, raised concerns about that body camera legislation, because the languageof the bill was skewed more towards the perspectiveof law enforcement

than community membersand those who have been victimized by police. beyond that, there is somuch discretion in the bill to allow individual departments to make decisions about when cameras should be turned on, when they should be turned off and different things like that, that are critical interms of accountability.

what i saw, as being a partof that legislature process and testifying, was alot of hostility towards those of us who were raising concerns about the gaps in thatbody camera legislation, which we did not think comported with best practices nationally. we faced hostility fromsome of our legislators who unfortunately did not reallywant to hear our voices. so we hear, we've heard a lot,

from some people who want a panel about sitting down having dialogue. there are many of us whohave been at the table, in many different settings,time and time again, who feel that we're justspinning our wheels. saying the same thingand not achieving results and not seeing a sense of urgency in terms of actuallyaddressing the systemic issues that we are talking about here.

so it comes a point in time where you have to take astep away from the table, roll up your sleeves and dosomething more significant as far as bringing aboutchange and that might mean going to the bodiesthat can change the laws and not just talking to them, but maybe it means sitting inside of the chambers of city council for hours until you finally get a hearing

or your voices are being heard. it's sad that we have totake such drastic steps and spend so much timemaking these arguments and trying to advocate, but the reality is that it's very difficultfor our voices to be heard. we don't have the politicalpower as police unions have so a lot of times, theyhave political power, they have money, they have access and there have been timeswhen government officials

have felt intimidated by police unions because of the politicalpower that they hold. that again is somethingthat we can't ignore as we're having this conversation. - can i ask a question,just because i think this discussion on body cameras, it all happened after i left office, so i, let me ask that question,just when you drew that line, that it seemed like a reallybright line about in community.

what about witnesses? what about when somebody isgoing out confidentially. a police officer's confidentially trying to get information for someone. so they'll tell them something and that person would feel very jeopardized if they were on camera. i'm asking this as an open ended question, i don't know how to answer.

- well you know, i think the one thing we have to keep in mind withbody cameras, this is very new. and this is very new to all of us and i think before it's over,over the years that come, we're going to see a lot of new case law written about the use of body cameras. but i think it's alsoimportant to note too, in this country whereyou have 17,000 different police departments and you have

over 800,000 policeofficers, across the country. every community in thiscountry do not struggle with this issue thatwe're talking about today, because some communities,maybe in suburban minnesota or suburban georgia, thismay not be an issue for them. but we do know in many partsof our urban communities and even not so urbancommunities, this is an issue. so i think each communityis going to have to define for itself what it is thatit's willing to tolerate

and allow in that community. but i think it'simportant for the citizens in that community,regardless of who you are, when you push back onorganizations like the union. unions don't operate forthe benefit of the public, they operate for thebenefit of the men and women who pay union dues inthat police department. so often times, what happenedwhen they come with money, with they come with political resources,

sometime at the statelevel, the greatest defense against unions, in orderto get what you need for your community andyour police department, is you, the citizens, saying to your union and your union representatives, we're not tolerating yougoing in another direction when we're going in this direction. part of the problem is oftentimes, is that many police departments will come

to national meetings and chiefs will talk out of one sideof their mouth over here and go down the hallwayand talk out another side of their mouth and i've seen it. but you also have to hold me, your chiefs, your elected officials,everybody accountable and responsible fordelivering the same message all the time, because if they don't, then nothing is going tobenefit your community.

you're going to find yourselfin this awkward position of distrust and your going tofind yourself always on the, right on the bubble of something happening that is not going to bethe kind of community i think any of us wantto be representative of. - can i add just a quick datapoint about police unions? it's absolutely true thatthey have tremendous power at the state capitol, to a point that is really galling to me.

but let's, in the city ofminneapolis, they do not. public enemy number one, formuch of the time i was mayor, was me and i won electionsby large margins. public enemy number two, was betsy hodges, she's currently the mayor of minneapolis. any of the places where they have endorsed people in city elections, they've often turnedthe race the other way. rank and file policeofficers have respect,

the police union does not have the respect of the people of minneapolis and no one should fear them in election. any elected official who is worried about the police unionshould be more worried about getting their endorsement. they should care about rankand file and not the union. i just want to be real. - [moderator] alright, this next question

is for nkechi taifa. and it is, it seems, at this point a relationship between citizens and police are so degraded that there'sno way to build trust. can this relationship actually be mended or should we just startagain from scratch? - well. (laughs) there are quite a number of people who say that we should start from scratch.

there are a number ofgroups and organizations and movements that say we need to do away with the whole system of policing. that in the manner which we know and we should in fact start from scratch. there's another side that saysreform is in fact possible. let me just divert forjust one moment because as wonderful as this panelis and with great applause for everyone who put this together,

there is an entity missingfrom the discussion and that might be part of the whole element as to what should we do? should be scrap the old system? do we need to reform the system? we need sometimes, tobe talking to the people who are directly impacted. not like me or nekima,might've gotten arrested in civil disobedienceor something like that,

but people who weren'tstopped barely unjustly, people who are beingslammed against the car. sometimes we need thatperspective on the table. not just us from academia,for our professional purchase but from, yeah peoplewho are daily impacted. i would like to have themanswer that question. - okay, actually, i'vegot another question, that i think is that kind ofvoice so let me jump to that. my husband is 55 years old and black.

he has worked threejobs, the last 25 years, to send children to college. he doesn't swear, drinkand i'm afraid for him. he has been held at gunpoint,in front of our home when we were moving in, he's been stopped in suspicion of a stolen vehicle, even though it was the wrongmake, model, year and color. what do we do about that? i think that's the kind ofvoice that you're talking about

and i'd ask chief goldstein, what would you say to that person? - well obviously theyhave a grievance, right? and if that is indeed the case, where someone is misidentifiedand treated that way, there is, i would hope, recourse through the proper channels within the community thatmight have transpired. - [moderator] well let me ask you this,

what would the recoursebe in your department? - well there would be aninternal investigation as to what occurred and the complainant would be a part, everystep of that process, they would be a part of that. they would have thatopportunity to come in and meet with the administrationto express what happened. they would have an opportunityto give a statement. they would have anopportunity to understand

the investigative process and the outcome. - but i think you'reasking a systemic question and not just a questionthat would be relegated to plymouth, minnesota ordekalb county, georgia, but i can go anywhere in the country and i can hear that same complaint of african-american men or men of color who feel arbitrarily stopped by the police with no reasonable causeor suspicion for that cop,

or at least one is notarticulated to them. part of the problem is this,and some of you may agree, may not agree with me on this, is that the greatest majority of the work that police officers do outthere every day, is good work. they do make appropriate stops, they do stop based onreasonable and probable cause. the problem of where we is, where we are. my mother would kill me if she heard that.

where we are is (stammering) it's so enmeshed at this very moment. someone can be legitimately stopped, i could be legitimately stopped out there as an older african-american male. and my first inclinationcould very easily be is that i'm unjustly being stopped and there are people who are being unjustly stopped or confronted by police.

but quite frankly in the greatest majority of the cases that are out there and i tell people this all the time and people often ask me this. i don't know what to doas a person of color, when i'm stopped by the police, i don't know whether to gosomewhere where it's lit, i don't know whether to keepmy hands on the steering wheel. i don't know whether to keepdriving until i get home.

i don't know what to do. so here's what i tellpeople, quite often is this. is because people say to me that if we look at thefootage that's out there, african-americans are being stopped and they say to the police officer, hey, i got a permit for a gun,i got my driver's licence, get your driver's license,you get shot anyway. and that in the minds ofpeople is hard to remove right,

when they see that. but even though thoseevents should not occur, under not circumstances, and i'm not judging any of thesecases, because i think these cases need to beproperly investigated, need to go before a court of law, but the perception isthere's something very wrong with people of color beingstopped and being shot. so people say, i don't know what to do.

but i always would tell peoplethis, regardless of what, you always comply with the authority. because you only have two options, to comply or not comply. if you don't comply, thesituation is going to do what? it's going to escalate in all cases. but if we just comply to the authority, even if we think they're wrong, we're not going to win thatbattle on the the street.

you won't win it on the street. because in the end, what needs to happen is that you need to make that complaint against that officer,that's what you need to do, is make the complaint. but oftentimes, what we're seeing a lot of and i'm seeing a lot of scapegoating, by a lot of young men, as well too is that every time they are stopped

and they could be criminally wrong and the first thing that they will say is that they're being harassed. we have to be very careful to make sure that we look and we judgeeach case individually. but there is something inthis country that is wrong, inherently and systemicallyin policing and i think it has a lot to do with the waythat the laws are written, it has a lot to do theway people are trained,

it has a lot to do with attitudes that are both implicitand still explicitly biased towards people ofcolor in this country. but i think it's importantthat we step back and we try to look at itin some objective way. but i would never tell anyone not to comply and youshould not tell anyone that. you comply with the authority, but there are people who willtell people, don't comply.

but there are millions of traffic stops that are being made across this country, at this very moment andthe greatest majority of them end without incident. but the ones that do end horribly bad, are the ones that we see the image of, but that that is not all the stops that take place out there, but we do know that thereis some improprieties

out there that must be dealtwith, it think legitimately. - [moderator] professor levy-pounds. - while i understanddr. alexander's point, that very point about allthe traffic stops that happen that don't end in violenceor someone being killed, is often used as a justification, for once people are killed saying, that person had to bedoing something wrong. - [cedric] that's right, you're right,

you're absolutely right. - i want to push backto that a little bit. the cases in which officershave killed an unarmed person, which are the casesthat black lives matter, largely focuses on, are onefacet of a broader problem. you have however many,hundreds or thousands, who are stopped on a regular basis and a lot of times, if theyare not killed by police, we overlook the criminalizationof those individuals

and the fact that it connects to our larger systemof mass incarceration. where we now have the highest rate of incarceration in the world. we have 5% of the world's population, but 25% of its prisoners. that has to be part of the conversation because it really helps to,if we begin to talk about this issue of mass incarceration,

it helps us peel back the layers even more and figure out, well, what is the purpose ofpolicing to begin with? we know that police, we want police to address seriouscrimes in our community. what we don't want, isstandard behavior by people or poor judgement to be criminalized and to cause people to cycle in and out of the system, on our dime.

you know, we're paying, inany given year in minnesota, upwards of $30-40,000 per year per person. some of them again, non-violent offenders. many of them with mental health issues or underlying drug addiction issues. the other aspect of policestops we have to look at, is the profit scheme that is related to why some people are pulled over, which we saw in ferguson, missouri.

and as we saw in falcon heights, where philando castile was killed, where many black men would argue that that particular stretchof town was a speed trap. and a place where racial profiling often happened and wherethere was no recourse for people who were being pulled over. so i think it's easy forus to tell people, comply, follow the process, you'll get justice,

but when you have been onthe other side of that, you realize that it isextremely difficult, if not impossible, to get justice under those circumstances. - [cedric] but let me askyou a question in real time. if you're stopped out there,what would you tell a person? what do you do in thatmoment in real time? do you comply or not comply? what would you say?

i understand the larger systemic issue that we got to address and everything you're saying is open - it's suicide not tell,to tell them not to comply. unfortunately, sometimes it'ssuicide when they do comply, but i agree with you. you absolutely have totell them to comply. - and that's the only point i'm making. - what i want to say, whati would like to do is,

i would like to see the hands of everyone in this audience who feels that they have ever been unjustly stopped by police. let me see your hands. actually there are more hands raised than i thought there would bein this particular audience but maybe i should discern that when i'm in a majority black audience,

just about every single hand goes up. but one of the thingsthat's very interesting is that i keep talking about training and discretion and all that, but today the true bottomline, police (stammering) they know when they are inmajority white communities they don't act the same as when they are in majority black communities. they do not.

they reassess the situation, they use that discretion wisely. i've seen that even when(mumbles) and washington, in georgetown, apredominantly white, wealthy, part of the city, i meanthe words this white woman was saying, oh my god, iwould never even dream anyone in the black communitysaying something like that to a police officer and expecting to live. but he was very deferential,gave her his name

and his badge his telephonenumber, all of this. the differences are astronomical. police officers know (stammering) there is something systemic here with respect to unequal justice based on communities and iknow we don't want to hear that i know we ourselves you know oh, i'm not racist et cetera, et cetera, that's why we use the term implicit bias,

it's not your fault,you know it's like but! they know how to do it, iguess, is what i'm saying. they just need to do it across the board wherever they may be. - it's also really important for white people to enter this discussion. because what you aresaying, i believe is correct and it makes me physically sick, when i think about what youhad to tell your son and me not

and it is really important and this is not a black issue,this is a all of us issue. and we've got to getinto this around here. - i just wanted, one of the goals today is some common ground. so, i'm part of theestablishment, i'm a prosecutor. the city of minneapolisreviewed their policy of chases, police chasing civiliancars through neighborhoods, and cut that back profoundly.

i think it's time for all of us to look profoundly atwho's getting stopped, when are they gettingstopped, and for what, because i for one can put up with a lot of cracked tail lights, instead of having the excuseof stopping certain people because they have a crackedtail light, and not others. and so you did some great work and came up with spitting andlurking, which made no sense.

i think police departments,and prosecutors, and citizens need to look at the use of the tool of stopping people forminor traffic violations. (coughs) excuse me, andthe abuse that's occurred, and i'll be in the frontwith you on that one. - chief goldstein, this is to shift it, the focus a little bit. the star tribune recently reported that you have writtenabout the need for police

to be mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually fit, that there is a need for aholistic view of wellness for those in law enforcement. can you expand on that? and i would like to inviteothers to address that. - well, thank you. it is one of the pillars of the21st century policing report and while the authors of that report

did not place any of thepillars in any particular order, i would argue that that isthe most important pillar in that again, as i statedwhen i spoke earlier, if you have a broken police officer, you're not going tohave effective policing. our officers are the onethat carry out the mission, and there's an old military adage, if you can't take care of your troops, you can't carry out your mission.

so, for us to be effective, we have to ensure that our folks are physically fit, emotionally fit, psychologically fit, and spiritually fit. and in our organization, we've been very intentional about this. we have policies in place. we have programs in place that cover each of those four aspects,

and it's done very well,and it's growing in fact. we're actually gonna be doing something more in 2017 with it. we're trying to getothers to understand that, and for county commissionersand city council members to invest in that too, because again as we stated in that community forum that we had, with faith leaders innorthern minneapolis,

they talked about explicitly how they were tired of dealing withbroken police officers, that they want good effective policing, and they need to helpthe officers to do it. that is something that i'm committed to. that's something thatour chief's association is committed to, and we're gonnatry to help in that regard, so that we can have officers that are better fit do thejob that they're asked to do,

no matter how that job changes, over the course of throughthese conversations. - so, yeah. so, just a point of interest in terms of what youjust heard the chief say, and i've certainly heardother chiefs say that as well, too is that pillar section, pillar one, and being one of the 11 authors of the 21st century task force report,

here's why building trust and legitimacy was number one. that is the basic fundamental foundation of a relationship betweenpolice and community. it all starts there. now, that mental healthpiece being pillar six does not in any type of way suggest it's not written in a sense of importance. if you look at the whole document,

you have to look at the whole document, all of it, pillar one, or pillar six is just asimportant as pillar three, or four, or two, or one. and a lot of discussion went around police officer welfare. and i'll give you a good example. in one of the suggestionsthat i made to the pillar six was that when we weretalking about police officers

who committed suicide, and if they committed suicide, they would not receive any of the benefits that would normally be afforded to them. correct, because it was suicide. i presented the argumentthat as a psychologist, if that police officerhas reported stressor, or a diagnosable psychological condition while he or she is servingin that department,

and if they're receiving treatment, if somewhere along theway they commit suicide, and you can tie it back to the stresses that comealong with that job, which suggests that itwas dated during the time that they were there undertreatment, whatever the case may be, they should be afforded all of the insurance compensation thatanyone else is afforded.

that is the right thing to do, because the way it is now, if a police officer suicides, and we know that there'sa high rate of suicide in that population, then the families won't receive anything. but a direct causationto their suicidality may be related to the work that they, and especially if they work at for years.

so, i would encourage everyone in here to read the 21st century task force report and take a look at it foryourself and study it, because it is a document of its time. but i also wanna note this. i wanna applaud chief goldstein for adopting the 21stcentury task force report, because there's still chiefs out there across this country who will not adopt it,

really because it wasproposed and suggested by president obama. how much sense does that make? that's just like sayingi need water to survive, and i'm not going to take your water, because it's coming from you. it doesn't make sense,it's ignorant, it's crazy. but here's what does make sense. many departments across this country,

virtually every one of your largest and most reputable police organizations, from iacp, perf, noble, all of them have adopted the 21st century task force report. we're moving forward with it, regardless of who thenext president may be, because we know that we gotta do something different in this country

and until somebody elsewrites something different, or propose something different, we can't criticize the document. we have to use that asa potential road map to help move us and advance us forward. and i think we're very fortunate to have a chief like chief goldstein who supports and upholds the 21st century taskforce in his community,

and across the immediate community here in minneapolis, because that is huge. that is absolutely huge. but in no way, chief, was police officers ever minimized in this whatsoever. 'cause myself, chuck ramsey, and one or two other chiefswho was sitting there to make sure that our interests

was also attended to as well. - [moderator] the next question is directed to chief goldstein. it refers to an issue thatothers can address as well, and it's this. can you and i really have a genuine dialog when you're carrying a gun and i'm not. - i would like to think so, right? i mean, i think what we have to do,

and the question was can we have a conversation about finding common ground, when i'm carrying a gunand you're not, okay? so, i would like to think so. i mean, it's a tool of my job. i'm not a gun guy, right? i mean, i've actually been criticized because of my stance on guns, but, it is a part of whati wear when i go to work.

it's a part of me, it's not who i am, and i would like to lookat the human dignity piece that we talked about before, and the intentional and constructive conversations that we need to start to have. and i know it's easier said than done, and it sounds almost insensitive, but we have to remove some of the emotion,

even though that's very hard to do, but to get in and to startworking through the issues so that we can as mr.freeman said, move forward. i firmly believe that we've vented now. we've had the opportunityto express our discourse, but now we need to move forward. and so i would hope that the uniform, i even asked should ieven be in uniform today.

is that gonna be a barrier? i'm proud of what i do,i'm proud of what i wear, and i proud of what we represent, but i don't want that to be a barrier to future conversations. - can i ask you a quick question? so okay, 'cause i'm just curious. why you said that it appears as it appears as if lethal force, i.e.the guns in many instances,

seems to be the first of the course, well at least withinthe cases that we have become media wise? as opposed to lower levels of, yeah. - we're going back to evenwhat robert peele said, you know, use of force shouldbe the last resort, right? so, 95% of what we dois done with our mouth. it's all about talking,it's all about conversation, about communication.

there are times though where force is used in order to gain compliance. and we have to be reasonable on the force that we use. that's what we're judged onin the court by the courts and hopefully by public opinion, however there have been abuses. there's no doubt about it, extreme transgressions thatcost people their lives,

that should never ever have died, but for the most part, there's60 million contacts a year that police have with the public, and when you look at the numbers, yes some people are killedin those encounters, but the ratio's very, very small. right, i mean physicianskill a lot more people by accident than we do in law enforcement. we have to use the toolsthat are given to us,

and those tools are improving through different technology. we're trying to deescalate, we're trying to slow things down. we're trying to bring more people in so that we don't have solo officers making rash decisions under pressure that they can't necessarily appropriately control or perceive,

butt it's not always going to be perfect, and when force is used, it's never pretty, whether it's escorting someone, whether it's using a taser on someone, or god forbid whetherit's shooting someone, it's not going to be pretty. that's not our first choice, right? and for anybody that itis their first choice, they're in the wrong profession

and they should be locked up. - [moderator] that's the way it sounds. - i was going to say,any unnecessary deaths is one too many. and we have to be carefulabout not minimizing the impacts of that onedeath on an entire community. if you look at the murder of jamar clark at the hands of theminneapolis police department, that community is stillgreiving very heavily

as a result of what happened. you go by the memorial, it's a tree near, a few feet from where of jamar clark was killed. think about the kids whohave to get on and off of a school bus everydayand walk past the trees, where they know an unarmed black man was killed within a few feet. that's something thatthey will carry forward

with them into their futures. and even as we're having this conversation where we're talking about remove emotion and stop venting. for us, this is not about venting and it's not about emotion. it's about the truth and justice and being able to livea decent quality of life as a resident of this country,

and to stop having to feel like second and third class citizens in a country in which ourancestors labored for free. that is fundamentally apart of what has to happen and we can't forget about the past. we can't ignore what'shappening in the present for the sake of trying to move forward. how can anyone move forward when these are stillunresolved unreconciled issues.

i know minnesota nice,loves for us to move forward and gloss over the truth, but there are many of us who are saying we refuse to move forward, until we begin to actuallyaddress the current issues that are on the table, thatare still not being resolved. if you look at theshooting of jamar clark, after that 18 day occupation in front of the fourth precinct,

and the news cycles wenton to something else. people in society think you're supposed to move on to something else, and not actually take the time to grieve. and beyond that, whatsystem reforms have we seen as a result or in the aftermath of the shooting death of jamar clark? i would argue none, andwith philando castille, we face the same concerns about

once the news cycle's died down, there's no longer nationaland international news, not only is there a question of whether philando's family will get justice, but what fundamentalsystemic changes will happen to ensure that something likethat does not happen again we don't have any assurancesthat that's the case. so, for me personally, i will keep my emotion on the table,

because somebody has tohave some moral outrage about this crisis in policethink that we're facing and the uneven societythat people of color and poor people areforced to contend with. - we'd like to end on-- we'd like to end on a positive note. so, what i'm gonna ask, orinvite each of you to do, is to very briefly state somethingthat you've heard tonight by somebody on the other side

that you would bewilling to build a bridge or help try and find a common ground to. particularly the local people, but also, nikichi, cedric, let's says somethingpositive to each other so that when we continue this conversation we're coming back together to try and do something together. - well, you know i don't know

so much anything positive i have to say, as much as it is that, i'm not going to take theissue that is going on between police in this countryand communities of color and try to soften this. i think that what isimportant is yes we have to keep the dialogue, buti think in nekima's point, is that the psychological trauma, that the emerging young kids

in communities all across this country, and even the adults likeyourself and myself, when we see these images, of what appears to bejust flat out murder, and if that is what is inour minds and in our brains, and these young kids have to walk through these neighborhoods and see this, and only thing that i knowis that two police officers killed this black man,

and whether they wereindicted or not indicted, that the fact of the matteris they see themselves and they see their friends, or they see a family member, and then they turn onthe tv and see it again in some other part of the country, so here is what i would say to minnesota, i would say to the rest of the country is that what we have to do

is not just continue to talk about this, but each and every one of us, all of us that are in this room, regardless of where weare, where we're from, we have to take a responsibility to try to make something different for the betterment of everyone, because if any part ofour communities are weak, then all of us as a nationare just as week as well too,

even if you don't think thatit affects you, it does. i live in suburban america too, but i know what goes onin my urban communities, is directly and indirectlyimpact my life everyday, and impacts all of our lives. and we have to not just talk about this, but we certainly have to be part of making something very different and changing something in our environment.

- i want to answer that by answering that question that wasasked about how would you talk about police andinequity to school kids. and i think what i would do if i was right in that classroom, is i wouldn't mention cops at all. i'd put them in a room andwe'd sit in a big circle, and we'd talked about what kind of actions we want to have in that classroom.

how we want it to be, whether we talk together, whether people have to raise their hands, whether people can go to a bathroom break. we decide what kind of a classroom atmosphere we have. and then we say, because the schoolwork is so important, what we're gonna do is havemost of you focus on that,

and we're gonna have two of you in charge of making sure that everybody follows those rules. so, those people are now put on the outside of that circle. and then we do that for a little while, and then we begin to talk about the fact that those two people were actually doing what we ask police officers to do.

for us to set community values, and for us to have some ofthe people enforce those so the rest of us can go about our lives. then i'd spend a lot of time trying to understand what it was like to see your friend tryingto ask you to do something, and get the impact and whatthat meant for that person. and then the next lesson i'd have would be one about race and culture,

and i'd get into why we haveinequity in this country, race, racism, in themany other pieces of it. and you begin to walk through all this, and you recognize there'sa lot behind this, but getting to the solutionis unbelievably hard, but it's totally achievableif we do not start with cops, but we start with ourselves, and we put ourselves in the center, what kind of a community we want,

who do we want to be, how do we treat those who enforce that, and how do those that enforce it recognizes they're working for us. - i would like to say that people from differenthistorical backgrounds, different experiences,different viewpoints, and like can in fact cometogether to achieve change. and i just gotta point outprofessor mark ossler's

a former prosecutor. i'm a former defense attorney, but what we have teamedup to do in washington, has been absolutely extraordinary. unless we can talk to people who come from different experiences, we'll never be able to make change. yeah, we can talk and talkto the chief of police, to law officers who areout there, such and such.

yes, if i can talk to, pick up the phone and talk to generalcounsel of koch industries. if i can have lunch with the president of prison fellowship whichare (mumbles) organization, i'm just like, in order effectuate change, in order to get legislation passed, we surely should be able to talk to people who have been sworn toprotect us in society, and absolutely has tohappen and it must happen.

the police and the communityneed to come together. i think that the president's21st century task force on policing is a first step, but it can't just stayup in the ivory tower. it needs to devolve down to the community. and i will say this. i'm not quite sure, idon't know if you know, what's happened wheworking with roy austin, and they have been working

with some psychologist and the like, looking for break down thatvery voluminous document into sizeable portions,so that the community can start holding the police accountable, so that the community understand what is in each of those pillars, and understand that police officers are not supposed to be social workers. social worker's supposed to be social.

police officers arenot supposed to respond to every single ... that's not what they are trained to, that's not what theyshould be trained to do. so, it's systemic. we need to change, butunless we come together, and i submit that we can, because we have done soin other aspects as well. that's the only way we'llbe able to achieve change

to effectuate justice. - you know, in my life, i've spoken after paul wellstone, and hubert humphrey senior. i don't wanna talk afteryou girl, no way no way. and hank, thank you for doing this, but you use the word the other side, that's not common ground. i'm not, we're not the other side.

we're not the other side, we do, we have different roleswith different functions. prosecutors have a different function than public defenders. we need to respect them,we need to listen to them, and we need to work withthem to make the system work. that's what this is all about. and what i enjoy about tonight, today, is the respect thateverybody's paid to each other.

the view points, i don'tanything wrong with passion. i got a little bit of that myself, but what i appreciate ispeople listening respectfully. i was on npr last week with five african-americanmen, one a chief of police, and four folks who had different kind ofinteractions with the cops. i've learned a lot, and i tried to share a little bit

what our perspectives do is doing. i came away enriched, and i hope the other folks did too. so that's what i take away from tonight, and i thank hank and markand st. thomas for doing it, and for you all so wecan really talk together. - yeah, i think again, itdrives me a little batty when we talk about the other side, and what did i learn from the other side.

i think what i heard tonight reinforces what i've been feeling what i've been tryingto learn and understand. it is a systemic issue. it's about the police, but it'sabout more than the police. and until we recognize that, and until as good as the 21st century policing report is, until there's money behind it

to fund some of the initiatives that we really need todo on a national scale, we're not going to get thefixes as easily as we should. so, i respect everything that was said. i agree with some, not with all of it, but i do believe that we'rebetter for this experience, and i look forward to a brighter future, because, you know idon't like this phrase, but at the end of the daywe're in this together.

it's not about us versus you. it's about working togetherto provide safe communities where the quality of life is that where you canfeel good and comfortable about where we are or what we're doing, without the fear of anysort of oppressive force, and that's what i'm shootingfor, pardon the pun. that's what i am trying to get to. (all laughing)

ugh, foot in mouth. - the implicit ... - good god. - you have 30 seconds to dig your way out. - yeah, to dig my way out. that's where we're headed, and so thank you for the opportunity. - i want to thank all the panelists for having the courage toparticipate in this conversation.

it's definitely not easy, knowing that people have avariety of different opinions and sometimes theyrepresent different offices, and there's politics involved, so i'm thankful that you each engaged in this conversation, and i would say that mywords are probably more for the audience than for this panel that we need to be willing to embrace

uncomfortable situations and tension if we are going to move toward justice. i know that there's a lot of discomfort when we bring thematters of race relations when we bring police community relations, when we bring up poverty, but having those honest conversations, and being willing to peel back the layers, is the only way that we're

going to move towards change. it takes being authentic. it takes me uncomfortable. it takes embracing tension for us to move towards justice. - [moderator] so, we'renow going to recognize the university president judy sullivan for a few closing comments. (applauding)

- thank you. i don't think i want tofollow any of these speakers, but in closing i do want to thank dean bisher, professorshea, professor ossler, for bringing us together. i want to thank all of you for being here. i particularly want tothank our panelists. i will echo the remarks, it takes courage, and it took courage for you to be here,

and to be genuine, and to be authentic. we all come to this difficult discussion with perspectives that are shaped by the past we've walked,and the shoes we've worn. we will only find common ground, if we can have a better understanding of what it's like to walk in other shoes, and i thank our panelistsfor helping give us some of that perspective.

clearly this is a dialoguethat must continue. we are addressing some very deep, another word systemic has probably been the most frequently used word today, but we're addressing some pretty deep and complex issues, and i hope that today's dialogue will help us continue the dialogue, so we ultimately get to some solutions

that will help us live in a more just humane world, where the dignity of everyhuman person is respected, and we're all doing our jobsto the best of our ability. i'm proud that as a catholicinstitution we are take, being proactive not toavoid the hard questions, not to blankly explain them away, but to delve into them honestly, earnestly, and with passion

that our faith tradition demands. i'd like to end with a brief scripture, and a brief prayer, because i think prayeris what will give us the foundation to continue our dialogue. in the hebrew scriptures, the prophet micah gives us a simple, but very challenging formula for holiness. he writes, "this iswhat yahweh asks of you,

"only this, to actjustly, to love tenderly, "and to walk humbly with your god." so as we depart this evening, we turn to our god, our creator in prayer. god of us all please walk with each of us in the coming days, weeks, and months. help us to make your love more present, your unity more visible, and your justice more real,

in our families, our neighborhoods, our country, and beyond. amen and peace be with you.

Thus articles standard furniture gateway grey

A few standard furniture gateway grey, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, so this time the post furniture stands..

You're reading an article standard furniture gateway grey and this article is a url permalink https://furniturestands.blogspot.com/2017/07/standard-furniture-gateway-grey.html Hopefully this article This could be useful.

Tweet