Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Did Walker Lindh Get a Fair Plea Bargain?; Is Racial Profiling Truly a Reality?; Williams Family Feuds Over Plans to Chill His Remains
Aired July 15, 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.
CAROL COSTELLO, GUEST HOST: A nice round of applause, and I thank you for that.
Hello everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Carol Costello; Arthel Neville is on assignment with "AMERICAN MORNING" this week and next.
Taliban-American John Walker Lindh has cut a deal with prosecutors. He's agreed to plead guilty to two charges against him, and in return eight other charges have been dropped.
We will talk to CNN national correspondent Bob Franken about the outcome and what it means in just a minute; and you can weigh in with your comments. And I'm interested to hear them today.
You can call us at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail talkback@cnn.com.
First, though, take a look at what we have planned for today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Taliban-American John Walker Lindh pleads guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now he stands guilty for crimes involving assistance to the Taliban, and to engaging in a crime of violence using an explosive.
COSTELLO: Find out how Lindh's case resulted in a plea bargain.
Also: Are white police officers between a rock and a hard place when they face black suspects?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is the motivation of the officer to take advantage, to exploit each situation in minority communities. And Inglewood is a minority community.
That's why I believe the racial component is there.
COSTELLO: And the Ted Williams family feud heats up over the plan to chill to ball player's remains.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is not even a science. This is insane. Steven King would love to write about this.
COSTELLO: What are the cold, hard facts about cryonics? Can it be used to preserve a hero? Should it?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COSTELLO: We've got a lot of interesting things to get to today, and we'll get to them in just a minute.
But first, the big story at this hour, the big sell-off on Wall Street. The Dow dipped 400 points today, and analysts say investors are panicking.
We're joined today by Lou Dobbs, who's the managing editor of CNN's "MONEYLINE."
Thanks for joining us.
LOU DOBBS, HOST, "MONEYLINE": Good to be with you.
COSTELLO: Lou, do these numbers frighten you at all?
DOBBS: No, they don't frighten me; and I doubt they frighten many people, frankly. I mean, after we've watched this market sell off 75 percent 75 percent from its highs, what are another 300 or 400 points on the Dow Jones Industrials, right?
COSTELLO: Well, that's true.
But let me ask the audience: Does the Dow dropping 400 points today scare all of you? Let's hear by applause.
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: All right, how many of you are not concerned?
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: I don't know, Lou, the audience sounds pretty concerned, especially over the past several weeks, when we had those big drops.
DOBBS: "Concerned" is a different word. I don't think too many people are panicked or afraid. But I think everyone is concerned, obviously, because we have seen such a -- we've seen this market lose over $6 trillion in the course of the past two years.
And what we are witnessing is further erosion of what has been a very low level of investor confidence in the integrity of these markets, in the integrity of corporate America and in the integrity of corporate financial reporting.
And until those issues are addressed -- even in this political election year as we enter what is called the silly season, with Democrats and Republicans trading countercharges and charges and blame and finger-pointing -- until real reform takes place, we're going to see more, in my opinion, far more difficulty.
COSTELLO: Well you know, Lou...
DOBBS: Right now, even as bad as these numbers are -- and these numbers are improving. We're coming off, after all, what was more than a 400-point loss just about an hour ago -- even with all of that, these numbers are far worse than what the indexes say.
The volume today, advancing issues running so far behind decliners by a 7-to-1 margin -- declining issues beating out advancers. It's a bloodbath in the market today. And it's unlikely that we're going to see much stability here until these issues are confronted and until corporate America starts delivering real earnings, not projections or forecasts.
COSTELLO: Well, you keep talking about scandal on Wall Street. And the president has come out and talked about it twice now. He did so in Alabama today.
Every time he speaks it seems the market takes a dive.
DOBBS: Well, in point of fact, you're right. Last week as he spoke on Tuesday on Wall Street, the market lost 5 percent in the course of that day. And today we're off about 4 percent -- a little less than that now. You might think that the president would consider not talking during market hours henceforth.
But the fact is, this is not to be laid at the feet of either the president or the White House on any given one day. But it certainly can be laid at the feet of the Republicans and the Democrats if they don't go about, in my opinion, instituting real reform.
There is a view, certainly, in Washington that too often that the American voter can be fooled, and sometimes rather handily. Investors are, frankly, also voters, and they can't be fooled quite so easily, in my judgment. And they're looking for real results -- whether it be real results from corporate America, in the reforms they institute, in the earnings they produce, or real reform on the part of Washington in the way they handle crises like this, and the reform that they institute.
COSTELLO: Well, Lou, on that subject we want to talk to an audience member right now.
Mark (ph), stand up. You're from California.
How much does this concern you? And are you investing in the market these days?
MARK: Yes, I have -- all my retirement funds are invested in the market, and have been.
And, you know, for two years we've had corrections. And it's correction after correction. And I'd like it to stop, I'm sure, like everyone would.
And I don't know when the bottom is.
COSTELLO: What do you want the president to say?
MARK: I don't know. I don't know what he can do.
I do know historically, for some reason, statistically, I believe when the Democrats are in office the stock market, for some reason, has gone up versus Republicans.
I don't know why, but...
COSTELLO: Oh, Lou Dobbs, do you have a reaction to that?
DOBBS: Well, actually, he is exactly right. Historically, when the Democrats are in office, the market has outperformed the Republicans. There's an old saw that for the economy, you want the Democrats; to win a war, you want the Republicans.
We're engaged in both a market slide and a war, so it looks like a bipartisan effort is in order here.
COSTELLO: All right, Lou Dobbs, we're glad you could join TALKBACK LIVE today. Thanks for being here.
DOBBS: Good to be with you. Thanks. Take care. All the best.
COSTELLO: We'll see you a little bit later on CNN.
Let's turn our attention now to the Taliban-American John Walker Lindh, and begin by finding out more about the deal made with the government.
CNN national correspondent Bob Franken is following this case.
Thanks for joining us, Bob.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the case, of course, is a plea bargain now. And the plea bargain is 20 years instead of life as a result of the deal they worked over the weekend, Carol -- a very secret deal.
And they were able to maintain the secrecy in spite of the fact that several of the reporters had really started feeling vibes about this. But vibes, of course, don't translate to enough to report.
In any case, late last night -- late last night -- they managed to make the deal. Instead of a 10-count indictment, including life in prison, John Walker Lindh would plead guilty to two charges: one, providing services -- illegal services to the Taliban. The services being him as a soldier for the Taliban. Second part of the deal, that he carried explosives, namely grenades, in the commission of that crime.
Each of those has 10 years attached to it. No parole. And that's what the sentence is expected to be when the judge actually officially levies it on October 4. Now the question is: What did either side get out of it? The government got out of it, getting out of a messy case, getting a strong sentence without having to go through a trial and use resources that are already overtaxed. And the defense attorneys got out of it the fact that they were facing a life prison term, and the political climate around the country and here just a few miles from the Pentagon, there was little chance they would get an acquittal.
So the deal has been struck. John Walker Lindh tonight is back in the Alexandria Jail here. He will be going to prison after October 4 for 20 years.
COSTELLO: For 20 years. Is there a possibility of parole?
FRANKEN: There is no possibility of parole. The closest they'd probably get would be some time off for good behavior. So he could end up serving 17 years. Defense attorneys hinted that they were hoping that sometime between now and then there would be a pardon or some sort of other action taken.
The judge, of course, has to officially sign off on this on October 4, but he leaves the strong impression that he's going to do the full sentence.
COSTELLO: Bob, I want to ask you a little bit about what went on inside the courtroom, because John Walker Lindh stood and addressed the judge.
What did he say?
FRANKEN: Well, first of all, when he walked into the courtroom he did something that was a bit uncharacteristic. His whole family was here. He's particularly fond of his 13-year-old sister, Naomi. She waved at him; he flashed her a big grin.
Now, in answer to your question, the judge, when the plea bargain is going to happen, has to ascertain for the record that this is being done freely, that the defendant is not under any mental problem, or is not under drug or duress, or anything like that. So the judge asked several questions about that.
The judge then said: Are you able to make decisions today that will determine your future? And John Walker Lindh, in a firm but quiet voice, said yes.
And then the decision was to sign this plea deal.
COSTELLO: One more question. I know President Bush was very involved in this case. In fact, before accepting the plea bargain, attorneys from both sides, did they go to President Bush and ask him for his OK?
FRANKEN: Well, it's interesting. This actually germinated about six weeks ago, we're told. And it was by somebody who was in intermediary, actually, in Chicago. And it started picking up steam as the attorneys for both sides got closer to a hearing that was supposed to start today; a hearing over whether to suppress alleged confessions and statements that John Walker Lindh had made in the battlefield.
The U.S. side considered that a bit of an Achilles heel, but the defense side realized it was an uphill battle, that they would prevail (ph). So each side had a reason to talk.
About the middle of last week they finally got the president's attention. That's how one of the principals in this story described it -- that both the attorney general, John Ashcroft, and President Bush had so many other distractions that they finally only could go to them about Wednesday of last week and say, look, these are the parameters -- "they" being the U.S. attorneys -- these are the parameters of what we're discussing. Deputy Attorney General Michael Chertoff was in on that conversation. He had been in on some of the conversations with the defense lawyers.
Then the negotiations picked up steam. Reporters were starting to get an inkling of this. We started asking questions; didn't get our phone calls returned. Now we know why.
COSTELLO: You know, President Bush was speaking about other matters today publicly. Why didn't he speak out publicly about the sentencing in this case, or the plea agreement?
FRANKEN: Well, there's a perception that, among many people -- particularly the conservative constituents that are part of his constituency -- there's going to be some unhappiness about that.
The parents of Johnny Spann, who is the CIA agent who was killed in Afghanistan about the time John Walker Lindh was captured, are expressing deep sadness and anger at the fact that this plea bargain was made.
So it is not something that the president is going to want to confront particularly. He'll leave it to subordinates to deal with the controversy. He's got plenty of controversy on his plate.
COSTELLO: All right Bob Franken, thank you. Hopefully you're going to stick around.
We have to take a break right now, but we're going to debate the plea right after this.
Stick with TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONNELL LINDH, JOHN'S BROTHER: He's behaved with total integrity, total grace. It pains me that he's going to be away for so long, but I'm grateful, still, for this decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: You can hear the audience clapping, but I don't know is it was so much about what John Walker Lindh's brother says.
Did you realize that was his brother, saying that John Walker Lindh acted with grace and integrity through all of this? Do any of you really buy that?
Can you hear them saying no?
Well I know that among those very disappointed by the Walker Lindh plea bargain is Johnny Spann. He's the father of CIA agent Mike Spann, who was killed during the prison uprising that led to Lindh being captured.
Spann's father says the decision let down not only his son, but all of those serving overseas.
We want to talk more about the plea agreement with attorney Jeralyn Merritt. She was one of the principal defense attorneys in the trial of Timothy McVeigh. Ms. Merritt teaches at the Denver University College of Law.
Also Richard Marmaro, a criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor. He is vice president of the Los Angeles chapter of the Federal Bar Association.
Thank you both for joining us this afternoon.
JERALYN MERRITT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Sure.
RICHARD MARMARO, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Thank you.
COSTELLO: Jeralyn, let's start with you. Were you surprised they reached a plea in this case?
MERRITT: I was surprised early this morning that they reached a plea. But after having thought about it, I'm not so surprised now.
I think both sides had a lot to lose. It was pretty clear that the judge in this case was going to rule against the defense on the admission of at least the CNN reporter's statement, and possibly his own statements to the military.
On the other hand, it would have come out before a jury what kind of treatment John Walker Lindh was subjected to: that he was put into a metal container, bound, gagged, naked, without heat and transported.
So, I mean, there were reasons both sides had to make this deal.
COSTELLO: Richard, let me ask you this: Government attorneys say they had a very strong case, and just because they reached a plea agreement in this case doesn't mean that if they had brought the case to trial that they would have won.
So why did they? MARMARO: Well, you have to understand that most criminal cases end up with this type of disposition -- with a plea agreement before a trial. Over 90 percent of the cases that are indicted end up with a disposition rather than a trial.
COSTELLO: I want to go to Bob Franken, because I was wondering about this, because I know Bob Franken has to run off soon.
Will we ever know all of what John Walker Lindh knows about the Taliban now that this plea agreement has been reached and he's going to go off to jail without a public trial?
FRANKEN: Well, that's part of the deal. The part of the deal is that he must cooperate with interrogators. If he doesn't, the deal falls through. And he agreed to a polygraph test to try and reassure that. It sounds like some of the spy cases.
Whether the people who question him are clever enough to find out all that there is to know, the fact of the matter is he will be thoroughly questioned about what he did know.
Now he did, apparently, meet at one time with Osama bin Laden. He has had some exposure to some of that. But on the other hand, he is a very low-level player in all this. He was just a foot soldier; he just happened to be an American foot shoulder.
COSTELLO: So are you saying that he really doesn't know much?
FRANKEN: Well, that be would be the premise to start with. But he might know more than he knows he knows. He might, for instance, be able to give them some insights into what he observed when he was at that meeting with Osama bin Laden.
I should point out, by the way, this was not a one-on-one cup of tea they had together. He was part of a large group that had a very brief meeting with Osama bin Laden.
COSTELLO: OK. Thank you Bob Franken, we'll let you go right now.
I want to turn to the audience now and ask you: Are you satisfied with this plea bargain? Are you satisfied with 20 years in jail for this Taliban-American?
By applause, tell me you are satisfied.
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: OK. Now tell me, those of you who are not, by applause.
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: Does anybody have a comment right now about why they're not?
Alan (ph)? Alan (ph) from Kansas, why aren't you satisfied with this sentence?
ALAN: Well, I am satisfied with the plea. I think 20 years is sufficient time. Let's lock him up. He's a small guppy; let's go after the big fish, spend our efforts, you know, in a useful manner. Let's lock him up and get it off TV.
COSTELLO: Good comment.
Anybody have an opposing viewpoint that we can get to readily?
There's one right there.
Oh, we're going across the land.
DOUG: Doug.
COSTELLO: To Doug (ph) from Texas.
What do you think?
DOUG: I disagree. I think he's a traitor to the United States. He picked up arms against our government, and I think he should be punished as a traitor to our country.
COSTELLO: And what would that punishment involve, in your opinion?
DOUG: Well, either -- probably the top thing would be death or a long life imprisonment.
COSTELLO: Do you put him in the same league as Zacarias Moussaoui?
DOUG: I put him in the league with anybody that takes up arms against our country. I think that he's a traitor to us.
COSTELLO: OK, well let's go to Jeralyn and ask her: Do you think that 20 years is long enough for John Walker Lindh to serve?
MERRITT: Personally, I think it's too long. I would have been much happier if he had gotten a lesser sentence.
As to him taking up arms against America, there's no evidence he ever did that, and he didn't plead guilty to that. He plead guilty to being a foot soldier in the Taliban army.
And in the indictment itself, it says that when he was offered the chance to come to America and fight against American interests he turned it down because he wanted to fight on the front lines in Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance.
COSTELLO: But don't you think we'll never really know if that's true or not?
MERRITT: Well, I think that the government wouldn't have put it in the indictment if they didn't believe it was true. COSTELLO: What do you think, Richard? Do you think 20 years is fair?
MARMARO: Well, 20 years is a substantial sentence, Carol. This young man is 21 years old. He'll be in prison for two decades. That's a very substantial period of time, no matter how you look at it.
COSTELLO: I believe we have someone on the phone, but I cannot recall the name.
Maxine (ph), are you with me?
CALLER: Maxine (ph) is here.
COSTELLO: OK Maxine (ph), what do you have to say?
CALLER: I want to say I totally agree with the gentlemen with the white hair. He's around my age. And back over the years when somebody did this against their country, they didn't fool around with them, they set them out against the wall and bang-bang, you know. And this is what this guy deserves.
I mean, we've got boys over there losing their lives every day trying to protect people over there. I wish they'd bring all our boys home and just leave them take care of themselves.
COSTELLO: Well, I'm sure a lot of people echo your sentiments.
Let me ask the audience this -- an audience member, maybe: Do you think that the anger has died down, since it's so far from September 11 right now, against people like John Walker Lindh?
Bruce (ph) from Texas.
BRUCE: It hasn't, in my mind.
However, I believe maybe the plea bargain agreement is the easiest way to go because it take less funds -- American funds, taxpayers' funds -- it's over with quickly. And personally I believe he should be deported as soon as his term is up.
COSTELLO: A lot of anger still left in this.
Let me go back to Jeralyn for a second.
John Walker Lindh's family said a lot of things today. His brother said he behaved with integrity and grace all the way through this, and he still loves him. His father said there is no bitterness against the United States on John Walker Lindh's part. In fact, the father actually compared John Walker Lindh to Nelson Mandela.
MERRITT: Well, you know, I heard the father, also, this morning. And he said that his son loves America and never did -- and never said anything against America. He was there on a religious quest fighting against the Northern Alliance for the control of Afghanistan. Will we ever know if that's exactly true? I'm not sure.
But as to that he has acted with grace throughout these proceedings, I would say that, in comparison to what's been alleged about Mr. Moussaoui and how he's acted in court, Mr. Lindh has comported himself completely appropriately.
COSTELLO: Well, maybe he had no choice, though.
Let's talk to Richard. I want to ask you this: Is John Walker Lindh getting favorable treatment because he's American?
MARMARO: I don't think so. I think that he was arrested, he was questioned by the authorities, he was brought over here in due course. And I don't think he's gotten any favorable treatment. Certainly...
COSTELLO: So compare him to Zacarias Moussaoui.
MARMARO: Well, they're two totally different cases, and I don't think you can compare the two.
But here's the situation, where he is pleading guilty to two serious felony counts which will require him to serve 20 years in federal prison. I don't think that's favorable treatment.
COSTELLO: All right, thank you both for joining us. We have to take a break right now.
Jeralyn Merritt and Richard Marmaro, thank you for joining us today.
Up next: the black cops you never heard about. Author Heather Mac Donald tells us what she learned about racism on the force from African-American police officers. And a former officer tells Heather she didn't learn enough.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: So we're having some fun today. Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.
The taped arrest and rough treatment of an African-American suspect in Inglewood, California more than a week ago has fueled accusations of racism on the police force. Critics say this sort of thing doesn't happen to white suspects.
So is policing racist? Author Heather Mac Donald says she heard a different story when she talked with more than 20 African-American police officers all over the country. Heather is the author of "The Burden of Bad Ideas," and her article titled "The Black Cops You Never Hear About" is at cityjournal.org.
Also with us, Ronald Hampton, a 24-year veteran of the D.C. police force, and currently executive director of the National Black Police Officers Association.
Thank you both for being with us this afternoon.
Heather, let's start with you. Is racial profiling a myth, then? Is that what you found out?
HEATHER MAC DONALD, CITYJOURNAL.ORG: The good news that I found out, Carol, in my article is that there's an enormous amount of support for policing among black cops. As one Brooklyn detective told me: "I will never retreat. I'm the last line of defense against mayhem."
And the bigger story is, I think, for race relations generally, they reject the injection of race into every public debate, including policing. What they say is, what I'm looking for, what my fellow officer look for is suspicious behavior. We're not looking at race. We're looking at: Are you hitching your wasteband up in such a way that I think, maybe, you have a gun.
So the officers I spoke with say the racial profiling debate is really misguided. It's a false notion of policing.
COSTELLO: And I want to make it clear to the audience, you spoke with 20 African-American police officers; not just cops on the streets, but lieutenants and sergeants and detectives as well.
MAC DONALD: Absolutely, as well as police chiefs, one who began as a cop in New York City 40 years ago and is now -- he rose to the fourth-highest position in New York, and now is the chief of Bridgeport.
So yes, I talked to rookies. I talked to veterans.
And, again, it was a very heartening experience. These people, they believe that they are protecting the good people against the so- called knuckleheads in the community.
COSTELLO: Well, how do they explain these videotapes that we keep seeing?
MAC DONALD: What they'll tell me is, you need to see the broader context. There's occasionally an officer is going to lose his temper.
But, for instance, in Inglewood, let's remember what happened. You had Jackson, that was attacking, first, the L.A. sheriffs, then the Inglewood officers who came; that people were, you know, bleeding in the head.
Well, after he was cuffed he grabbed officer Morse's testicles, which provoked Morse in a fit of rage, which was wrong, because once an officer -- excuse me, once a suspect is cuffed, the game is over. But Morse lost his temper...
COSTELLO: Well, we only know that it's alleged that he grabbed this officer's testicles. And most people are saying, including the mayor and the police chief of Inglewood, that the kid was handcuffed, so enough is enough.
MAC DONALD: Enough is enough, that's right.
But the fact is, is if you assault officers, there's some small percentage of them who are going to lose their temper.
That does not justify it. But it makes the context a little more understandable. And the fact is, is that, across the country, millions of times a day, officers are put into -- suspects are put into arrest, and the officer acts perfectly appropriately.
COSTELLO: Ronald Hampton, I want you to jump in on the conversation now, because you probably have an entirely different view. Tell us what you think about what Heather found out.
RONALD HAMPTON, NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSN.: Well, she could -- you could probably find 20 more African-American police officers in police departments all over the country that think like that. And they are probably very much the product of the cultural conditioning of policing, because that's part of what policing is about.
But I would invite Ms. Mac Donald to come to the conference for the National Black Police Association next month in August in L.A. And she could talk to 200 black police officers who would probably tell her,in their own words, about the system of racism and discrimination and sexism policing, in the workplace, as well as how their policies and practices manifest themselves in the communities.
And, as a police officer in Washington, D.C. for 24 years, I saw it every day on the job. I have spoken out against police brutality, racism, and discrimination, and not because somebody told me, but because I saw it firsthand myself. So, it does exist. But there are individuals who don't see it, who refuse to see it, and go about their business, doing their job every day, and protect the communities we live in.
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: I want to ask Ronald about one thing. Let's take a look at the Inglewood tape once again, because something that struck many people is, the officer standing beside the officer accused of brutality is a black police officer. And he doesn't seem to step in at all. Why do you think that was?
HAMPTON: Oh, no. I mean, we can go back to the black officers that stood around 'round Rodney King and didn't do anything.
If you notice, in the film, there was the Latino officer who put his arm up to stop the officer from hitting him. And, see, even though these other value systems exist in policing, the dominant value in policing is policing itself. And there has always been this sense that, if you wear the uniform, then there's certain behavior that is appropriate for the uniform and you don't tell on people when they do indifferent things or bad things. You don't tell them, because, if you do, harassment and retaliation is real.
There is a real backlash to speaking out about police brutality, as well as racism and discrimination in policing. COSTELLO: Heather, would you agree with that: that maybe the police officers that you questioned weren't telling you the entire truth?
MAC DONALD: No, I wouldn't. I think these were very straight guys. I don't think Mr. Hampton would mean to suggest that there's cultural conditioning to believe in law and order.
The officers I spoke to get accused of racial profiling themselves. They stop somebody and they say -- they hear, "The only reason you stopped me is because I'm black." And they will say,"No, I stopped you because you were wrong, because you were speeding, or maybe you just stole a lady's handbag."
There's a strong current of respect for law and order in the black community that we rarely hear about, because most of the activists that get on TV are the ones who want to promote the message that racism is still a problem and that criminals are victims. But I have gone to a lot of community meetings up in Harlem, and the strongest message that comes out of those is: "We want more cops. We can't understand why the cops are not allowed to just get rid of people that are loitering on the corners, because we know why they are there. They are there to sell drugs."
So, I think Mr. Hampton can maybe
(CROSSTALK)
HAMPTON: Let me say this. But let me say this. Let me say this. Let me say this.
See, there's this notion that exists in policing that, in our community, in the African-American community, the best strategy to deal with crime is one that calls for a tough, no-tolerance, no-break response to it. But -- and so our community has concluded that the only way to have public safety is to have the police come in and wipe out everything in the community, violate everybody's rights in the process of trying to make the community safe.
It's ludicrous to think that, in order for me to have a safe community, in order for my community to be safe, that I have to give up all my rights, where, on the other side of town in the white community, you don't have to give up your rights. You don't have to give up your protections and your civil liberties and all of that to have good police service.
And, so somehow or another...
(CROSSTALK)
COSTELLO: Let me interrupt you for just a second.
Deandra (ph) from our audience...
DEANDRA: Deandra.
COSTELLO: Deandra -- I'm sorry.
What do you have to say?
DEANDRA: I believe that this is more than just a coincidence. Had this happened only once, then it would be understandable. But this has happened over and over and over again. And you can start to see a pattern of this starting to happen.
COSTELLO: Hold that thought. We're going to take a break. And we'll come right back with more debate.
This is TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back, everyone. I'm Carol Costello, in for Arthel Neville.
We are talking about alleged racism among police officers.
And before we hop back into the debate, I want to tell you a story about what happened in Seattle. They're having a lot of race- relations problems up there. There have been lots of demonstrations from black groups protesting how white police officers are treating African-Americans in the community.
Well, in a recent incident, a King County sheriff's deputy was responding to a call of a naked man running through traffic. It was a naked African-American man. The deputy approached him and used pepper spray to try to subdue the man. The man somehow knocked the deputy to the ground, grabbed his gun, and shot the deputy multiple times in front of 50 witnesses.
And now the series of demonstrations against how white officers treat blacks have been called off because of the backlash. And I want to read you a quote from the sheriff in King County.
Sheriff Dave Reichert says: "We are sick of being nitpicked about decisions we make every day. We are sick of being looked at as racist," because he's saying that the officer responded in the way that he did because he was thinking about how he would be perceived in the public.
And I think, Heather, that is one of the things that your interviews with these 20 officers addressed.
MAC DONALD: Absolutely, Carol.
It was very eerie. One officer said: "Everybody has got a camcorder today. And they start shooting right when the officer takes action." They don't give you what happened before. And it blows their mind. They say: "Why don't they protest when a drug dealer shoots somebody dead or when one of us is shot dead? And the one time that we have to use force, that brings out the protests." So, they feel there's a real double standard out there that makes their job very dangerous. And, in fact, a lieutenant in Baltimore worried about the fact that the racial-profiling juggernaut is making officers second-guess themselves. And he said: "So, you've made a car-stop. And the guy says, 'You only stopped me because I'm black.' Well, how do you know that that guy isn't a wanted felon with a gun that is trying to get you to back off a little bit?"
So, the black officers I spoke with really feel that the public needs to understand a little more about policing and realize that the vast majority of officers are acting appropriately. They are using language to try and subdue suspects. And the few mistakes does not represent the bulk of the officers.
COSTELLO: I see a lot of African-Americans in our audience shaking their heads.
HAMPTON: Carol...
COSTELLO: Go ahead, Mr. Hampton. Go ahead.
HAMPTON: No, what I was going to say, first of all, we don't know what was in the officer's hand as it relates to the situation, because nobody can look in there and see. We don't even know how he was responding to it. And so that is a crazy assumption.
But let me say this also: that officers, regardless of whether they acknowledge that there are race tensions in policing, go out there every day and do their jobs. Just because I was one who recognized that there was racial tensions in doing my job didn't mean that I served my community less. It didn't mean that I was less effective in terms of doing my work every day, because I was. The fact that I acknowledged it made me even more effective in doing my work every day in the community.
So, I don't understand why it would have to be either/or, when the fact of the matter is, is that officers who do recognize and acknowledge that there are racial tensions in policing still go out and do their jobs very effectively every day and are good police officers.
COSTELLO: And it's a very tough job.
Thank you both for being with us today, Heather Mac Donald and Ronald Hampton.
We're going to take another break.
Up next: frozen in time, the Ted Williams story. We'll have the latest on a family squabble and then find out more about cryonics: good science or science fiction? Bill Nye, the Science Guy, will take your questions.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: We have a splendid audience this afternoon. And I thank you all for that, a very enthusiastic audience.
You know, death has a way of magnifying family squabbles. And the one under way of course involves Ted Williams. Oh, man. His household is certainly no exception. Talk about squabbles. His son, John Henry Williams, sent Ted's remains to an Arizona lab to be frozen. His daughter, Bobby-Jo Ferrell, says dad wanted to be cremated and have his ashes spread over the Florida Keys. Well, a court will decide Ted's final resting state.
Joining us by phone is Franci Richardson, a reporter for "The Boston Herald."
Now, something is to supposed to happen today, right? Did it yet?
FRANCI RICHARDSON, "BOSTON HERALD": No, Carol, not just yet. The court is open until 5:00. Today, of course, is the deadline. And we are expecting a representative from Ted's executor -- the executor of Ted's will to come forward and file the will.
COSTELLO: So, they're going to file the will. Will it be open for the public to read?
RICHARDSON: Yes, it will.
COSTELLO: What do you suspect it says?
RICHARDSON: Well, from everybody that I have talked to in the week that I have been here, it says that Ted had preferred, for many, many years, as far back as people can remember, to be cremated. He wanted to be cremated, his ashes scattered over the Buchanan (ph) Banks in the Keys, off the coast of the Florida Keys.
COSTELLO: Well, let me ask you this. In order for Ted's body to be frozen in the cryonics lab, he had to fill out some paperwork and sign the paperwork. Would the will override the paperwork he may or may not have signed at the cryonics lab?
RICHARDSON: That's an issue that, actually, Bobby-Jo Ferrell's attorneys are waiting to see, once the documents are filed. They expect that, alongside the will, will be documents that had to have been signed with Alcor. And the issue that could come up is whether John Henry used his 1996 power of attorney for his father to sign those documents themselves. That's the issue that remains to be seen.
COSTELLO: OK, so, we are anxiously waiting for 5:00. And we'll get an update from you then. Thank you, Franci Richardson, for that update.
Joining us now is Bill Nye, the Science Guy, from the PBS show of the same name.
Hi, Bill.
Bill is a professor at Cornell University. And he's developing a new show called "Through the Eyes of Nye." It's about cloning. How apropos. Also with us is David Hanrahan, a Massachusetts trial lawyer and a fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers.
Thank you both for being with us.
DAVID G. HANRAHAN, ATTORNEY: My pleasure.
COSTELLO: Bill Nye, let's start with you.
Is it really possible to freeze someone and then bring them back to life years later when technology catches up with everything?
BILL NYE, "THE SCIENCE GUY": Well, never say never.
But I've got to say, it's very, very unlikely, because if you think about how to think, a human brain is able to store all these images and patterns in time, things that happen to us over the years, memories. And we can recognize things. We've got eyes. We've got ears. We've got all this stuff going on.
And that brain is far, far more complicated than anything we have been able to synthesize, any computer we have been able to build. So it is very reasonable that the human brain is assembled or works with things smaller than molecules. And, by that, I mean I think it's arrangements of patterns of molecules, three-dimensional shapes of proteins. And I have got to think, when you freeze a brain, you ruin it. That's what I got to think. That's what I'm thinking.
COSTELLO: You know, that would be the first thing in my head.
Wouldn't it have been easier, if the family did indeed want to create more Ted Williamses, to take just a little piece of tissue out and maybe clone him?
NYE: Yes, exactly. If you want DNA, there's all manner of ways to get DNA. And this is -- forensic police science is going so far forward with this. People are able to identify people from just the tiniest scraps of organic pieces of people, even spit.
(CROSSTALK)
NYE: With that said, it is quite reasonable. I can see where, if someone were going to do a study of Ted Williams, who was such a fantastic baseball player -- and he shot down planes as a fighter pilot. He was a tremendous athlete. It's very reasonable that you could try to find, just for example, the gene for eyesight, for good eyesight. And you would use Ted Williams' good eyesight and compare it to other people's genes for eyesight. And then maybe you would be able to learn something and develop some therapy to improve people's eyesight, hand-eye coordination. It seems quite reasonable.
But bringing the guy back to life from liquid nitrogen, I don't think it's very likely.
COSTELLO: Oh, freaky, freaky, freaky, freaky.
I want to ask David Hanrahan about that. There are differing viewpoints on what exactly Williams' son wants to do with his body. Does he want to, like, rejoin him later when his dad comes alive, and maybe he will freeze himself, and they can be rejoined at some time in the future? There are so many conflicting stories about this. Will that matter in the judge's eyes when he reads the will?
HANRAHAN: No.
I think what the judge is going to be looking at is, first, the will itself. The proponent of that will is going to have to demonstrate that it was written and signed in accordance with the laws of the state in which it was signed, and that it was free from any undue influence, and free from any fraud. And once that's established, you have now got a presumption that everything that Ted Williams said in that will, including the intent that he would be cremated, is presumed to be his intent.
So, what the judge may end up having to do is entertain evidence on the part of people who want to attack that will. And from what I read in the paper this morning, there appears to be a document authorizing cryogenic preservation. And that's going to raise an issue, if the judge should entertain it, as to whether that in itself was properly executed, whether or not it was subject to undue influence or fraud.
So, there is going to be a very, very interesting intent question before the court. But that's what the court is going to be focusing on. And that is intent.
COSTELLO: Right.
I was just going to ask you, because I had heard somewhere that Ted Williams wasn't exactly in his right mind near the time of his death. So would it make a difference if he signed it when he wasn't in his right mind, as opposed to when he signed the will, which may have been 20 years ago, for all we know?
HANRAHAN: Well, whenever you focus on competency of a test data, the issue is not what was his competence at the time of the death, but in that precise moment when he signed his will. At that time, whether or not he was incompetent the day before, the day after, you focus on that time. Was he competent?
And all you have to demonstrate is, he knew the state of his affairs; he knew the people in his family and his close associates that he should be remembering; and that he wasn't operating under some delusion because of a mental disease.
COSTELLO: Well, it should be a very interesting case.
Hey, stick around. We're going to take a break here. And we'll get some audience reaction when we come back. This is TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Welcome back, everyone.
We are talking about cryonics and the family feud over the body of baseball legend Ted Williams.
We have got Bill Nye, the Science Guy.
And I understand Angela has a question for him.
ANGELA: Yes.
Do they freeze the whole body or just the head? It seems like Frankenstein or something.
(LAUGHTER)
COSTELLO: Bill?
NYE: I'm not an expert, but my understanding is, they freeze people upside down. And that way, in case there's a failure in the coolant system, the head will stay cold. But, look, this isn't my business. This is not my thing. You would have to talk to Alcor about that.
COSTELLO: No, they do freeze the entire body. And I guess you can get just your head frozen, and it's a lot cheaper.
NYE: No, it's a bargain.
(LAUGHTER)
COSTELLO: Your question, Barbara.
BARBARA: I had a comment. And my comment was that he always wanted to be the world's best baseball hitter. And he achieved that goal. And I think he should be left in peace.
COSTELLO: I think a lot of people feel the same way. How many in the audience?
(APPLAUSE)
COSTELLO: Let's talk -- David, what do you think will eventually happen? Give me your best guess.
HANRAHAN: Well, it's difficult to say.
My best guess -- and keep this in mind; it's based upon what is in the will -- that, if it's very clear from the will that he stated a preference for cremation, it's going to take an awful lot to change that. So, my best guess is that there's a greater likelihood that the will would be honored.
COSTELLO: Oh, and then they're going to have to take the body out, unfreeze it, and then cremate it.
HANRAHAN: That's another issue. And, of course, the judge is going to have to consider all the alternatives, including on the issue of the science. The judge may well be considering, and if not the judge, the appellate court. COSTELLO: OK, we have got to stop you right there because we are out of time.
Bill Nye and David Hanrahan, thank you both for joining us.
And thanks to all of you and all of you out there for watching.
I'm Carol Costello. We'll be back at 3:00 Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE tomorrow. You can catch Arthel Neville all this week on "AMERICAN MORNING."
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
