Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

How People Try to Even the Score

Aired March 07, 2002 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

Have you ever wanted to take the law into your own hands? Perhaps a lot of us have a little vigilante inside waiting to get out. When bad things happen to good people, courts sometimes do not deliver satisfaction along with justice. What's a victim to do?

Well, we are going to court today, talking with judges and lawyers about the ways some people try to even the score. We will start with the father of a 16-year-old girl who overdosed on ecstasy. He's taking a bunch of people to court, including her friends. I want to hear from you on this, so call me 800-310-4CNN, and e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com.

Here is what else we're up to today. A Kentucky mother shoots her son's alleged molester and become the town hero. Also, Ted versus Dave. Is Ted not cool enough? Maybe the people watching him are just too old.

Comedian David Brenner has it up to here with airport security. And is sentencing a convict to no TV cruel and unusual punishment? How about banning a defendant from approaching football games? Find out how some creative judges make punishment fit the crime.

OK. Court is in session, and on the bench are Pamela Hayes, a criminal defense lawyer and former New York prosecutor. She was the chief of the Sex Crimes and Special Victims Bureau. You might know Ms. Hayes once got a pardon for a battered woman who shot her husband. Also with us, criminal defense attorney Jayne Weintraub. She was a Florida state prosecutor working for Janet Reno. Judge Greg Mathis, you might recognize him from his TV court show. And former Texas prosecutor Nelda Luce Blair. Welcome to all of you.

So, let's start with Don French, a Pittsburgh man who filed a wrongful death suit against his daughter's friends. Sixteen-year-old Brandy French died apparently of an ecstasy overdose, after taking the drug at a concert last May. Now, the suit claims her friends knew she was sick from the drug, but waited too long to get medical help. The mother of one of her friends is also named in the lawsuit. Instead of going home, Brandy was taken to the home of Rosalind Hopkins. She was simply told that the girl had a little bit too much to drink, and had to sleep it off. Don French, the father, says that if Ms. Hopkins had acted sooner, his daughter would be alive. He's also suing the concert venues, saying employees should have known his daughter was in trouble.

So, Pamela, let's go down the list here. Let's start with you, Pamela. Rosalind Hopkins, OK? She's the friend's mother who was told, listen, the girl, Brandy, had just a little bit too much to drink, let her sleep it off. She went along with this. Is this mother responsible?

PAMELA HAYES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I do not think she has an obligation in this instance, because the first thing, she knows that there is a young woman in her home who apparently, according to her daughter, had something to drink. It doesn't seem that anything is too wrong with her, other than what the other daughter said. So she lets her sleep it off. I don't think there is any liability that is going to be able to pull her into this lawsuit. It's just too far, detached, away.

NEVILLE: Nelda Blair?

NELDA LUCE BLAIR, FORMER TEXAS PROSECUTOR: Well, the initial problem of course for this family is why was my 16-year-old daughter taking enough drugs to overdose on. That is where they really need to look first.

NEVILLE: This was her first time taking it, by the way, so, you know, a lot of kids are under the assumption, the wrongful idea that oh, well, if I just take it one time, it's not going to hurt me.

BLAIR: Exactly, exactly, and that's the training the girl hopefully would have had beforehand. But this woman that let her into her home, at the very least she should have called the parents, whether she was just -- had too much to drink, or she was ill for another reason.

NEVILLE: So is the mother responsible?

BLAIR: Well, there are some laws that say once you take it upon yourself to minister to someone, if you don't do it properly, then you can be liable. There are such laws. In this case, it depends on how far the lady went, what she knew, or maybe should have known.

NEVILLE: Jayne Weintraub, the mother was told, listen, our friend here, Brandy, just had a little bit too much to drink. If she sleeps it off, she will be OK. So is the mother responsible?

JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Of course not. If you take a 16-year-old and put it in context -- we were all 16 once. Where was Don French, the dad? Where was his supervision when she was at a concert? If he trusted her enough to go to the concert, he trusted her enough to be out. We don't know what caused the death, except it was the drug. And who said it was the first time taking it? Not that it matters.

But he has a responsibility to be teaching his own child about the dangers of drugs. I know from fifth grade on, we teach kids today about the dangerousness of drugs, all drugs. They can kill, you can get hurt. But when you trust your child and she says, "I just had a little drink and I'm tired after a concert," why wouldn't the mom on the other believe her? Why hold her responsible? Why not take some responsibility himself?

NEVILLE: Judge Mathis, what do you have to say about this?

JUDGE GREG MATHIS, "JUDGE MATHIS": Well, first of all, the issue is whether she had a legal duty, the mother, to act in light of her knowledge. And I would suggest that she did not have a legal duty to act, and that being call the parent or call the police or call the emergency service. On the other hand, I think she had a moral duty to perhaps call the parent when she discovered that the child was drunk, if that was what she believed. But she had no legal duty. And if you do not have a legal duty to act, you can't hold anybody responsible for any liability.

NEVILLE: And that's what it gets down to, I think, for a lot of people. Jen (ph) here from Illinois, the whole moral obligation, and you wanted to mention something about the girl's friends, about Brandy's friends.

JEN: Yes, I am sure they are around the age of 16 as well, and they do not know exactly what's going on. They are worried, they're scared. The friend has taken ecstasy and she's getting very sick. They did not want her to die by any means. But at the same time, you have to look at it from the father's perspective. Somebody has to be put to blame for this, and something has to be taken care of.

NEVILLE: Let's move on to the idea -- thank you, Jen -- let's move on now to the idea that the father is also suing the friends. Are they responsible? They were all together, apparently it was an all-day concert. Brandy started to get sick around 4:00 in the afternoon, but of course, ambulances were not called in until around 1:00 in the morning. Are the friends to blame? Here they -- they do not want to get in trouble, so they are scared. I can't really tell my mom that she as well as we took ecstasy.

WEINTRAUB: You can't blame the 16-year-olds, and they are not even legally responsible. You have to sue the parents. And the parents of these friends certainly should not have any legal responsibility involved here in this death.

BLAIR: Well, and if you are going to assess blame, why not start with the first 16-year-old that took it upon herself to take an illegal drug. I don't know how you could hold other 16-year-olds responsible if she couldn't handle it in herself.

NEVILLE: So, Nelda, who are you talking about in this case?

BLAIR: What I'm saying is if the child -- her name I believe is Brandy...

NEVILLE: Brandy.

BLAIR: ... died, if she was not responsible enough to look out for her own health, how can you hold other 16-year-olds responsible to look out for her health? HAYES: Well, there is a difference between the legal responsibility and what was termed as moral responsibility. You know, when you do something criminal, it sort of breaks the line or the chain that attaches to make something legal or illegal. So, you know, I think the fact that these kids were all out drinking, they have to accept some sort of responsibility.

NEVILLE: And taking drugs.

HAYES: I don't understand why the father -- drinking and taking drugs -- I don't understand why the father just has a need to find blame for somebody else to deal with his own issues in terms of having his daughter take drugs, and that's something that I don't think he is going to get by a jury on.

NEVILLE: Let's let -- Judge Mathis, excuse me for a second, because I have a caller on the line right now, Jason from Florida; I want to let him get a chance to jump in here. Jason, what do you have to say?

JASON: I am a law student, and I certainly don't claim to know everything, but what we have been taught so far is somebody else can't be held responsible for something like this. You know, the 16-year- old took it upon herself to take these drugs, and we can't expect her father to be able to recover from another either friend or friend's parents for something that this daughter did. I think this father needs to realize that, you know, obviously something went wrong, whether it was how he brought up his daughter or something in that area. We can't be putting the blame of a teenager's actions on somebody else when that teenager had full capacity to determine those actions on her own.

NEVILLE: Now, Jason, I am standing here with Lee (ph), and I think he shares your sentiment. Is that true?

LEE: I agree with Jason and also the prosecutor that's with us today. It's a 16-year-old situation. They have not had the experience themselves that a lot of adults have had. I agree that the father had to take some responsibility, but holding those kids responsible for what happened with this 16-year-old, I don't agree with that either.

MATHIS: But I think there is another issue we must look at, and that is whether her friends had a duty to assist her properly once they discovered she was overdosing. In other words, if you have been taking drugs together, you see one of your friends getting sick, you have a duty to call 911, you have a duty to call the police to try and prevent their death. And in this case, they did not. In this case, they took her to a friend's house. That does not prevent her from dying. The friend was not a doctor. They had a duty to help rescue that person when they discovered she was sick from drug overdose.

NEVILLE: And Judge Mathis, the father is also saying that Clear Channel Entertainment, which is the operation that runs the venue where the concert was held, he's saying that they are responsible, he's suing them as well, saying that his employees, or the Clear Channel's employees let her girl down by not taking action when they saw her throwing up or something while she was at the concert.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Excuse me?

WEINTRAUB: They are suing the concert site because that's the deep pocket where there's money.

NEVILLE: $275,000, is what he's asking for. So you think that's simply about money? That part?

WEINTRAUB: I think so. Of course.

BLAIR: He is looking for a place to assign blame, besides himself, which is a lot of the litigation in our society now is just that.

NEVILLE: OK. Well, it's time to take a break right now. And up next, a woman shoots a man she says molested her son, and gets away with it. How many parents have thought about doing that? The case has more than a few people wincing. Give me a call or e-mail me with your thoughts on that one, and we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

On November 27, Jaymie Hutchins of Covington, Kentucky, shot a man in his private parts. That man is accused of molesting her son. Much of the town cheered. Larry Eugene Howell is a convicted felon, charged with nine counts of sodomy. Investigators say Howell molested at least 30 children. He has since recovered from the injuries inflicted by Ms. Hutchins, and the jury refused to indict her.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAYMIE HUTCHINS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) other parents, but hopefully it's a message to the people that are doing this to our kids.

NEVILLE (voice-over): Jaymie Hutchins is the town hero.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think she did the right thing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll tell you, he deserved what he got.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would have done worse things she did.

NEVILLE: Donations for her defense came from as far away as California.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She did not shoot a man, she shot a pervert.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEVILLE: OK. Ms. Hutchins says her son saw justice served the day she shot Howell. The grand jury had a chance to indict Jaymie Hutchins last Friday, but did not. And the question is, do you agree with this decision? Nelda Blair, let's start with you.

BLAIR: Well, you know, in Texas a long time ago, we had posses that did that type of thing. Somebody felt like they did something wrong, and the deputies (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the whole town, and sent them out, and said, "hang'em high." And that is not the way our justice system works anymore.

NEVILLE: Netron (ph) from Florida, what do you have to say about this?

NETRON: I feel you can't take the law into your own hands. I mean, however, none of us know how we really would react in that situation. I have two sons of my own, and I couldn't imagine what I would do. But I believe we have to respect the law, unless everyone would run around, you know, doing what they want to do.

NEVILLE: So the question is, does this open up a can of worms for giving the green light to vigilante justice?

MATHIS: Absolutely. It does.

HAYES: I don't think so. Because it's unique. It's a unique situation. You know, we have instances every day where people, you know, don't take the law into their own hands, or where, you know, those that do find themselves in a lot of trouble. And I think it sends a wrong signal, because the laws, the justice system are supposed to be the people that are dealing with the anxieties and the misbehavior of certain people.

Now the real deal here is, just because the grand jury did not indict does not mean that the prosecutor can't go back, received by a prosecutor's information or have a -- excuse me, a probable cause hearing, and get an indictment or whatever in that route.

NEVILLE: Well, you are right on target, because in fact the prosecutor is going to go back and try to seat another grand jury.

BLAIR: He almost has to. I'm not sure why this grand jury did not indict this woman. You know, there are laws that say if you were temporarily insane, there may be an excuse there, if it was in the heat of passion, there may be an excuse, and I am not sure if any of those fits this woman.

WEINTRAUB: How about no criminal intent? How about the fact that you have to set another grand jury because you didn't like this verdict, you are going to go for another one? That's not the way our system works, you know better than that.

BLAIR: That's right.

(CROSSTALK)

WEINTRAUB: The grand jury gave her a pass.

HAYES: The grand jury has to be able to stand up and say, they did not vote this case on the base of jury notification. It appears from the facts that we have been given here, that is in fact what happened. And when you have that type of a scenario at a grand jury level, you can go somewhere else and get your probable cause determination.

BLAIR: And the prosecutor has every right to do that, and probably the responsibility to do it in this case.

NEVILLE: Let's let...

WEINTRAUB: Don't you think that the grand jury was representative of what the jury pool would be hearing the actual case?

(CROSSTALK)

WEINTRAUB: ... prosecutors gave it to the grand jurors to begin with because they did not want to just file the information, and they did not want to just have her arrested on a warrant. Because they knew the problems that they would have in getting a conviction, and then they'd look silly. There is jury nullification, there's temporarily insanity, and what juror in their mind could not understand...

HAYES: She didn't say she was temporarily insane, Jayne. She did not raise that as a defense.

NEVILLE: Let me go ahead and jump in here. Excuse me, but I want to let Freddy go ahead and express your opinion on this.

FREDDY: Yes, I don't want to disagree why he said that we cannot take the law in our own hands, but I have two daughters, and I said before, I don't know what is going on with this guy, they say this guy molested many kids before and nobody do nothing about it. And if the system, and the judge -- and the Judge Mathis, I think he agrees with me. How many times they let this guy go free? If that lady don't do this, with this guy, who's going to do it? Who's going to punish him?

NEVILLE: So would you have done the same thing?

FREDDY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I got two daughters, and I got a boy too, and, you know, I do not want this happen to my kids. And I bet you, this guy is going to keep doing the same thing, they let him go free. Now he don't got his private parts now. What can he do now?

MATHIS: What she did was wrong, but he deserves it.

FREDDY: You know this too. You let him go free? You don't let him go free, right? You let him go free, that guy?

BLAIR: No, but that opens us up to making judgment as to whether or not somebody is guilty, and that is what our court systems are for. Where are you going to draw the line as to neighbors can shoot neighbors or harm neighbors because they think they have done something incorrect, or something against the law. That is not how justice works in this country.

NEVILLE: Well, let's hear what our viewer has to say via e-mail. Let's take a look at that right now.

OK, I can't see the email -- it says, "mother who shot her child's molester has my utmost respect. Do you think anyone is going to mess with her kid now? I doubt it." That's Daryll from Oregon. And we also have a caller on the phone right now. Go ahead, caller, what do you have to say about this story. Tom, go ahead.

CALLER: Hi, this is Tom from Florida. I am a father, grandfather, great grandfather. I have daughters, grand daughters, great grand daughters. And I would be very hard put not to do the exact same thing that woman did. It would be very hard not to. At my age being an old geezer, I wouldn't care if I spent the rest of my time in jail. That's it.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much for your opinion and concerns. You know what, it is time for us to take a break right now. When we come back we are going to talk about some creative sentencing that is being handed out.

Remember that guy who shut down the Atlanta airport when he dashed down the up escalator? You are never going to believe the sentence he got. The question is, is crime and punishment. It's all about it. That's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: All right. Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We are going to do something out of the ordinary right here. If I can get a cameraman over here to get a shot of somebody in the audience, since we are about to lighten things up a little bit here -- see these two ladies here from Florida, Liz and Carissa (ph) you are from the University of Florida, right?

I say why do you have the towels on your laps? We have a high split, and I said keep the towels where it is. All right, thank you very much, OK.

Welcome back to you at home. And now we will talk about a couple of odd-ball sentences caught our eyes today. Remember Michael Shane Lassiter? He is the guy who shut down the Atlanta airport for three hours last November when he dashed down an up escalator and panicked security. And you know, with everything since 9/11 that is not a good thing to do.

Now he says he went to retrieve his camera bag and was rushing back to his son at the gate because he did not want to miss his flight to a University of Georgia Football game. His sentence: 500 hours of community service, five weekends in jail, and no university of Georgia football for a year.

Then there is another story; petty theft Edward Bellow (ph) of New York. He pled guilty to conspiracy to using stolen credit cards. Now, a judge sentenced him to ten months of house arrest and no television for those ten months. Now his lawyer says that violates his First Amendment rights. Let's start with the Lassiter case. OK, does he deserve the sentence? We are talking about no UGA football games for one season, five weekends in jail, 500 hours of community service. Pamela Hayes, does he deserve this sentence?

HAYES: I think he deserves parts of it. But the part about the no football games, I do not know what that is going to do. It seems real petty in spite of what he caused to the Atlanta Airport. I would have been more satisfied if the judge just would have fined him, and had that money given to the airport operations office to see if they could make things a little bit better. But I just think it is real corny telling him he cannot go to a football game. I am sure he will watch it on TV.

NEVILLE: Judge Mathis, I would like to know what you think about this.

MATHIS: The question is does the punishment fit the crime?

I think he got off lightly. He caused millions of dollars in damage if you include emotional distress the lost business opportunity for both the airport, and those who were utilizing the airport to get to their business meetings. He cost millions of dollars in damage and got off with a slap on the wrist.

I think he should have been banned from Georgia football games for about five years. I think he should have paid about several hundred thousand dollars in damages and served the 90 day maximum for the misdemeanor trespassing case he was prosecuted for and let him do that on the weekends in jail or make him clean up the airport, that is what I would have done.

NEVILLE: Jayne, you are shaking your head. Come on, Judge Mathis.

WEINTRAUB: First of all, I wish that my husband would get that sentence so there would be no football for a year in my house. I'm just kidding. In all seriousness, I think that the sentence is ridiculous and the reason I think it is ridiculous is because it is not as if it is a pedophile, that you are afraid to pass pictures or commit a crime on the Internet.

This judge is passing his judgment, his moral judgment, his spiritual judgment on a defendant by saying I want you to repent, I want you to think about what you did, and you cannot do that watching TV in my opinion, and I think that is absurd.

NEVILLE: That is the David -- Edward Bellows story, but we are talking about Lassiter, the guy who ran up the stairs.

WEINTRAUB: But Lassiter, by saying that you can not go to the Georgia football game, it is the same context, don't you think? You can't go to a public stadium? The judge doesn't have the right to take that away from the individual defendant.

(CROSSTALK) WEINTRAUB: He accepted that as a condition of his probation. That is what happened.

MATHIS: He wants to detour him from committing further crimes of the same type, and so that is an appropriate determent.

HAYES: I think so.

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Dave, what do you think?

DAVE: I am not sure this is a crime. I think that the -- if you can punish somebody for being stupid, I think it was ridiculous for the authorities to shut down the airport for such a thing.

NEVILLE: But you have to remember, this was the wake of September 11, we were all jittery, he left a bag unattended and ran to get the bag. You kind of can't blame airport security for saying wait a minute, stop the presses, we have to figure out what is going on here.

DAVE: Well we obviously didn't have any clear cut protocol for such a thing and it is just a shot in the dark.

NEVILLE: Yes, but everything is different now. I mean the whole way that they are handling airport security is different. All of this is unprecedented.

(CROSSTALK)

WEINTRAUB: I mean it was community service and he had to work at the airport, I can understand the deterrent effect and the intent of the judge in his sentence. I do not understand if by saying you are a bad boy, and you can't go to the football game again. It would make much more sense to punish him where the crime was committed if he wants in fact, to teach him a lesson.

NEVILLE: And let's talk about the other guy, Judge Mathis, too, because the guy, Edward Bellow, OK he is 60 years old, he is a vending machine repairman who pled guilty to using stolen credit cards.

OK, so this is where the judge said, no television for 10 months, hose arrest for 10 months, as well as he is going to have to pay a minimal financial fine. His attorney is going to appeal the decision.

In fact, he has -- he did and he won a temporary stay.

MATHIS: Yes.

That sentence had no connection to the crime. And the other sentence had a connection, because the motive for running through the airport security was to see this Georgia game. In this case, watching television had no connection to credit card fraud, at least I haven't heard anything in the facts.

So, if there is no connection, yes, it was a sentence that really had no connection. It does not deter him from committing credit card fraud. It doesn't punish him for credit card fraud. It had absolutely no connection. So that sentence was unjust, in my opinion.

NEVILLE: Judge Mathis, guess what? You just had the final word, because I have got to switch gears now. Pamela Hayes, Jayne Weintraub, Judge Greg Mathis, Nelda Blair, thank you all for taking part in today's legal roundtable.

Everyone else, stay where you are. David Brenner joins us up next. After the news, find out what has him so steamed about airport security. And later, we'll get into that whole Letterman-Koppel thing.

Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: All right. Welcome back, everybody, to TALKBACK LIVE.

Does airport security wear you out? Everyone understands the need for security checks, but, really, does that little old woman from Iowa look like a terrorist to you? Could you live with a little profiling?

Comedian David Brenner wants to weigh in on this. He is on the Laughter to the People Tour. And he recently e-mailed Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge about airport security. Also with us: CNN aviation analyst Susan Coughlin.

First, David, give us a quick picture of what happened to you that made you fire off an e-mail to Homeland Security Director Ridge.

DAVID BRENNER, COMEDIAN: Well, I have been on tour since September 14. And I have been on about 120 flights, 60 airports. I have been checked 50 percent of the time going through the security gate. And I've pulled out for the special where they rip out your underwear 25 percent of the time.

I sometimes get pulled out this way: "David, could I see you, please?" I go, "You know who I" -- I think he wants an autograph. He says, "We are going to search you." I said, "You know who I am?" "Oh, I'm a big fan of yours." I said, "Then why are you searching me?" He says "Random." "Random?" I said, "What's so random?"

You have to keep in mind that every time they pull out the old lady from Iowa -- and I saw them hang an old lady up while they searched her shoes -- she was disabled -- or they search someone people know, the guilty person may be getting on the plane. That's what's wrong with this. And it all stems from one thing: We have idiots working in security.

NEVILLE: We have...

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: Oh, you are getting applause from some of our audience members here. Let me take a moment now to read a statement from Governor Ridge in response to the situation of airport security. "Governor Ridge has heard from many Americans about their concerns with airport security. We are trying to strike a balance between safety and convenience. We're working with the Transportation Security Administration in order to achieve the right balance. In these days after 9/11, we believe that people will be willing to work with us and be willing to tolerate a lack of convenience, at least for a while, in order to create a safe airport security system."

Susan Coughlin, why do you think we need to check everybody at this point?

SUSAN COUGHLIN, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: I don't think we are checking everyone. As they actually go -- we are checking them, obviously, at a certain checkpoint, but when you actually get to the gate, we're not.

But I think it is one element of what we do in any kind of surveillance that we want to have a deterrent. I think back on what we're doing on drug and alcohol testing. We've got a pre-employment test. We've got a random test. And we've got a probable cause. Aviation security isn't any different than that. Is it inconvenient? Yes.

NEVILLE: But when we're talking drug and alcohol, that is something that is affecting a few people directly, and not the entire country, let alone the entire country's airport system.

COUGHLIN: But it is a way of providing a deterrent for a behavior we are trying to discourage. And is the system perfect? No, it's not. Are we doing the right thing? Are we headed in the right direction? I believe we are. And I think that the American people -- when you look at the surveys of the American people, they have a high tolerance for inconvenience if it is going to deliver a safer system.

NEVILLE: Sure. And I think you are right about that. I have heard people say, "Yes, I don't mind the wait," but a lot of people are complaining when they do see like what David just said about a little old lady who is wheelchair-bound being searched and, some people feel, being harassed.

COUGHLIN: I guess that's part of random.

NEVILLE: Tim, what do you say about that?

TIM: I think that, prior to September 11, if that man would have ran down the stairs or ran down the up escalator, nothing would have happened. And I think everybody has gotten all up in a bind because they are scared. But what is the actual threat with 16 people one day walking on to a plane? Granted, they caused damage.

NEVILLE: A lot of damage. A lot of lives were lost.

TIM: Lives. But, still, that is 16 people out of how many people did they say are in the air in a minute, 60,000-plus? NEVILLE: Thank you, Tim.

David, I want you to respond to Susan's last comment, saying that, well, that's what we call random.

BRENNER: You know what? A lot of different kind of people use drugs. A lot of different kind of people abuse alcohol. In the last 25 years, 100 percent of the terrorists in this world have been from the Middle East.

I will tell you what I do now. I'm so tired of being searched, and I'm so tired of seeing pilots harassed and flight attendants, what I do -- if you knew everybody who robbed a convenient store wore a blue shower, had a feather sticking out of it, had on Groucho noses, you would stop everyone that looked that like. So here is what I do.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: No, no, you hold on a second, David, please, because you just said something. And I need to check what you said. Did you say 100 percent of the terrorists were from the Middle East?

BRENNER: Well, the only ones who haven't been from the Middle East are Timothy McVeigh. Every terrorist act we have had has been Middle Easterners. Nineteen of the men were from Saudi Arabia. We do not have Swedish men named Abdullah Hassi Hassi. Do you understand?

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Stacy.

This is not a laughing matter here, though.

What do you have to say, Stacy?

STACY: I don't think it is a laughing matter, because I think that you just perpetuate a stereotype. And what about all the people in London that are blowing up things? They are not Middle Eastern. You've got the Unabomber. You've got Timothy McVeigh. But there are plenty of other people in this country that get away with stuff that are not Middle Eastern.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And, definitely, there are a lot of -- we are not doing everything effectively. We are spending millions of dollars to supposedly upgrade security, but we are still not searching everyone. And we are not hiring quality, effective people to do the jobs that we are supposedly so scared about. I don't see things getting done.

I see a lot of political face value: "We're going to improve security. We're going to do this. We're going to do that." But I don't see any difference now between before September 11 and afterwards. I still am wasting time at the airport. And they're still not checking my bag. I still get through.

What, David? Do I not put a towel on my head? I'm still just as brown as anybody else, as a Middle Eastern person. I still could possibly be a terrorist. Let's try to do something more effective with the millions that are being spent.

NEVILLE: Susan, I want to give you the last word on that, because I have got to take a break in a moment. But what is your final thought on that, Susan?

COUGHLIN: I think that gentleman is exactly correct. It is not a perfect system. We're working to tweak it and refine it and make it better. People are inconvenienced. But I think, in the long run, we are attempting to make progress in the right direction. Nobody ever said it would be perfect.

NEVILLE: Well, Susan Coughlin, I have to say goodbye to you right now. Thank you very much for joining us.

David, you are going to stick around with us, because up next, we are going to talk about: Letterman or Koppel, "Nightline" or "Late Night"? Is it about ratings? Maybe it is all about you and your age.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

Word is CBS is offering David Letterman more than $30 million to stay on. We're talking about $30 million a year. Meanwhile, Ted Koppel's "Nightline" is in limbo as ABC ponders replacing it with Letterman, although it looks like, you know, for $30 million a year, I would go on to stay at CBS.

But, anyway, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson could be out as "This Week"'s hosts, Sunday. Sorry, guys. And a rumor persists that George Stephanopoulos and Claire Shipman are in. It's one shakeup after another, is the deal here. And you the viewer are at the heart of all of this.

Joining me is Scott Leonard, president and founder of ADD Marketing and Advertising; and Dante Chinni, senior associate for the Project for Excellence in Journalism. And David Brenner is still with us, too, because, as you guys might remember that David is also a TV person. He had a talk show as well.

Let's start with Dante.

OK, these changes at the networks are sending shockwaves through the news industry. What message is this all sending?

DANTE CHINNI, PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM: Well, first and foremost, the biggest message and probably the saddest message of all of this is that, for network TV news, there are real problems, because "Nightline" is an enormously successful show, in terms of commercial success, for a news program. And they are talking about bumping it for another program that wouldn't be news that would make more money. That's a bad sign. And there may be ramifications for it further down the line for other news programs on the networks. Other things that come out of this, I don't know if this is necessarily good for ABC in the long run, because you are going to split Letterman's audience, I would assume, between Leno, Letterman. And CBS, I assume, would put up another talk humor option. So that would split what they are dealing with. And then the real losers are the public, because, basically, we are losing an option at 11:30. In the end, you probably have three humor talk options to look to, but there will be no news, if that's what you want.

NEVILLE: So you think that is not a good thing?

CHINNI: No.

NEVILLE: Scott Leonard, you are in advertising. So, is this all about the bottom line, money, trying to get the so-called right demographic to watch a TV show: 18-to-34-year-olds?

SCOTT LEONARD, ADD MARKETING & ADVERTISING: Yes, absolutely it is about the bottom line.

I mean, CBS either has a short-term decision to make, and they think that they can sell this ad inventory for more money if it is a younger demographic. Maybe this ad inventory will go at a premium. Or, long term, maybe they feel like their audience is dying off and they need to start harvesting a new audience.

NEVILLE: But where does that leave the other people? There are a lot of people who are over 34 years old.

LEONARD: There are so many choices out there. I don't think it leaves them without choices.

NEVILLE: What do you say, Andrea? How old are you?

ANDREA: Twenty-one.

NEVILLE: What do you say about this?

ANDREA: I think that it is becomes more of a question of where America's priorities lie concerning news that is constructive over David Letterman, who is sometimes causing more decay to our society by some of the things that he discusses on his show.

NEVILLE: So, you are 21 years old. What would you like to watch?

ANDREA: I would rather watch Ted Koppel any day.

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: Well, she fits right smack in the middle of that demographic they are talking about.

Thank you very much.

Anybody want to respond to that -- Scott? LEONARD: Yes, I mean, I think the people are going to decide.

You know, there's more news shows, there's more news options than there has ever been. This is not the situation when "Nightline" first came on the air and there were three networks that were the only people hosting news.

CHINNI: I think that is true, but I also think that "Nightline" -- it's hard to argue that "Nightline" does not do a very good job at what it does. And if other people could simply do the same thing, why haven't we seen more do quality knockoffs of "Nightline"? "Nightline" is an excellent journalism program. There is nothing else like it, really, that does the job as well.

NEVILLE: David Brenner, I want to bring you into this conversation, because you had your own show. And I would like to know your ideas and get it from your perspective.

BRENNER: Well, first of all, I think it is commendable that David Letterman made sure that Koppel and Bill Maher, who seems to be left out of this mix, were going to get the ax anyway before he took over, because, remember, he took Tom Snyder's place, and then made sure Tom Snyder got a show one day. So I think that it is commendable. And I think it's a personal decision of Dave if he is going to be happier. It's not the money. It's, where is he going to be happier?

However, in the industry, it is strictly money. And demographics are important. In my career, if I kept the same fans all this whole time that I have been in the business, I would have no career. I have had to pick up the young people. So half of my audience, there is in their 20s and 30s. If I did not have that, my career is over, because older people do not change brands. They stay with the same toothpaste, the same car. So why have a commercial?

And I think that Koppel has done a great job. And I think CNN will pick him up give him his own show. And Bill Maher will go to some other place, whatever, Comedy Central again or whatever. And Dave will make his move. And the world will go on the way it is supposed to.

NEVILLE: Let me take a look at an e-mail right now, David.

If we can pop up that e-mail. It's from Anne in Florida: "ABC seriously underestimates the intelligence of younger viewers if it believes we would rather see stupid pet tricks than 'Nightline.'"

The people are speaking out, Scott, and you're having a lot of comments here from the people who are smack dab in the middle of your desired demographic.

BRENNER: Well, it is not a matter of intelligence. It is a matter of selling products. It does not matter that 21-year-olds are watching Ted Koppel and prefer him. They know, from their testing, that they are a very small minority. And most of the people who watch Ted Koppel are at a certain age, and they do not change. And, look, it's a business, show business. It's a bigger word, business, than show. It's all money. It comes down to money.

NEVILLE: Scott, last word for you.

LEONARD: Well, obviously, the ratings -- the trick is in the ratings. If people want to see stupid pet tricks, that's fine. That it is not what I want to watch. And I think there's much better news programs than "Nightline," to be honest.

NEVILLE: I think it is about maintaining choices, right, Andrea? Maintaining choices.

OK, David Brenner, Scott Leonard and Dante Chinni, thank you very much for joining me here today.

And when we come back, guess what? It's time to speak up or shut up -- back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: All right, welcome back, everybody.

It is time for you and me, time to speak up or shut up. I have been reading those e-mails that you guys have been sending. And I want to share them with you right now.

It's about my hairdo from yesterday, so let's take a look. There is my hairdo yesterday. And let's read the e-mails. Let's pop them up there. All right, we see how I looked.

There it is: "Arthel's hair is a mess. She needs a new hairstyle." That is from Sue in North Highlands, California.

Let's go the next one: "Please, please get Arthel a new hairdresser." Irene in Texas says that.

And, "Good heavens, is Arthel looped? A bad hair day or did her makeup artist and hairdresser quit?" Lulu in Indiana.

I thought I looked real cute yesterday. And our hair people and makeup person said, "Lighten up."

Anyway, thanks a lot for those e-mails. Those are a lot of fun. I am going to be checking my e-mails again tonight. And, remember, if you put your phone number on them, I might just give you a call back right on the air.

That is it for today. We are out of time right now. I'll see you again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern, noon Pacific.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com