Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Mother Impelled to Drink Own Breast Milk; Man Kicked Out of Beauty School Once His Gender Revealed; Vigilante Justice Takes Spotlight

Aired August 08, 2002 - 15:00   ET

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. It is legal round up day, so put on the judges' robes. Court is now in session. And boy, do we have a lot of interesting stories on the docket, including -- get this -- a mother who was forced to drink her own breast milk, a child molester hot ironed by vigilantes, and someone kicked out of beauty school because the administration wasn't sure which bathroom the student would use. Say what?
Stay tuned for those. Get ready to jump in with your opinions. I want to hear from you, so give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com. OK?

All right. Listen, we're going to get started now by meeting our attorneys. Jack Burkman, a Seattle-based lawyer and former Republican congressional counsel. Hey, Jack.

JACK BURKMAN, ATTORNEY, WASHINGTON: Hello, Arthel. It's Washington. Only visiting Seattle, but close enough.

NEVILLE: Oh, thank you. So you're visiting Seattle. OK, thanks for that clarification.

And Gloria Allred, a Los Angeles attorney and president of the California Women's Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund. Hi, Gloria.

GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY & PRESIDENT OF CALIF. WOMEN'S EQUAL RIGHTS LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND: Hi, Arthel.

NEVILLE: All right. Listen, I want to thank both of you for joining us here today. And our first case today, this nursing mother says she was forced to drink her own breast milk at JFK International Airport in New York. It was part of security screening, but the woman says it was uncomfortable, embarrassing and disgusting. She had had to sip from three bottles before she could get on the plane. Now, she's thinking about suing.

All right. Now before we get into the legal issue here, Gloria, I want to ask you a hypothetical. OK? So what would you do if a screener asked to you drink your breast milk?

ALLRED: Well, I'd wonder where their milk of human kindness was. I mean I think this is absolutely absurd. You know, I would want to talk to a supervisor if the person who had made that request wasn't able to explain to me what the rationale was. I wouldn't do it. The mother in this case, Arthel, appeared to say, well, can I at least feed it to my baby, which that seems to make sense.

NEVILLE: Exactly.

ALLRED: And they wouldn't let her do it. So someone is not using their common sense. This is absolutely wrong.

BURKMAN: We're presenting - we're presenting a false issue, Arthel. All the woman had to do was turn the milk over. The concern is not forcing the woman - the airline didn't want to force the woman to drink the milk. The airline simply was concerned that the containers might have a bomb. All she had to do was either throw it away and get some more later or turn the containers over to the airline.

Look, what is going on here is this. Everybody is forgetting about 9/11. Nobody wants to make any sacrifices. The people, the public demands that the airlines protect us, but nobody wants to give anything up to let that happen. Let's say those containers did have a bomb and let's say that plane had blown up this morning, yesterday, whenever it was.

That woman, Gloria Allred, instead of defending that woman, you know what she'd be doing? She'd be out signing up the passengers to sue the airlines, and she'd be saying to the airlines, you should have checked these containers. She has her script written either way, and that's what troubles me about this.

ALLRED: Well, Jack, Jack ...

NEVILLE: Jack, but honestly, I mean really. This person, the screener, could have asked the woman to feed the baby. Just feed the baby. You don't have to make this woman drink her own breast milk. Jack, Jack, that's disgusting. Can you imagine? You can't imagine that, can you? That is so disgusting!

BURKMAN: But, Arthel, I don't think - that's not my understanding of the facts. The woman wasn't forced to drink that. That's not the issue. She chose to drink that milk.

NEVILLE: What do you mean she's chose it?

BURKMAN: All she had to ...

NEVILLE: You mean she's going to throw it away?

BURKMAN: Of course. Why not?

NEVILLE: But she offered to feed the baby. Why not just feed the baby and prove, look, there's nothing wrong with it.

BURKMAN: She can feed her baby on her own time or when the plane lands or afterward. The airline should not have to accommodate the feeding of babies when it comes to national security issues. What you have here is people like Gloria Allred...

NEVILLE: Jack, Jack.

ALLRED: Jack ...

NEVILLE: No, no, Jack, hold on. Jack, hold on.

ALLRED: Jack, I'm here. You can talk ...

BURKMAN: I know what you're going to tell me. You're going to say I'm not a woman.

NEVILLE: Gloria, Gloria, give me a second. I've got to tell him this because my producer, Jodi (ph), just said in my ear - and she's a mother - she said Jack, you are not a mother. Can you imagine going on the airplane without food for that baby? No, way!

BURKMAN: Arthel, I'm more - I more than sympathize with the nation's mothers. And I can tell you I am indeed ill suited to comment on child rearing in any sense. However, I'm not ill suited to comment on national security. And I will tell you that if it comes the a choice between this woman feeding her children 45 minutes earlier or 45 minutes later versus the airline's need to safeguard the public and to safeguard the planes, that would seem to me to be a very easy choice, except for those like Gloria Allred who want to use this as an opportunity for litigation.

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Gloria.

ALLRED: Well, I don't represent the mother. And, Jack, I must commend you on your very vivid imagination. Let me say, however, that I'm very disappointed that you don't understand that, you know, it isn't easy for a mother just to sit there and pump breast milk. And then you say, oh, just throw it away. Throw those containers away.

NEVILLE: Hello.

ALLRED: You have no respect for what that is for a breast feeding mother to do that.

BURKMAN: Gloria, the airlines don't owe her that.

ALLRED: It's an act of love and it's a physical act, and I think they need to accommodate her. All of the - of course we are all concerned about national security. This woman, this mother was no threat to national security. There needs to be some reasonableness...

BURKMAN: But you don't know that. What you're saying is that this mother's rights...

ALLRED: Reasonableness in all of this. Not this craziness that we abandon all civilized conduct in the name of national security.

BURKMAN: All right. Let me boil this down. So what you would tell a judge then, if you did have this case - you would tell the judge that the right of this woman, not to feed her children, but to feed her children within 45 minutes either way or the right of this woman to feed her children on a plane is more important than the airline's right to safeguard the passengers. Is that your argument?

NEVILLE: All right, listen.

ALLRED: I don't think...

NEVILLE: Hang on one second here. I'm going to jump in because what I want to tell you is that we called the Transportation Security Administration, and we're told the agency is appalled to learn about the woman's story and is investigating. They say this was a private screener and not the policy of the Transportation Security Administration. In fact, they say in June they mandated that people not be ordered to drink or sip from any drink before being allowed to board the plane.

BURKMAN: Arthel, the agency's terrified at bad press, so if CNN calls them, of course they are going to say that so they don't get any bad press or women's groups on them or this, that and the other. But the issue is the woman - the issue here - this is a false issue. The woman was not forced to drink the milk. Yes, if an airline held somebody down and forced them to drink milk, of course, that would be reprehensible. All the woman had to do was give up the milk. The issue was the value of the milk and the containers versus the right of the airline to safeguard people.

NEVILLE: No, I think she was embarrassed. I mean, come on. Come on, Jack. Why couldn't this guy or this screener, girl, whoever it was. No, it was a guy, right, Jodi (ph)? Anyway - I'm checking with our producer. This screener could have just allowed her, this lady, to let the baby drink the milk. Let me let Janice (ph) get in on this.

ALLRED: And, Arthel, you have a point there because.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jack.

NEVILLE: Hang on one sec. Gloria, go ahead.

ALLRED: You have a point there. I mean I think the cavalier attitude by Jack and maybe by some others that, you know, this is not a big deal, just, she can just throw away the milk is really wrong. Obviously, the National Transportation policy is not what the private screener allegedly wanted this mother to do.

BURKMAN: Two points. Two points.

ALLRED: And they're not just saying that for CNN.

BURKMAN: They're running out...

ALLRED: Wait a minute, Jack, I didn't interrupt you. They are stating what their policy is. And it would be foolish to have a policy that would require her to do that. It would be foolish. It would be wrong. And it shows no respect for nursing mothers. BURKMAN: Think about, Arthel - and I'll address this to your audience - think about how this entire debate - and I want everybody in your audience to think about this - how this entire debate would be moot if that plane had blown up or if we had another act of terrorism. Think about that.

NEVILLE: But that did not happen, Jack.

BURKMAN: But it could. And think about...

NEVILLE: And, of course, -- however, you know what? I'm going to go with you for a second. I'm going to go with you for a second. Give me a second here, Janice (ph). All right? I'm going to go with you for a second, Jack, and ask you is this the case of Americans trying to have it both ways? On the one hand, Americans want to have the security beefed up, but then comes inconveniences and Americans don't want to go for that.

BURKMAN: You are quite right. It's a very astute point. I think you are right on the money. Americans have been resisting legitimate and necessary security measures for years because we are a society that wants to have the cake and eat it too. Had the public begun making sacrifices, the necessary sacrifices, 10 years ago, you might never have had 9/11. But the public squawks and you have screaming and whining every time the airlines tried to do this sort of thing, and so we drifted down a road where we didn't have security. The other part of what's going on...

ALLRED: You know what? I just want to say, Jack, I'm very proud of this nursing mother that she has made it a public issue because it is an important issue to be discussed, and they need to be respected. And certainly we can have balancing of rights, and the right to have security on airlines is something we all want. But also want the right of the individuals to be able to, you know, to nurse their children...

BURKMAN: Feed their children on planes?

ALLRED: ...and to...

NEVILLE: All right. Hang on. Oh, wait a minute, Jack. Hold on. Hold on, Jack, because I've got Janice (ph) here. Go ahead, Janice (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. Jack, with all due respect, yes, we are all concerned about security. However, have you any concept or idea of what it takes to breastfeed a child or to express milk? You can't just throw it away like that and just go, oh, back to the pipe and open it.

BURKMAN: I have none - I have none whatsoever.

NEVILLE: Thank you. You know what, Jack? Look. I'll tell you what, I'm going to get a phone call in here. I've got somebody calling in. David (ph) is calling in. What do you say about all this, David (ph)? CALLER: If you are going to fly then be prepared for, you know, some inconveniences. But, you know, to say that breast milk is disgusting is ridiculous. She feeds it to her baby.

BURKMAN: The issue here is all the woman needed to do was throw the milk away. Look, everybody has to -- yesterday on the plane trip to Seattle, I had to take my shoes off. We all have to make sacrifices. There's indignation we all have to bear. I'll tell you what's really going on here.

ALLRED: Do you know what is ridiculous, Jack?

NEVILLE: You know what, Jack?

ALLRED: People go on airlines, after you go through security, there are any number of places in many airports that are selling drinks that you can take right on the airline, bottles of water, bottles of soda. People take them on all the time. Why not breast milk?

BURKMAN: But those are given to them by the airline, and that's a different situation, and you know it. I'll tell you, Arthel...

NEVILLE: Hang on one sec. Jack, hang on. Hang on. Hang on everybody. We've got some breaking news developing here. I'm going to toss to my colleague, Fredricka Whitfield, at this point. We'll be back in a moment.

(INTERRUPTED FOR "BREAKING NEWS")

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. We are talking about a woman who says she was forced to drink her own breast milk before boarding a plane at JFK Airport. And, Sandy (ph), you say what about that?

SANDY: Jack, the woman was willing to prove that she wasn't a threat to national security by letting her own baby drink the milk. So, I mean before they board the plane, so how is that going to be a threat to national security if she was willing to do that.

BURKMAN: The milk is not the issue. I think the airline has a legitimate concern about the nature of containers and what else might be in containers. I don't think there's any issue with the milk. I think the real issue here is - I was making this point before the break - the trial bar is running out of cases to bring for 9/11.

They brought all the Arab discrimination cases. They brought other discrimination cases. The 9/11 story is basically reaching its point of exhaustion, and they want to keep this momentum going. And to do that, now they are reaching down to cases like this. And you have lawyers contacting women like this, and they are looking for other more and more extreme examples. But I would say give the airlines a chance. If you want them to protect you, you need to make some sacrifice.

NEVILLE: OK. Well, listen... ALLRED: Jack, first of all, you don't know that that's true. You don't know that any lawyer contacted this woman. She very well may have contacted a lawyer. You know, women are smart enough today that, if their rights have been violated, they know that they should call a lawyer and get advice as to whether or not they can do anything about the injustice that has been inflicted on them. And they don't need somebody to tell them...

BURKMAN: It has nothing to do...

ALLRED: Let me just say, when breast feeding mothers and mothers who have pumped milk have had a lot of problems - and I say they should go for it. And they should go and try to expand their rights and stand up for the rights because that will help to protect other mothers so they won't have to be humiliated and forced to do what this mother did.

BURKMAN: Let me ask you this, should they...

NEVILLE: All right, here's where I'm jumping in because I'm going to let Joan (ph) speak out now. She's calling in from Colorado, and she happens to be a flight attendant, as well as a mother. Joan (ph)?

JOAN: Yes. I have been a flight attendant for 30 years. I'm also a mother and I'm a grandmother. And I don't care what she had in those bottles, she could either give them up or throw them out. Nothing comes on these airplanes any more. It's just too dangerous. And she got her name on TV, didn't she? She got Gloria Allred out there to...

NEVILLE: So what's your point?

JOAN: The point is it doesn't matter. You don't bring it on the airline unless you are willing to check it; you check it out; you throw it away.

NEVILLE: But she was willing to feed it to her baby, Joan (ph).

JOAN: That's fine, too.

NEVILLE: Joan (ph), would you drink your own breast milk?

JOAN: If I had to.

NEVILLE: Drink. I don't mean taste. I mean drink.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If I had to. What I'm saying is, if it's a 45-minute flight, throw the stuff out. If it's 14 hours to Melbourne or something, then she can try it with - you know, go to another screener.

NEVILLE: OK, Joan (ph). Jennifer (ph) from New Jersey here. Thanks, Joan (ph) for calling in.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: From my understanding of kids, you don't tell them when to eat. They tell you when they are hungry, so it's not just easy to throw a baby's milk away or, you know, decide when they are going to eat. If they're hungry, they're hungry. You can't take it away from them.

NEVILLE: Jack, I think I cut you off earlier. What do you want to say?

BURKMAN: No. I was just going to say, referring to one of your persons who spoke in the audience earlier, I think the issue do you want to expand - yes expand those rights, but at what price? Do you expand a woman's rights at the price of jeopardizing passengers? Do you expand the woman's rights at the expense of jeopardizing the security of an airline? Do you expand those rights at jeopardizing the ability of an airline to care for its passengers? It's a balancing test.

ALLRED: Well, it is a balancing test. But the question is where is the showing that the airline would make that this breast milk would put anybody at risk?

BURKMAN: It's not, Gloria. It's the container.

ALLRED: That this would present a danger to anyone, she was willing to taste it. She was willing to give it to her baby. She was willing to make compromises on the spot. What about the compromises they were making, and where is the showing that this would harm anyone?

BURKMAN: But, Gloria, you present a false choice once again. You are much brighter than that. The issue is not the milk. There's no compromise about the milk. It's the container. The airline has a legitimate safety concern about the container. And I'm sure when TSA...

NEVILLE: OK.

BURKMAN: Their comments today are premature...

NEVILLE: Jack, I'm not trying to cut you off here, but I've got to get two audience members, one on the phone and Dan (ph) here standing next to me. Dan, what do you say?

DAN: Well, I take offense to the fact that we are just talking about mothers here. Was there a dad there? I know I'm the parent of three young girls. Two of them twins. My wife pumped milk. If I would have been in that situation, I would have drank it. It would not have been a big deal. And I definitely wouldn't have tried to make a lawsuit out of it. My second point is, if this person was a terrorist - had something in that container - it doesn't matter what was in the bottle, she would have fed it to her baby because they were all going to die anyway.

NEVILLE: Interesting point. Listen, I have Will (ph) calling in who is a pilot. Will (ph), go ahead. Will (ph), go ahead, you are live. Will (ph) dropped out. OK. Listen, thank you, Dan (ph), for standing up. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to switch gears right now because we have to take a break right now. And you know I have been talking about this all hour. You are going to meet Sandy, OK, whose dreams of beauty school turned into a nightmare. We're going to tell you why after this break. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(INTERRUPTED FOR "LIVE EVENT")

NEVILLE: OK. So I want you to call me. OK? Listen to this story. Right now, I would like you to meet Sandy. Sandy recently tried to get into the Marinello School of Beauty in Los Angeles, but was rejected when a secret was discovered. And by the way, we contacted the beauty school, but were told they had no comment on the story. And I just want to let you know that Gloria Allred, who's been on the show all hour is Sandy's attorney. And, Sandy, I want to welcome you to TALKBACK LIVE.

"SANDY," BEAUTY SCHOOL FALLOUT: Hi, how are you?

NEVILLE: I'm fine. All right, Sandy, you're on. Tell us your story.

SANDY: OK. I went to the school, and the first time she said she accept me to enter for school. I put money for registration and she said, OK, come back on time on August 6. And after that, I went back home like a couple hours later, she called me back and she said, Sandy, you are a male. I think we are going to have problem about the restroom.

And I said I don't think so because I live my life like a woman for three years, and I only use the restroom, I don't think I'll make any problems at all. But she still said no. And she said because you are a man, so you can make problems. And I offer her like, you know, I could dress like a man if you want me to and...

NEVILLE: Oh, you did offer to dress like a man?

SANDY: I did offer her, and I said, you know, it doesn't matter. I will not use the restroom at all from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. I'm fine. I just want to...

NEVILLE: Sandy, I don't know how you could pull that one off. I'm in the bathroom about every 40 minutes.

ALLRED: She also...

SANDY: Yes, I know, but if you want to go to school, you know, you have your dreams. You can do anything you want.

NEVILLE: Right. Sandy, do me a favor here, just off the subject. Did you do your own color, by the way?.

SANDY: Yes. NEVILLE: That is fierce. I just want to tell you. You apparently have some skills at doing hair because your hair is whipped, OK? Listen, so you know what, though? So the deal is - so they - you were already in the school. They got your passport. Your passport is what gave it away. It revealed that you are a man.

SANDY: Yes.

NEVILLE: Do you mind telling me your real - your real name?

ALLRED: Well, she's not giving her name. She's trying to retain her privacy.

NEVILLE: OK. That's fine. OK. That's fine.

ALLRED: But I want to say they got her passport because when she gave all of her forms to apply, she provided them with a passport. The passport said male. And then they accepted her, but two hours later they called and she reports that they indicated that they reviewed the passport, that it did say male, and they were concerned about the restroom issue. Sandy, by the way, said she would use either one of the restrooms or not use the restroom at all.

NEVILLE: I know.

ALLRED: So she was willing to do everything possible to accommodate them just so she could become a hair stylist.

NEVILLE: But the thing is, though, Gloria, I was actually - I wanted to ask Sandy if she would be willing to go dressed like a man. And you said you would, right, Sandy?

SANDY: Yes, I would.

NEVILLE: I mean, then so what's the problem? Let me hear what Ken (ph) from Georgia has to say.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I think she should probably just go to another school and just keep her mouth shut. That way you'd never know.

NEVILLE: All right, Ken, that's not realistic. That's not realistic, Ken. All right, Julie (ph), stand up here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does the beauty school only accept women? Do they not accept men, that beauty school?

ALLRED: Well, no, we think that they may accept both women and men, so that doesn't appear to be the issue. But we are filing - we have filed a lawsuit under the LA city ordnance, which has a clause, which protects against discrimination on account of sexual orientation. That is it specifically says that there is protection for those who project a self image that is different than their biological maleness or their biological femaleness. So we think this clearly protects Sandy, and they can't discriminate against her.

NEVILLE: OK. I have a phone call coming in for her now. Who's on the line? Dan (ph)?

CALLER: Yes. Hello.

NEVILLE: Are you there from New Jersey? Go ahead.

CALLER: Yes, I used to go to a beauty school to get my hair cut because it was cheaper. Actually, it was free, and you could just tip the people that were working on you. And I later found out that it was a male that was dressed as a female that was taking care of my hair. And it was kind of embarrassing and kind of made me feel strange, because there was a lot flirtatious type of conversation that went on between us. And I was just wondering...

NEVILLE: Well, see, now, that's a whole different story. That's your own issue, Dan. That's your own issue.

Is his name Dan?

CALLER: Yes, yes.

But my biggest issue about it was that, although it looked like a female, it didn't have the beautiful, bulbous brown bazoombas like Robin Quivers.

NEVILLE: All right, Jack Burkman, you are still here with us. I know you want to jump in on this part of the conversation.

Jack, can you hear me?

BURKMAN: Just fine. Can you hear me?

NEVILLE: Oh, now I can.

BURKMAN: Sorry about that.

First of all, this is a private school. It can do what it wants. Gloria Allred is now down to filing lawsuits based on local ordinances, because there's no federal or state law that will allow the filing of a suit like this.

(CROSSTALK)

ALLRED: Well, that's not true, Jack, because, actually, we did also file under state law. So you are wrong about that, once again.

BURKMAN: By your client's own admission -- I don't know how you file any kind of a gender lawsuit when your client doesn't even know what his or her gender is, or couldn't even make a stipulation in court.

ALLRED: Well, Jack, obviously, you need to listen up a little bit more, because what I said is, we filed under the L.A. municipal code which protects against sexual orientation discrimination. And if you had done a little more civil rights law, you might know that that's different than gender discrimination. We also filed under our state Civil Rights Act, our Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on account of gender and on account of sexual orientation.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Hang on for, Jack. I'm sorry. I really don't mean -- I have been cutting you off all day. I'm sorry about that.

BURKMAN: That's all right.

NEVILLE: But, listen, I'm running out of time on this particular segment. So I want give the final words to Sandy.

And, Sandy, I want to ask you -- you can answer it or not -- are you going to go all the way with this female pursuit?

SANDY: Yes. Yes.

NEVILLE: You are?

SANDY: Yes, I am.

NEVILLE: Oh, good. OK.

All right, listen...

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: Well, the audience is applauding that as well.

OK, so, are you going to try -- Gloria and Sandy, are you going to try to get back into the school?

ALLRED: She definitely wants to. We are seeking an injunction, which is a court order, requiring them to admit her.

All she wants, Arthel, is an education.

NEVILLE: That's right.

ALLRED: And she doesn't have to appear male, simply because she's -- or has male genitalia, in order to get an education.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Hang on. Hang on.

Just to clarify, Sandy, the reason why you want to go to that Marinello: because it's a very good school for cosmetology, etcetera. And, also, the tuition is affordable for you, yes or no?

SANDY: Yes.

ALLRED: And other schools are much more expensive.

NEVILLE: And other schools are much more expensive.

SANDY: Right.

NEVILLE: OK, Sandy, did you do your own makeup, too?

SANDY: Yes.

NEVILLE: You are beat down. I'm telling you, you look good.

SANDY: Thank you.

NEVILLE: All right, listen, Gloria, Sandy, and Jack, thank you all are for joining us here today.

ALLRED: Thank you, Arthel.

SANDY: Thank you.

NEVILLE: And, Jack, thank you for being a good sport. I cut you off a lot today. Sorry about that.

BURKMAN: My pleasure.

NEVILLE: All right, up next: handling crime without the cops.

Still ahead on TALKBACK LIVE: vigilante justice. Find out what happened when outraged neighbors decided to teach a child molester a lesson with a red-hot spatula.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As I'm sure that anybody with children has probably felt that emotion if their children were terrorized the way these children were.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: But does that make what happened to this man right?

Also: A mob attacks and kills two men after their van plows into a group of girls in this Chicago neighborhood.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was a simple crash accident. And for a mob to pull these individuals from the vehicle and beat them the way they did, you would think that you was in some Third World country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Could anything to drive you to act as judge, jury and executioner?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

And for the next half-hour or so -- 25 minutes -- we are going to talk about vigilante justice, starting with the branding of a child molester with a red-hot spatula, and then later, the mob killing of two men involved in a deadly van accident.

Our guests this next portion of the show: Amy Bowen-Krane. She represented one of the men in the molester case; also, criminologist Dr. Carl Taylor. He is a professor at Michigan State University; and Robert Brown, a retired police chief who is now an attorney in New York.

Welcome, all of you, to the show.

AMY BOWEN-KRANE, ATTORNEY FOR BILLY HATTEN: Thank you.

CARL TAYLOR, CRIMINOLOGIST: Thank you.

NEVILLE: OK, let's start in Pontiac, Michigan, where three men admitted beating and torturing a male babysitter who is now serving time for molesting his two young nephews.

The three held the molester down and burned him in his privates with a spatula they heated up on a stove. They also threw the molester on to a sidewalk and broke his arm. Now the mother of the molested boy had called on the three to help after she discovered what their babysitter had done.

And, Amy, you represent one of the guys who were -- who took the law into his own hands, Billy Hatten.

BOWEN-KRANE: That's correct.

NEVILLE: I want to ask you, why did he do this and not just call the police?

BOWEN-KRANE: Well, I think there's a lot of factors here.

I think, most importantly, this was a gut emotional reaction. My client, although he's not a blood relative of these children, has been considered their uncle since birth, just as their molester was their uncle. He was their blood uncle. My client was a close family friend. These children called him "Uncle Billy."

He saw their mother come running out of the house screaming and crying. He asked her what was wrong. She told him what she had just learned from her children. And he and the other two individuals who were with him ran in and reacted from sheer emotion.

NEVILLE: And if he had to do it again, would he do it the same way?

BOWEN-KRANE: I don't believe so.

My client, from day one, from the minute I became involved in this case, has owned up to his responsibility for this. He has told me that he knew that he did something wrong. And he took responsibility for it, which is evidenced by the fact that he pled guilty. This did not go to a trial.

NEVILLE: Right. So he pled guilty. He got how many months? Is it 18?

BOWEN-KRANE: He has not been sentenced yet. He just plead guilty this week.

NEVILLE: OK. And the other men pled guilty as well, I understand.

BOWEN-KRANE: That's right.

NEVILLE: And as well as the molester.

BOWEN-KRANE: The molester pled guilty and is serving an eight- to-40-year sentence for brutally raping these little boys.

NEVILLE: That's sick.

Dr. Taylor, I want to ask you, why do you think people take the law into their own hands, even though they could possibly go to jail?

TAYLOR: Well, many times, they don't even think about that. They react right on the spot. And they just take care of action right there.

It's a reaction. And if there are others -- and particularly with something as taboo as child abuse and rape -- they just take care of business and they don't think about what's the consequences.

NEVILLE: Robert Brown, I want to bring you in now.

And I want to ask you if there are cases where a person can get away with vigilantism.

ROBERT BROWN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I don't think that you can actually get away with vigilantism.

What you should do, if you're faced with a situation like this, is simply call in the police. And if you have to use any sort of force in order to hold somebody until the police arrive, then by all means that sort of force is justified, but certainly not holding them down and branding them.

NEVILLE: Yes, but we are talking about simply calling the police when you're talking about a man who is brutally molesting some boys. Come on. I don't know anybody who would be emotionally removed from that situation.

BROWN: Oh, there's no doubt.

But we are a society of laws. And the proper thing to do is to call the police and let the police make an arrest, let the district attorney prosecute, and let the defense bar defend. NEVILLE: OK, true, true. But you know what? Some people say: "You know what? The justice system moves too slow."

BROWN: It does move too slow. But that's a whole 'nother issue.

I think the key issue here is that, because the criminal justice system is slow, it doesn't justify the kind of vigilantism that happened there.

NEVILLE: Hang on for me.

I have got Paul here from Georgia.

PAUL: Yes.

I agree the justice system is slow. And, a lot of times, we get all worked up about things we hear and want to take justice in our own hands. But it's a slippery slope. And where do you stop once it starts? And what could happen as a result of somebody maybe getting worked up about something?

NEVILLE: Interesting point.

I have got a call in now from Jason.

Jason, go ahead. You're live.

CALLER: Yes. Hi.

I know you shouldn't take the law into your own hands, but, in cases where rapists were taken care of by vigilante-type people, don't you think that, if they prevented girls from being molested just once, that actually they are really doing the job? I mean, quite honestly, if they saved the girls from being raped, that's like being murdered every night of their lives. And Robin Quivers was raped by her father. And it's a perfect...

NEVILLE: I'm going to take an e-mail now. Pop it up on the screen for me.

OK, no e-mails. All right, listen.

OK. There we are, guys. Let's get it together there.

Darryl in Oregon: "Vigilante justice isn't justice at all. It's just adding one crime to another."

Dr. Taylor, you say what about that e-mail?

TAYLOR: Well, I think that we have to have a closer view.

If it was to take place with you, that may be the litmus test. And I think many times people will theorize one thing until it happens to them. It's very emotional when a loved one or someone close to you is harmed. And some people don't see it as vigilantism. They just take care of their business. NEVILLE: That's right. I can see that point, too.

Listen, I have Lee from Georgia.

What do you say, sir?

LEE: I think they were both right. I think they were right in doing what they did. Your honor demands that. And I think they were right in not trying to weasel out of it. They admitted what they did and they took their punishment for it.

NEVILLE: Thank you, sir.

Robert Brown, I'm just wondering, are these cases of vigilantism on a rise or we're just kind of seeing a few in the news lately?

BROWN: I think that they are probably at an even level, but right now, they're just getting a lot more media attention based on the rise in the sexual assaults of young children.

But I think, in general, vigilantism is a point where two wrongs don't make a right. And one of the key issues is that you might have the wrong person. In the case in Pontiac, Michigan, the person that was accused of molesting the child or children pled guilty. But what if there's a mistaken identity and you have vigilantism where a group of individuals brand that person and he's the wrong person?

NEVILLE: Dr. Taylor?

TAYLOR: That is absolutely correct. I agree with him.

However, this nation has a long history of being vigilantes. We have the Ku Klux Klan. There have been many people who have been harmed making mistakes. And, also, a lot of people do not have faith in the criminal justice system. They are not willing to wait. Many people have a microwave mentality. They want justice right now right there. So that's what gets us in trouble sometimes.

NEVILLE: OK, listen, hang on for me. I have got to take a break. I have got some audience members who want to speak out.

And then we're going to talk about that mob attack on two guys whose van went out of control in Chicago.

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.

We are talking about vigilante justice, this time in Chicago in the mob killing of 62-year-old Jack Moore and 49-year-old Anthony Stuckey. The two were yanked from a van and beaten with chunks of concrete after their vehicle jumped a curb and ran into a group of women sitting on a porch, killing one of them. Among those charged with first-degree murder and mob action are relatives of the woman who died.

So I ask, Dr. Taylor, if this is a case of a mob gone mad or of vigilantism or just sheer emotion?

TAYLOR: Well, I don't know all the facts of that case.

But, from what I understand, that simply was a reaction of a loved one which spilled over into a crowd reaction. But I also think -- I also think that you have to think about whether or not some of those members who were in the beating were intoxicated or on some type of drug, like smoking marijuana or whatever. But the emotion enough of seeing someone injured very seriously, I'm not surprised that they were killed at all, quite frankly.

NEVILLE: Wow.

Robert Brown, do you have anything to add?

BROWN: Well, I'm not surprised that the crowd used force in order to apprehend the driver of the vehicle. But I'm certainly surprised that the force resulted in the death of two people.

And if you look at it, the passenger wasn't committing any crime. All he was was a passenger in a vehicle that was being driven by somebody who was allegedly intoxicated.

NEVILLE: Listen, I have Gary here from Oregon.

What do you say, Gary?

GARY: I don't think they were any better than the people who did the thing to the children, who molested the children. I think they were vigilantes, just like the other people were.

NEVILLE: And is that OK?

GARY: No.

NEVILLE: Amy, go ahead. What do you say?

BOWEN-KRANE: Arthel, I got to tell you that I do agree with the position of a lot of your callers and your audience members.

As somebody who works in the criminal justice system, vigilante justice doesn't have a place in our society. We have laws to create order. And when we let vigilantes take over, it does create chaos. And, as I said, my client especially sat back and realized that what he did was wrong. And that's why he stood up and took responsibility for it.

NEVILLE: Yes, what's next, anarchy?

BOWEN-KRANE: And that's the road we could go down. And I think everybody, when they sit back and think about it and reflect on what they are about to do, would agree.

NEVILLE: Listen, I have Geena calling in from West Virginia.

Go ahead, Geena.

CALLER: Well, I just wanted to say, in no way do I advocate any type of vigilante justice. But as I sit here and look at my 4- and 6- year-old son, I'm not going to say for sure that, if someone hurt my sons in any way, that I wouldn't take matters into my own hands, because these are my children. And I may go after you if you have done something to my children.

NEVILLE: Thank you.

BOWEN-KRANE: And that's why you can understand the emotion that my client and the other two reacted from.

NEVILLE: OK, I have Robert from Texas.

ROBERT: I think people need to realize that we are not an eye- for-an-eye society. And they need to go with a cool head and not let their emotions get the best of them.

NEVILLE: So, vigilantism is wrong, in your opinion.

ROBERT: Absolutely.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you.

Dr. Taylor, I don't know if you can shed some light on this behavior, again, and why people behave this way. I can understand what Geena just said. She said, "Look, I have a 4- and a 6-year-old," I think she said. "If somebody messes with my children, I'm going nuts."

TAYLOR: Well, I think it depends on how we have been socialized, how our community is working.

Some communities work very well with the criminal justice system. They can go directly and call the police. They understand how it works. It doesn't make them less emotional. But, educationally, they understand that the system will work. But let's be honest. In some communities, the system does not work. And we have a lot of acts every day of vigilantism.

Every day, there are people who come up beaten that you will not report it to the police. You have people come up killed sometimes and we don't know who has done it. But if you dig deeper, we understand that it has taken place in communities that do not have the strong control, self-control. And then, for example, I have talked to many gang members in my research, and they call it self-government.

So, it's a complicated subject. And, of course, I am not condoning anyone being a vigilante. But, again, I would go back. In the South, the South was ruled and terrorized by the Ku Klux Klan. They were terrorists and vigilantes. And they said that they were doing what they were doing in the name of God. So we have to be very careful, I think. NEVILLE: Listen, here's a question for you. I want to know if juries are sympathetic to situations like this. Hold the thought. Answer it for me after the break.

TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.

We are talking about vigilante justice.

And I asked the question before we went to break. I wanted to know if jurors or juries are more sympathetic to cases like this.

Amy, I want to get your answer on that.

BOWEN-KRANE: A lot of cases where you have jury nullification coming around lately, which is -- to break it down -- is when the jury steps up and says: "We don't agree with the law and we are going to come back with a not-guilty verdict or a different verdict anyway."

A prime example was in some of the early Kevorkian cases.

NEVILLE: Amy, how do you -- I mean Robert. I'm sorry.

What do you think about this? Do you think juries are more sympathetic in these cases?

BROWN: I think that they are. I think that that's the proper way to go. The right thing to do is to let the criminal justice system do its job. And if the jury feels sympathy because of who the person is or what it was that they did, then let the jury make the ultimate decision.

NEVILLE: OK, I have a phone call I want to take now. It's from Jennifer in Michigan.

Go ahead, Jennifer.

CALLER: Hello.

I wanted to say that, as a parent, we are supposed to be responsible for protecting our children, and that, although I don't necessarily agree with vigilantism, I can't say that, for myself, that I would not, to defend my child, hurt someone who was hurting them. And I would also expect to do my time if I broke the law.

But there is a certain amount of -- there's a certain amount of urge to protect your kids that will make you do anything to make sure that they are safe or that they are cared for.

NEVILLE: OK, Jennifer, thank you.

And I have Camille here in Georgia.

CAMILLE: Yes.

And I agree with the caller. If that were my child, then that person would have been dead. I would not have waited for any kind of justice. It's just maternal instinct and not wanting your children to be hurt. And when someone hurts them, they just deserve to be punished immediately.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much. Thank you.

And, Mora (ph), stand up for me.

MORA: I just think it's important to remember that, while we are also trying to protect children, children are learning from the example that we set. So, if they get the idea that vigilantism is OK, then they might learn that it's OK to take matters into your own hands. And that can cause further problems.

NEVILLE: OK, listen, thank you.

I have got an e-mail I want to share with you right now. Let's pop it up. It's from Danny in Florida. He says: "When one takes the law into their own hands, they make a mockery of the law. Vigilante justice is no justice at all."

And that is it for this show. I want to thank everybody for being here.

Robert Brown, thank you.

And, Amy Bowen-Krane, thank you.

Dr. Taylor, thank you as well for being here.

Dr. Taylor?

TAYLOR: Yes?

NEVILLE: Anybody ever say you look like Barry White?

(LAUGHTER)

NEVILLE: I'm just saying.

TAYLOR: No.

NEVILLE: That's a first, right?

(LAUGHTER)

NEVILLE: I think Barry White is a handsome man.

TAYLOR: I have no hair. He has a lot of hair.

NEVILLE: Oh, well, there you go.

OK, listen, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. I will see you again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern. Be sure to join us for our "Free-For-All Friday," no telling what is going to happen and what might be said.

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