Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Bloomberg Attempts to Ban Smoking from NY Cigar Bars; Cancer- stricken Eszterhas Apologizes for Glamorizing Smoking; Powell to Likely Face Retrial
Aired August 09, 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's "Free For All Friday." I'm Arthel Neville. And you know how this game works on this Friday.
Today, we keep our guests on their toes by covering lots of ground. Then, in our flash round, we test their wit with a steady stream of surprise topics. Now, you can join the fun by calling 1- 800-310-4CNN or e-mail TALKBACK at TALKBACK@CNN.com.
Let's see who is up for the challenge today. OK. Martin Lewis, a political commentator and columnist in Los Angeles. He is producer -- former producer and writer from "Monty Python." Sue Ellicott, a contributor to National Public Radio, former New York congressman Dan Frisa. Dan is now a columnist at newsmax.com.
And Deborah Perry, a political communist and freelance writer. She and Dr. Julianne Malveaux co-author "Unfinished Business: A Democrat and a Republican Take on the 10 Most Important Issues Women Face."
Welcome to all of you to TALKBACK LIVE. All right. Let's take a look at some of today's free-for-all topics.
This 10-year-old boy was allegedly killed by a friend after an argument over sports. How do you charge a kid who kills?
Also, did a Florida football coach drop the ball when he associated his team with the September 11 attacks?
And then, a Hollywood producer admits he helped make smokers cool. But can he get all of Hollywood to change its tobacco habit?
OK, everybody, we are going to start with the unusual trial of Kenneth Powell, charged with manslaughter and vehicular homicide in the deaths of two people involved in a drunk driving incident. The jury came in less than an hour ago. Powell is the New Jersey man who picked up a friend at a local drunk tank and took him to his car. Powell went home, but the friend drank a little bit more and, hours later, was involved in a wreck, killing himself and one other person. CNN National Correspondent Bob Franken can fill us in on the verdict -- Bob?
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, if you don't mind, Arthel, I would like to, right now, spend a little moment or two with the defense attorneys, who just came out. They are speaking to reporters right now. Let's listen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... three counts. So we'll be back here in January, potentially, on all three counts.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Beverly (ph), go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Could we hear from Mr. Powell?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Unfortunately, because of the prospect of the re-trial, it would simply be wrong for us to allow him to make any statement at this time. Believe me, he's wanted to speak throughout the entire process, but thankfully, he's honored the councsel of his attorneys, and, as of now, he will not be speaking.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did Mr. Powell ever sign -- oh, you can't answer or I can't ask?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You mentioned a moment ago -- maybe you can elaborate a little bit - his condolence and thoughts and sentiments toward the Elliott family, who have obviously gone through a lot of anguish here, your description of Mr. Powell's thoughts with regard to the anguish that the Elliott family is going through. Your description of Mr. Powell's thoughts with regard to the anguish that the Elliott family is going through.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, again, I don't want to say any more about that. We've said everything we feel is appropriate to say about this.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Chris (ph), can I just ask you procedurally, why is it that double jeopardy limit...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lori (ph), that would be procedural - substantive procedural question, so I really can't answer that, because that would be a violation of - unfortunately, a violation of the Judge Forrester's gag order.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. We object to the gag order for first amendment purposes. I think, if the first amendment was ever intended for a situation in this country, this certainly is it. However, the judge has concerns about protecting the integrity of the trial process. We disagree. We think the trial process would be protected nonetheless. We disagree with the gag order in its entirety.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Louise (ph), go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's looking at substantial amount of time. Generically, in the state of New Jersey, on a first-degree charge, it's 10 to 20 years on a first-degree charge. On a second-degree charge, it's five to 10 years in the state of New Jersey. On third- degree charge, it's three to five years. The presumptive is you split the difference between the two.
FRANKEN: Now we've heard from the defense attorneys for the defendant, Kenneth Powell. We heard it a few moments ago from CNN on "CNN LIVE" from the family of Ensign Johnny Elliott, who was the victim of a drunk driving crash two years ago. He died, in addition to the drunk driver of the other car.
Now the man who was on trial, Kenneth Powell, has had an inconclusive day today. Powell was charged with picking up his very drunk friend, Michael Pangle, July 22nd of the year 2000, taking him back to his car after he'd been arrested by the state police, and then letting him drive. Pangle, according to all the testimony, got even drunker and then crashed into the car driven by Johnny Elliott.
The defendant was charged with manslaughter, vehicular homicide and aggravated assault with a vehicle. He was found not guilty of one of the charges, manslaughter, but there was a hung jury on the other two charges, and the prosecutors make it absolutely clear they are going to retry Kenneth Powell on those charges. There's an anticipation now that a new trial will occur on January 6th.
The defense attorneys are constrained, as you heard, by a gag order that the judge has imposed, and since this is still a proceeding, because of the hung jury, that could continue, he now says that nobody who was involved in the case is able to discuss it.
Walking past us right now are the defense attorneys and the defendant, Kenneth Powell, going to his car. He is not saying anything walking along. The reporters, of course, are all clamoring around him, but he continues to go now to an uncertain future. But at least today, Arthel, he did not have any kind of a charge -- any kind of a result that would have caused him to spend some prison time.
NEVILLE: Bob Franken, thank you very much.
OK, panel I want to discuss this case with you, and I want to begin with you, Deborah. Do you think Powell should be retried?
DEBORAH PERRY, CO-AUTHOR, "UNFINISHED BUSINESS": Well, unfortunately, I'm just now getting back into hearing what is going on in the show because we've had some technical difficulties here, so I'm just now hearing programming.
NEVILLE: OK. Let me find out if Martin or Sue was able to hear the programming.
SUE ELLICOTT, NPR CONTRIBUTOR: I can hear.
NEVILLE: OK. Sue, were you able to hear?
ELLICOTT: Well I think if anybody, any lawyer or anybody thinks there's any doubt that there was a fair verdict or fair trial, then there obviously should be a second stab at it. I think these cases are always incredibly incendiary for the public because, in a country such as the United States where people lead their lives dictated by cars, it's probably one of the biggest fears that people have - drunk drivers, being hit in a head-on collision, having one of their children hit in an accident. So it's an incredibly emotional public case. NEVILLE: I understand. OK, Martin, if you are hearing me, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the re-trial.
MARTIN LEWIS, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, I'm actually in favor of them being very stringent on these issues. We hear a lot about the dangers of marijuana, supposedly. And the government spends a huge amount on the drug war. But alcohol is a much bigger killer, particularly of innocent people who are bystanders in situations like this. So I think very stringent prosecution, including those who aid and abet, wether willingly or unwittingly, this is a good idea to be prosecuting.
NEVILLE: But, Martin, here's the story. I mean, if the police released Michael Pangle, the drunk driver - if he was released and told to take his friend to his car, I mean Powell was just doing what the police told him. So why isn't prosecution going after the police?
LEWIS: Well, that's a good reason to not always listen to everything the police tell you to do. Has anybody investigated whether the police have culpability here themselves?
ELLICOTT: I think it's slightly confusing to me. I think I was out of the country when it actually happened. But why the person wasn't simply just locked up or allowed to sober up, I do think there is a point to question why a second person should be held responsible for the drunkenness of his or her friend.
NEVILLE: OK. Listen. We are going to take a break here on TALKBACK LIVE. When we come back, we are going to have a lively discussion regarding something until New York City. The mayor wants to call it a no smoking zone. We are going to find out what is up with that when TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg wants to ban smoking inside all restaurants and bars, no matter how big or small. Is smoking becoming an endangered habit? Sue, you're up first on this one. Will this fly, and if so, why or why not?
ELLICOTT: Well, I'm in Los Angeles and just came back from two months in Europe where people like to make fun of me, "Sue-my-body-is- a-temple-Ellicott," because I don't drink nearly as much as they do and I don't smoke.
NEVILLE: Right.
ELLICOTT: So I'm already living in one of the cleanest living capitals of the world I think. But I have no problem with that. I'm an anti-smoker. I'm a non-smoker. If somebody else wants to smoke, that's fine. But I personally don't like smelling it.
NEVILLE: Yes, but having been in Europe - I mean, come on, you know in New York - I couldn't see it flying in Europe. And I'm not sure I can see this flying in New York City. ELLICOTT: Well, there's always a way around it. All you have to do is stand in the lobby or walk out in the street and everybody is lighting up. I mean, now it's more unpleasant to be outside in New York than it is inside.
NEVILLE: Martin, do you think New Yorkers will go for that, though, I mean no smoking in bars and restaurants?
LEWIS: Well, they'll have a hard time. Of course, out here in California, the only place you are allowed to smoke now is Oregon. When it comes to New Yorkers, I mean, I don't really understand the point of it. As long as they are poisoning themselves and they're consenting adults, that's fine. What's the point? Is it so they can have cleaner air and then they can just walk out on the street and they can just get all those healthy fumes being belched out from New Jersey? Is that what the point is?
ELLICOTT: I'm surprised anybody can afford to smoke in New York anymore. I didn't realize until this week that it now costs $7.50 for a packet.
NEVILLE: More than - that's right. That's right. But I mean, Martin, come on, back to being inside. It would be kind of nice to sit there and have dinner without having smoke coming over to your table.
LEWIS: I quite agree. But as long as there is some form of segregation - it's the only form of apartheid that I actually approve of. The notion that there are some people who are sadly addicted to smoking, as long as it doesn't interfere with those who don't want it, I don't think there's anything wrong. As long as they are just poisoning themselves; it's when it drifts over into our area that I object.
NEVILLE: OK, hang on.
ELLICOTT: One other funny thing. When you go to Paris and you go into a restaurant and you ask to be sat in the non-smoking area, you get shoved to the very back by the kitchen door with all the American tourists.
NEVILLE: Exactly.
ELLICOTT: So in the end, you ask to sit in smoking because it's more fun.
NEVILLE: Right. Hey, listen. I've Jen (ph) here in the audience.
JEN: Oh, I was just wondering why -- what the mayor's motivation was for doing this. Was it health reasons or was it just public need or...
NEVILLE: Well, first of all, the mayor has gone on record - Mayor Bloomberg has gone on record that he's very anti-tobacco. OK? And also he says that folks who work in bars and restaurants, they too deserve to work in a smoke-free environment, like you or I, in an office place.
JEN: OK. Has it worked in California? I mean...
NEVILLE: Oh, yes. It works well in California.
JEN: Well, then, I would agree with it.
LEWIS: They've stopped smoking. They don't allow us to smoke on the beaches.
ELLICOTT: And one good thing they've done in California is that they have a very high tax on tobacco products, and that money goes to child anti-poverty and anti-smoking campaigns and gets channeled into early childhood education money. So they found a good way of taxing smokers to try to stamp out smoking, but to benefit other parts of the community.
LEWIS: But there is - there is a...
NEVILLE: Well, I have a Californian. Hang on for me, Martin, because I have a Californian on the line right now. I want to take his call. His name is Dave (ph). Go ahead, Dave (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, hi, Arthel. I'm listening to you on the TV quicker than seeing you here. I'm a smoker, live in California. They've had this law here in this state for many years and it's not been effective. There are still bars that permit smoking within. Bars are owned by citizens, individuals. Where does the state get off telling an individual what is allowed or is not allowed within their private property?
NEVILLE: OK. Hang on here. I've got Thomas (ph). What do you say from Florida?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's great. I hope that - finally someone is looking out for the non-smoker rights. I mean I don't have - I have a right not to be in someplace where someone is always blowing smoke down my neck. And I think this is a great step. I hope it works out in New York, and I hope they bring it to Florida where I live.
NEVILLE: OK. But is this treating smokers like second-class citizens, shoving them off to the back or telling them they can't smoke?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, the only arguments we hear are those that are supporting their rights, and what about our rights? What about the non-smokers' rights to not have to smell this all the time? I mean it really is obnoxious.
NEVILLE: You get no argument from me, not that I'm against smokers or anything, but I don't like to smell smoke when I'm eating my dinner.
ELLICOTT: I think it's increasingly hard for smokers - I think it's increasingly hard for smokers because they have become incredibly defensive, as society has really turned in the last five years, maybe 10 years, against them.
And you find something like Bloomberg's law, which is putting into force things that people have dared not say, even to some of their closest friends. I mean, even if they would come to your house for dinner and they - mostly they have the decency to say can they smoke outside.
But it's still considered incredibly un-hip to frown upon smoking, amongst the diehard smokers, until they get really sick, until a smoker actually has to acknowledge that he or she has some terrible illness that was caused by smoking. And then the former smokers are generally the most vociferous anti-smoking of all.
NEVILLE: Well, there are some interesting issues...
PERRY: Smoking is certainly not the du jour - I can finally hear, so I'm going to partake in the show here.
NEVILLE: Go right ahead, Deborah.
PERRY: But it's certainly not the du jour that it was during the decade of the '40s, but now it becomes that we have to be concerned about the health implication and the cost. So the New York City council and the mayor certainly have a reason to believe, they have a legitimate interest in making sure that people are kept healthy.
They've got 8 million people. It costs them millions and millions of dollars a year due to smoke causing illness. Imagine if we took that money and actually put it into something like education and the future generation we would be turning out just by saving that type of money.
NEVILLE: OK, now, Deborah, cigar bars would be included in this. Don't you think that's a little excessive?
PERRY: Well, New York City, you've got plenty of outdoor space. They can just kind of move all outdoors and...
NEVILLE: A cigar bar, you go there to smoke.
PERRY: Well, have them have outdoor settings. It would be very nice just to have all...
NEVILLE: I'm just saying, Deborah, come on now. I know not to go inside a cigar bar if smoke is going to bother me. You just know that. It's a smoking place.
PERRY: Well, we've certainly - there's been so much focus and so much emphasis in recent years just on smoker's rights. And now the tables are finally turning, and we want to concentrate actually on the people such as ourselves, myself, who doesn't smoke. I don't want to be put at risk. I don't care if it's a cigar or any type of bar or a restaurant, nor do I want to put my child at risk.
NEVILLE: I know, but I'm just saying, Deborah - Deborah, listen - I don't smoke either. But I'm saying that if I know if I go to a cigar bar that means I'm going someplace where there's smoke. I'm choosing to go into that environment.
ELLICOTT: Actually, Arthel, you bring up a good point. Because maybe instead of letting smokers smoke outdoors, we should be supporting smoking venues, but should be completely sealed, so people should be in for the...
LEWIS: I agree. And they should...
PERRY: But they never are sealed. That's the problem. It eventually seeps out.
LEWIS: I agree. I think they should be...
ELLICOTT: There should be unventilated smoking restaurants, and we'll see how long they want to carry on smoking.
PERRY: I mean, have you ever been in a...
LEWIS: I think they should put these cigar bars - I think they should put these cigar bars in Carolina, Tennessee and all these other tobacco producing areas. Let them go there, if they want to smoke.
PERRY: That's not a bad idea.
LEWIS: Let them pollute that part of the country.
NEVILLE: All right, hang on, guys. I've got Karl (ph) to get in here from Alabama. Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm a non-smoker, and I respect the rights of smokers. I think this will never fly in a city like New York City. I agree with you. You know that this place is a bar and that people will be smoking in a place like that. So you have the right to go in or not go in, but I think it will never fly in a huge fast city like New York City. If it does, look out, the rest of America.
NEVILLE: Uh-oh.
PERRY: I think it will fly because all Mayor Bloomberg has to do is make it happen. But the point is have you ever been in a particular room that was smoking at one time that was converted to non-smoking? You never get rid of that smoke smell. You never get rid of the deteriorating effects of smoking. And it's a residual effect.
NEVILLE: OK, listen. I have a great e-mail that just came in I want to share with you. Let's pop those up from Darryl in Oregon. "The war on smoking is becoming ridiculous. I can understand the restriction in a restaurant - but a bar? That's silly." OK. We have another e-mail coming up now from Allen in New York. "I am a non- smoker, but not allowing smoking in bars is like not allowing reading a newspaper in a coffee shop." Martin, I want to hear what you have to say to that one.
LEWIS: Well, I don't know. I mean one of the things to - take an even more serious aspect of this. We always talk about raising taxes through cigarettes and the good use that we can put to the taxes. And in principle, that sounds very good. But when you think about it, if we actually want to stop people, particularly young people, from smoking, isn't this self-defeating? We are actually dependent on taxes from people who are doing something that's bad for them. Are we encouraging them to smoke so we can get that tax revenue, or shouldn't we just be trying to stop cigarette smoking period, by the next generation?
NEVILLE: Mr. Chris (ph) from Minnesota, what do you say?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, my question is Mr. Bloomberg, did he campaign specifically on this issue and let the voters, you know, express themselves at the time that he was spending all that money being elected that he in intending to go do this, to make this an issue that he was going to take an action on?
NEVILLE: Hasn't he been quite outspoken about his position on smoking and he's very anti-tobacco?
PERRY: Yes, very much so. In addition to that, this law was already set, in part, by Giuliani, as you mentioned earlier, to establishments larger - seating less than 35 people. So this is really just an extension of an already existing law.
ELLICOTT: New Yorkers are very enterprising people. I don't think it will stamp out smoking in the same way that, in the last few years, people have stepped out into outdoor areas in restaurants where you can smoke. They'll do the same - they'll do the same thing, that people will have clubs or they'll have special venues where they get to smoke.
NEVILLE: The bell has spoken. We need to move on into the next segment.
OK. Do Hollywood producers have blood on their hands, and are all of our children the victims? A famous screenwriter turns on Hollywood and ignites a fiery debate. We'll have that one next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. Does Hollywood glamorize smoking? Well, the screenwriter of "Basic Instinct" says it does, and he wants all of Hollywood to stop pushing tobacco.
Joe Eszterhas seems to have had a change of heart while undergoing treatment for throat cancer. At one time, he defended all the smokers he put in his movies. Here's what Eszterhas said back in October of 1997.
JOE ESZTERHAS, HOLLYWOOD SCREENWRITER: I think my responsibility is to reflect reality and to reflect the real world. In the real world, people smoke.
NEVILLE: Well, that was then. Now Eszterhas is apologetic, saying, in today's "New York Times," quote, "I have been an accomplice to the murders of untold number of human beings. I don't think smoking is every person's right anymore. I think smoking should be as illegal as heroin." Wow! OK. Those are strong words.
And, Deborah, I want to ask you, will Eszterhas' plea make a difference in how Hollywood glamorizes smoking?
PERRY: You would hope. It always takes us certainly one person taking the helm for trying to change Hollywood. But you even see what happened at the outbreak of the school violence and the Columbine school shootings. Washington said to Hollywood, enough is enough. We are not going to put up with this any more.
There are First Amendment rights, but at the same time, what you are putting out there is affecting our children. Our children are directly responding to what they see in movies and video games. And so you would hope he would be the first of many who would step up to the plate and say, you know what guys? In Hollywood, maybe we haven't done the best job of promoting the best morals in society.
NEVILLE: Well, Martin, chime in. I'm waiting for you. You look like you want to say something.
LEWIS: Well, first of all, I'm afraid nobody in Hollywood takes Joe Eszterhas seriously. One's deeply sad to hear that the man has cancer. If he's apologizing for glamorizing smoking, I think he could throw in some other apologies. He could apologize for that dreadful movie, "Showgirls," for a start. That's really worth an apology.
But the thing about this is that his first statement is actually the case. Namely, that Hollywood is not about preaching messages. It's about reflecting reality. And if you have this artificially sanitized world where nobody smokes, nobody uses bad language, nobody uses drugs, all that you have is an unreal world. It's not reality. I'm not saying they should glamorize, but there's a difference between reflecting reality and glamorizing. That's got to be looked at.
ELLICOTT: I think there's a difference, also, between reflecting reality and personally making a lot of money from exploiting that. And, sad as though it is at how Joe Eszterhas now finds himself ill after smoking cigarettes for so many years, I would take his apology a little bit more seriously if he were returning some of the millions he made from showing Sharon Stone smoking in "Basic Instinct" into anti- smoking campaigns.
LEWIS: Yes. Actually, that's a very good point. I must say one thing he said in his opinion piece was that he felt really bad about that shot we're seeing now, Sharon Stone in "Basic Instinct."
ELLICOTT: There were other things about that shot he should also feel bad about, if I remember it correctly.
LEWIS: I was going say - I was going to say I was not, for some strange reason, I was not even aware she was smoking in that shot for some reason. That eluded me.
PERRY: You were paying attention to something else. And that's just it, is that there's -- I don't know too many women who act like that either, Martin.
NEVILLE: OK, Martin, Martin.
PERRY: That's not real life to me.
NEVILLE: Martin, Sharon Stone was smoking in that scene.
LEWIS: I know. But...
ELLICOTT: That wasn't the focus of the camera.
NEVILLE: All right.
PERRY: But clearly, you can strike a balance between reality or what certain Hollywood screenwriters consider reality and people in the Midwest consider reality. We don't have the need to exploit every vice in society. There's a lot of goodwill that people do and there's no reason why Hollywood can't incorporate it into its screen writing.
NEVILLE: Hey, Deborah, do you think he's sincere? Do you think he's sincere about what he's saying now?
PERRY: Oh, absolutely. He writes - I think one of his most powerful statements is Hollywood is the advertising agency out there, and it is partially responsible for encouraging or rather - 10,000 people a day are dying from smoke illnesses, so I do think he's sincere.
ELLICOTT: But I do think it's something that he's had had it both ways. I mean, I think you don't need to succumb to throat cancer to understand that smoking is bad, smoking is dangerous, and that smoking is unhealthy. And for a man - in his Orchid piece this morning, he talked about how he desperately wants to be able to raise his four sons.
Well, millions of people out there want to be able to raise their children. That's why they don't smoke around them in the first place. And it's just - I'm a little bit cynical, perhaps, that this last minute conversion is a bit scary that it took...
NEVILLE: So what's behind it, in your mind? What do you think he might...
LEWIS: Well, he's - I think he's...
ELLICOTT: Fear, mortality, his own sense that this man might actually die now.
PERRY: But at least he had a conversion. At least he had a conversion, and he could do something good about it. Unfortunately, in our society, it takes a really bad act or somebody experiencing a very life-threatening illness to turn people around from what they originally thought was right.
ELLICOTT: But it shouldn't do.
LEWIS: If he hadn't been so crass in everything he has done for the last 20 years, perhaps he would have a little more credibility.
Not to have lack of sympathy for him, but he has been happy to exploit violence, exploit women and all other sorts of unsavory aspects in his filmmaking. So, I think there's a little bit of cynicism about him. He also needs to apologize for the scandalous book he wrote just before the 2000 election which completely defamed Bill Clinton and many other people in Hollywood. That's why he's not taken seriously.
NEVILLE: I have Michael in the audience.
MICHAEL: Well, I have a question -- well, not a question, a statement and a question.
We all know that Hollywood knows that morals don't sell. So we are not going to get morals from Hollywood. And the second question is, shouldn't we put it up to the parents to teach their kids that smoking is not right? Maybe we should look at the parenting in this country, and examine that, and let them do the job in their home of telling their kids what is good and what's not.
NEVILLE: And not Hollywood.
MICHAEL: Exactly.
ELLICOTT: Well, people do that. I think parents do that.
I think, by and large, most parents really do try to do a good job. Some are maybe not able. Some screw up. But, even in own family, my parents never smoked. They told their three kids not to smoke. And I never did and my siblings did.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: There's the bell. And we will move on to a break.
Up next: One boy is dead; another accused of his murder. Should a 10-year-old be tried as an adult?
We'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.
In the small town of El Reno, Oklahoma, a 10-year-old boy is in custody. He is accused of killing his friend, another 10-year-old, Tremain Richey. You see him here in his football uniform. Police say the boys were fighting about sports before the shooting, which they say was not an accident. Officials aren't saying much else, since the case involves a minor.
Martin, I want to start with you on this one.
Where did we go wrong as a society, where a 10-year-old thinks the way to settle an argument is by killing another 10-year-old? LEWIS: We went wrong in a very big way. And I know this is going to be a little controversial, what I'm going to say, but here goes.
There is no way to divorce this from the sadness of guns, period. People talk about the right to have guns because of the Second Amendment. Think of that word amendment, an amendment from the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution wasn't perfect. It evolved. So, the Second Amendment, we can evolve, too. Let's get rid of the Second Amendment. Let's repeal it.
The sole reason it was there in the first place was for a society that might need protection against another British invasion. I'm the only British invasion you have got to worry about. And I can be disarmed by Sharon Stone with a cigarette. That would disarm me.
So, let's think about this seriously. An enlightened society does not need guns if we have a proper law enforcement. The only reason you need guns is to kill defenseless animals. And, if you are in favor of that, you need serious psychiatric counseling. Let's get rid of guns.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, I have an e-mail that just came across I want to share with everybody. It is from Dave in Ohio: "Anyone who thinks a 10-year-old should be tried as an adult is showing a 10-year- old mentality."
Deborah, what do you say to that?
PERRY: Well, I think it's interesting, because, in part, we don't know the mental health of this 10-year-old boy. Apparently, the one who did the shooting was actually very involved in sports and was supposed to be a good kid.
But, obviously, the kid did not know between right and wrong. You can't really behold this kid to be tried as an adult, but you can look at the parents and say perhaps they have some liability as well, contingent on the circumstances. Were those parents not around during the raising of this child? Has this child been -- was he raised by a single mother? We just don't know the circumstances enough to make that kind of decision.
NEVILLE: Yes, but even if he happened to have been raised by a single mother, that doesn't...
ELLICOTT: What does a single mother have to do with it?
NEVILLE: Exactly.
Deborah?
PERRY: I'm sorry?
NEVILLE: I'm sorry. Sue and I were both saying the same thing.
ELLICOTT: I was just so shocked that you could raise the question. Why would a single mother have anything to do it?
NEVILLE: Exactly.
PERRY: No, not that a single mother has anything to do with it, but we don't know the circumstances. Perhaps he has anger issues because he was abandoned by his father. We just don't
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: You know what? We can't read all that into this. I'm sorry. We can't.
ELLICOTT: I think the one thing I would disagree on is that I don't think this kid didn't know the difference between right and wrong.
He didn't know the difference between wrong and very wrong: that, if he wanted to settle some kind of issue or a dispute about football, or what on Earth it was, he could have shouted. I wouldn't condone it. He could have even hit the kid.
NEVILLE: Exactly.
ELLICOTT: But there's something that is very wrong that he feels, for something that trivial, this child was unable to differentiate between taking action that could kill someone and taking action to express his anger.
PERRY: With a handgun, you don't think he could differentiate?
LEWIS: But when you are 10 years old, you are subjected to thousands upon thousands of images, hours and hours of people getting killed on TV. But it's not reality. To a child, they don't understand mortality the same as adults do. And that's sad enough.
NEVILLE: Hey, Martin, do you really believe that all children don't understand?
LEWIS: No, but there's a degree of it. And it's certainly difficult when you see this endless -- this glorification of violence constantly. That's bad enough.
But when you have access to guns -- would somebody like to address it? Because I would like to hear somebody defend to the rhyme and reason why, in an orderly, civilized society, we need guns for civilians when we have law enforcement and a militia. What is the purpose, other than killing defenseless animals and children? What's the point of guns?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: OK, Martin, I am going to jump in there because I have to let a caller get on the air.
And that would be Charlie calling in from Louisiana.
CALLER: Hello?
NEVILLE: You are on the air live.
CALLER: OK.
I tend to agree with much of what has been said. However, I have never believed in 10-year-olds being tried as adults. However, here's a situation where a 10-year-old did a very adult thing, ended an argument by shooting someone. It wouldn't have mattered whether he beat him with a bat and killed him and then tried to get away with it by hiding it.
I sometimes wonder if cases should be handled on an individual basis. And if that's the case, perhaps this the one case that I have run into where this 10-year-old should be treated more like a 20-year- old.
NEVILLE: Thank you, Charlie, for calling in.
By the way, the gun was found at a home in the neighborhood wrapped in a blanket, placed in the garage.
Ian, you say...
ELLICOTT: But my question is where he found the gun in the first place. Where did he get hold of the gun? Was it a gun that was accessible in the home? Because there are so many terrible accidents and deaths that happen in the United States because parents do not keep their guns separate from their ammunition and locked up, as they are supposed to.
NEVILLE: Those details are not available on this particular story at the moment.
But I do want to hear what Ian from Canada has to say.
IAN: The most sad is that a loss of life, what is so important, especially for a kid -- it doesn't matter if it's a kid or an adult. But a loss of a life is really, really bad. And another thing is, education shouldn't start in the school, but it starts with the parents. It doesn't matter if it's a single mother or parents. They could live long and happily. But one thing: They have to think and they have to educate their children on the best way.
Society needs good people. Today, we have a lack of good people. But I'm sure there's a lot of people out there that they are doing their best to make life better. And it's very sad that one kid had to die over a football dispute.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: You're right. Listen, thank you very much, Ian, for standing up.
That is the bell, which means we are going to take another break. Then: "Let's roll." You will recognize that phrase as Todd Beamer's now famous call to action on Flight 93 on September 11. Well, what do you think about a college football coach making it his team's slogan?
We'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.
"Let's roll." That common call to action has become a reminder that everyday Americans can become extraordinary heroes in times of crisis. Those words were said by Todd Beamer as a group of passengers prepared to take action on September 11 against Islamic hijackers on Flight 93.
Well, now Florida State football coach Bobby Bowden has made it the Seminoles' slogan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOBBY BOWDEN, HEAD FOOTBALL COACH, FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY: Well, you know, as soon as I read that in the paper of that guy on that plane, knowing they were fixing to die and they were going to try to keep it -- save the White House or whatever they were going to hit, and I heard that guy -- they said he said "Let's roll" -- I could really relate to that.
And that's exactly the motto we are trying to get to our players, is: "Hey, the season has started. We got a bad year last year. Let's roll," and then, of course, in honor also of those people who died on that plane.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK.
By the way, Coach Bowden has the approval of the Todd Beamer Foundation, but not a slew of sportswriters and commentators. They seem to have a problem with it.
So, Sue, I'm going to ask you first. Is it appropriate for the team to use the slogan?
ELLICOTT: I don't have a problem with it.
I feel that language is something that evolves. And I think he was very well meaning when he said this. I don't think he was trying monetarily to exploit the Todd Beamer heirs or any kind of 9/11 victims group. And people who have made the argument in the last few days that money should be given to the families of Todd Beamer, the family of Todd Beamer, I think they are sort of missing the point.
I don't know that anybody who has ever said, "Wassup" or "Is that your final answer?" feels compelled to give Regis Philbin or ABC News or Budweiser any money.
PERRY: No, finally, here's a guy who is trying to not only motivate his players, but he's trying to make a gesture of goodwill and remembrance of not only Todd Beamer, but all the victims of 9/11.
Isn't this what we are longing for in society? And as far as I know, "Let's roll" is not copyrighted. And if I myself or anybody else I know said something that coined a phrase that motivated people, I would find it enormously flattering of a gesture.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Martin.
LEWIS: I think it's not so bad that it's a sports team. It still seems to me a little mawkish and benignly exploitative.
But I'm relieved in one way. But the people who have been really upset are those -- are politicians, because there has been lately -- the equivalent of flag-waving in this country now is to wrap yourself in the words and deeds of real heroes. So they are invoking by politicians, saying, "Let's admire the courage of this person or that person," but they're using it for their own purposes.
The people who are really upset right now are Karl Rove and the puppeteers behind George W. Bush, because you bet your bottom dollar they were hoping to use this for the 2004 presidential election for George Bush, "Let's roll, America," and invoking Todd Beamer. Thank God they...
PERRY: But you know what? They still can. They still can.
LEWIS: No. No, because it would look as cynically exploitative as it was going to be. So, I'm very pleased.
ELLICOTT: Perhaps once you have exploited it so much, it actually loses its power. It seizes to be a catchphrase. And "Let's roll" just return to two simple words: "Let's roll," meaning "Let's go."
The more that people can invoke 9/11, the less impact it will have. And perhaps it will just go back to being kind of a normal uplifting American phrase.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, I have Barbara calling in from South Carolina.
Barbara, what do you have to say?
CALLER: I think it's perfectly fine. I don't see anything wrong with it. I think that we need to be reminded, because once we get slack, that when it's going to come in and get us again.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you, Barbara, for calling in TALKBACK LIVE.
OK, listen, I have an e-mail to share with you right now from Taylor in Georgia: "Being a Florida State fan, I think it's wrong. Hello? This is football, not war."
So...
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: Well, Taylor just had the last word on that one. There's the bell, which means we have to move on.
OK, we are going to cover a lot of ground very fast. When we come back, it's time for our lightning round. So you don't want to miss that.
TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, everybody. Get ready. It's time for our flash round. And we are not going to give you much time to think.
Here we go.
Who has the better lawsuit, the mother forced to drink her own breast milk at the airport or the tour group dumped into the shark tank?
Martin?
LEWIS: I think the woman with the lactating thing should not be fostering any kind of lawsuit. Do you know how long it takes to get a drink on those planes? She was in a very lucky position. She shouldn't be complaining.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: Sue.
ELLICOTT: Actually, breast milk tastes pretty good. And I have been forced to drink out of my children's cup. So I think definitely the shark kids.
NEVILLE: Deborah?
PERRY: I have never tasted breast milk. And I will say that definitely the people who fell into the shark tank have a great case.
NEVILLE: OK, Anna Nicole Smith lets it all hang out on E!. Is your curiosity satisfied or do you crave more?
Martin.
LEWIS: I love this program: A, because it makes Ozzy Osbourne look halfway intelligent; and, B, because it's nice to see that, with $88 million, you can still look like a piece of trailer trash.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: Sue.
ELLICOTT: I'm not willing to watch until she actually has an affair with Ozzy Osbourne and they merge the two shows.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: All right, Deborah, how do you see it?
PERRY: Well, I'm craving for something that I can learn from. And Anna Nicole Smith is just not it.
NEVILLE: All right, we have an audience member.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Arthel.
It just comes to show that money does not give class. So we'll just see what she has to say, all right?
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much.
All right, listen here. Listen to this story. A surgeon ducks out on an operation in order to deposit his paycheck in the bank. This Harvard Medical School grad left his patient lying on the table.
Should he lose his license?
Martin.
LEWIS: Absolutely not. Look, you can't expect surgeons to make hundreds of thousands of dollars and not be able to have time to go and bank the check. It's very reasonable he should do that.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: All right, Sue, what do you say?
ELLICOTT: Well, if I were going to be funny about this, I would say, "What about Internet banking?" But clearly it's an abomination. Clearly the guy has to lose his license. We could be funny about it until the cows come home, but no.
NEVILLE: Deborah?
PERRY: Obviously, the guy could afford to have somebody else make his deposits for him. So, without a doubt, this guy needs to lose his license.
ELLICOTT: There's definitely more to this story.
NEVILLE: OK.
How do you see it?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I definitely think he needs to lose his license. He could wait until after the operation.
NEVILLE: All right, I agree with you, by the way.
All right, listen. Listen to this now. Death row inmates in Florida file suit, claiming their cells are too hot. How hot is it? Well, they say they have to stand in toilets to keep cool.
Martin, do you care?
LEWIS: I do care, but, fortunately, I think the whole prison system needs better decor. And I'm banking that Martha Stewart will be there to improve their feng shui.
NEVILLE: Sue?
ELLICOTT: Well, I spent last August in Miami. And I think it's too hot everywhere in that state in the summer. So I can't think that prison was worse than my condo.
NEVILLE: Deborah?
PERRY: Well, I'm from Miami originally. There was a constant breeze down there. You've got palm trees everywhere. And they have got a choice. They can stay in Miami or they can be in the middle of Siberia in the wintertime. It's their call.
NEVILLE: Roger.
ROGER: Yes.
I just think the whole point of prisons is just to -- they have done something bad. They deserve to be there. So that's just where I stand on it.
LEWIS: Yes, but does anybody deserve to be in Florida?
NEVILLE: OK. And, lastly, should television networks run ads during their September 11 programming?
Martin, yes or no?
LEWIS: Well, if they want to run ads, why are they going to pretend that they are not being exploitative? America is all about exploitation. I think they should do that.
NEVILLE: Sue, Sue, yes or no?
ELLICOTT: No problem with it. Either you have no advertising at all, including when you are showing suicide bombers and Israeli actions, or nothing.
NEVILLE: Deborah, Deborah.
PERRY: Absolutely. As long as they are not taking advantage of the situation and actually inflating the rates for advertising during that time, I have no problem with it.
(BELL RINGING) NEVILLE: There's the bell. That's all the time we have for TALKBACK LIVE, "Free-For-All Friday."
Martin Lewis, Sue Ellicott, and Deborah Perry, you guys were all great. Thank you very much.
PERRY: Thank you.
ELLICOTT: Thanks.
NEVILLE: I'm Arthel Neville.
And I just want to let you know that I'm going to be on assignment next week, working on "AMERICAN MORNING." So have no fear. Leon Harris and Daryn Kagan will be filling in for me.
But I will be back in a week, OK? I'll see you then.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
