Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

LA Bracing for Protests After LAPD Shooting; Netanyahu's Visit to Washington; Clevleand PD: Tamir Rice's Actions Responsible for His Own Death

Aired March 02, 2015 - 12:00   ET

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


ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Los Angeles bracing for angry protests after a police shooting in one of the city's poorest neighborhoods. We'll show you the whole deadly confrontation. It was caught on video.

The assassination of one of Vladimir Putin's most outspoken critics. It takes on even more intrigue with his haunting words in a CNN interview before he was gunned down in the shadow of the Kremlin.

And a Georgia woman now with just seven hour to lives before the state carries outs its first female execution in 70 years. Are today's protests and petitions too late to save her life?

Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. Welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

Los Angeles, a city with a history of police confrontations, is once again at the center of a controversial police shooting. LAPD officers shot and killed a unarmed homeless man on Sunday. We've got video we want to show you and it is graphic. It was shot by a witness and it shows the struggle. Disregard some of the action that you'll see in the front part of this melee. It's the action in the back. Pay attention to the struggle in the back. That shooting happened on L.A.'s skid row. A robbery suspect confronted by police, the struggle ensuing and it ended when police say the man on the ground reached for an officer's gun. CNN's Sara Sidner takes a closer look at this event.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The video, taken by a witness in downtown Los Angeles, beginning with an altercation between police and a man on the street. We don't see what caused the incident to turn violent, but the man appears to throw punches towards one of the four officers on the scene who were trying to arrest him on suspicion of robbery. It escalates, ending up on the ground. You hear someone say what sounds like, "drop the gun."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Drop the gun.

SIDNER: Then the sound of a Taser goes off. Then more shouting that sounds like "drop the gun" yelled twice. A struggle continues and five shots are fired. The suspect lies motionless in the street.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) him tased. Why y'all shot that man?

SIDNER: Police say the suspect attempted to grab the officer's gun.

COMMANDER ANDREW SMITH, LAPD SPOKESMAN: During the attempt to detain him, this individual resisted our officers. They struggled with him. They tried to tase him a couple times. That was ineffective. And eventually the struggle occurred where the officers were struggling with the individual over one of the officer's weapons.

SIDNER: Police say three officers fired their weapons, including a supervisor. An investigation is underway.

SMITH: Again, this is at the very, very early stages of the investigation and that analysis is based on one video which shows a portion of the incident that occurred. We want to wait until all the videos is in that available. We want to wait until all the people have been interviewed, all the witnesses, all the officers to determine exactly what happened before we make any kind of judgment whether this was proper or not.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: Joining me now is Sara Sidner, on location live now.

Sara, what's happening in terms of like the explanation to what led to what we just witnessed in that video?

SIDNER: We just this last two minutes just got done speaking with Anthony Blackburn. That is the person who took that video that has now gone viral and that the police are also now looking at, among other videos. And he described to me that he was about 100 feet away. So really, really, really close to what was going on. And he said initially that police -- by the time he got there, that police had asked this particular person to get up against the wall, that he was under arrest, and then I will let him explain what happened from there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY BLACKBURN, WITNESS TO LAPD SHOOTING: While he was on the ground being tased, I didn't see him reach for an officer's gun. They say he's going for his gun. But I know that the officer's gun is right on his side in that leather on the holster is so thick, you know. But now he probably can -- probably would apparently touch the tip of the gun. So maybe, you know, being nervous or whatever that he -- well, he's going for my gun and -- but that was just too excessive for them to shoot him five times while he was already on the ground. You're tasing him and then you end up shooting him five times.

SIDNER: When you took this video, though, did you have a clear shot from your eyes? Because video sometimes is much more difficult to see.

BLACKBURN: Right.

SIDNER: Did you see with your own eyes him reaching for the officer's gun? Were you able to see that?

BLACKBURN: No. With my eyes, I didn't see him reaching for the officer's gun. I didn't see that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: But police say that is indeed the information they have been given from the three officers. And I'll have you know that it was three officers who ended up shooting and firing, ending up killing the support there that you see on the sidewalk. His lifeless body lying there. The whole time Anthony Blackburn was rolling video.

But I want to give you some idea that all of this happened, before the videotape started rolling, he said that they -- the man was tased by police once before, tried to get into his tent, got into the tent and police pulled the tent up over him and then tased him again. So police themselves have said that they did use the Taser several times and that it was ineffectual and you do see him jumping up and what looks like swinging at police. It looks like he's taking -- trying to punch police, trying to fight with police. They get him on the ground and there's certainly a tussle that happens there. But no one in that neighborhood was expecting to see what they saw when the officers ended up opening fire.

There is an open investigation happening now with three different agencies, including the police and the district attorney's office, which is the norm here in Los Angeles. Three agencies take a look at this, they investigate it. And they said, until they get through with their investigation, they've got to talk to a lot of witnesses, there is other videotape that's out there. Police say that at least one of the officers was wearing a body camera. And there is videotape from one of the areas nearby, one of the homeless shelters that has surveillance video. They know that does exist. So there's a lot for them to go through to try to determine if this was a lawful shooting.

BANFIELD: Yes. Well -- that's -- I mean that's fantastic. The more angles the better. I mean clearly when you're 100 feet away, you might think that's close, but it's not right there up on top of that action.

Sara Sidner, stand by for a moment, if you would. I want to bring in CNN legal analyst Paul Callan and Danny Cevallos.

You heard Sara Sidner reporting that, guys. Number one, what stood out to me was that a supervisor was one of those three that discharged a weapon. Does that make a difference?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it depends upon the qualifications of the supervisor and whether he has good judgment. I mean there are supervisors who are great supervisors and they make mistakes like other human beings do as well. So I think we've got to wait until we see all the video to decide whether this was a justifiable use of force.

BANFIELD: And, Danny, Sara hit the nail on the head when she asked that witness, did you see it with your own eyes or through the lens of your camera. Because there's a big difference when we're looking through an iPhone and I'm not sure that he might have understood exactly what she meant by that, but that could be a critical issue with a witness as opposed to 100 feet away a lens. DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Not only that witness, but all the

witnesses that were there, including the brother officers involved in this arrest. What their -- their statements are going to be critical in this situation. What we're talking about here is a gun grab. Now it's true, police officers are typically trained in a continuum of force, which essentially means you meet force to counter the threat. But a gun grab is unique because a gun grab can turn an unarmed assailant or an unarmed suspect in moments into an armed suspect. So the escalation can be immediate.

Now that being said, what is a gun grab? Is it just flailing and maybe touching the holster or is it reaching for and actually pulling it out? Because, remember, many officers use these duty retention holsters, which have hidden snaps and buckles and levers.

BANFIELD: Because they're not easy. You can't get the gun out.

CEVALLOS: And it's not easy to accidentally draw that weapon unless you want to draw that weapon and you know how to draw the weapon. So that and other facts will be critical in reviewing whether or not this was a justified use of deadly force.

BANFIELD: You know, the other issue is the number of times they said drop the gun. You could hear it on the video after you can actually hear the tasing. All of this has to be important in whether they decide if the right protocol was followed and ultimately deadly force was necessary.

CALLAN: Well, absolutely. And the thing -- you know, it's hard from that heavy pixilated video to really get a sense of what's going on but, why would they be saying "drop the gun" "drop the gun" if the suspect didn't have a gun in his hand? I mean I don't -- maybe they would be making it up or maybe they mistook something else in his hand for a gun. But that's going to be the critical factor. If he got the gun in his hand, then the police will say it's fair game and they had the right to shoot to defend themselves.

BANFIELD: Does it make any difference, Danny, that there are five or is there, as some people allege, a blue wall of silence or a blue collusion, meaning, it doesn't matter if there's one officer telling the story or five, they'll all have the same story? But does it make a difference that they will all have at least a witness account?

CEVALLOS: Let's talk about the five. I mean the five being there will be interesting because they're all going to give a statement. It will be really interesting to see exactly how much or if at all they differ. If they do, that will be critical.

But the mere fact that five officers are present during an arrest is nothing unusual. And as we said before, when it comes to gun grabs, the escalation is instantaneous. It can go from just a run-of-the-mill arrest to a life-threatening situation. And remember also the police officers apparently knew beforehand this was a robbery suspect, which is a dangerous felony and the officers can factor that into their decisions. BANFIELD: So, Sara Sidner, if you could just button this up really

quickly. I know that the LAPD is taking this very seriously, particularly the public relations aspect of it. They're on it. They're answering our questions. What are they doing today about this?

SIDNER: Look, they are continuing to investigate and they're trying to get as many videos as they can and look through them and also go through as many witnesses as they can, to try to talk to each and every person that was out there at the scene, including, of course, the officers. And there were more than four that were around that suspect. There were two other officers that came up. There was another person involved in this who grabbed -- you'll see it on the video -- who seemed to grab a baton and the officers ended up taking her down. She was also arrested.

Plus, you have the person who initially called in the call that they were being robbed. That person has also been talked to by police. So there's a lot for the police to go through to try to sift through. But they're being very clear. They said, we're not making any judgments as to what -- whether the right thing was done here. We are investigating and we will determine that after we get all of the facts.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: And I think that's a critical issue after the facts come in. Sara Sidner, thank you for that. Danny and Paul, thank you as well. Stick around.

By the way, we are expecting the LAPD to hold a news conference live in the next hour. So maybe some of these questions will be answered and maybe some of them are going to take some time to answer as well.

Coming up next, the Israeli prime minister, he's here in Washington, today, and it is a storm, but he's trying real hard to calm the storm, especially ahead of a big speech to Congress tomorrow about Iran's nuclear program. We're going to hear just what he told the pro-Israeli lobby today and why some in Congress don't want to hear a word of this tomorrow.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington for what's become his most controversial U.S. visit. He just spoke to American pro-Israel lobby group, AIPAC, and he's got a big plan to speak to Congress tomorrow. He opposes a potential U.S.-brokered deal with Iran to reduce that country's nuclear program and he tried to calm the storm that's been ignited over his being invited by the Republican House speaker, the same House speaker who neglected to notify the Democratic president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: My speech is also not intended to inject Israel into the American partisan debate. An important reason why our alliance has grown stronger, decade after decade, is that it has been championed by both parties and so it must remain. And that's why the last thing that anyone who cares about Israel, the last thing that I would want is for Israel to become a partisan issue. And I regret that some people have misperceived my visit here this week as doing that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Well, at least 30 Democrats, including Vice President Joe Biden, are planning to skip Tuesday's address to a joint meeting of Congress. They say Speaker Boehner's invitation without involving the White House is an affront to the president. All the while, Secretary of State John Kerry and the United States team are at the negotiating table overseas with the Iranians.

Wolf Blitzer joins me live now.

Wolf, the secretary of state had some telling words early. I just want to read what he said and it's real brief but very meaningful. "Israel's security is absolutely at the forefront of all of our minds, but frankly so is the security of all other countries in the region, so is our security, the United States." How odd and uncomfortable has this all become?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM": It's extremely uncomfortable, extremely odd. And in terms of public perceptions, almost unprecedented, the fact that the prime minister of Israel is here in Washington. The president of the United States is not going to be sitting down with him. The president of the United States supposedly isn't even going to be having a phone conversation with the prime minister of Israel. The prime minister of Israel accepting this invitation from the speaker of the House without giving the White House either on the part of Boehner or on the part of Prime Minister Netanyahu any opportunity to weigh in on the timing, the protocol or anything.

It's almost unprecedented, the fact that so many Democrats now are going to be boycotting this speech tomorrow. That's a significant, significant development. You have a former chairman of the Democratic Party, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, he says he's not going to go. You have some Jewish members of the House and Senate, they say they're not going to go. So it is -- it was handled extremely awkwardly, extremely badly. And they're now trying to fix it to a certain degree on the White House part. But the prime minister, if you listen to his speech today, he was clearly trying to fix it.

BANFIELD: Yes. I'm not sure I understand exactly when he said I -- you know, I regret that this may became a partisan issue. It's not like it just happened on the flight over here. This has been going on since the announcement was made weeks ago. Is this the prime minister of Israel, in Dianne Feinstein's words, being arrogant or is that just hyperbolic language coming from, you know, a high ranking Democrat?

BLITZER: Look, there's no doubt the Israelis are deeply concerned about the U.S. negotiations with the other members of the Security Council in Germany -- in Switzerland right now over a deal with Iran. The Israelis are very concerned about that. By the way, that spans not just his Likud party but other parties in Israel as well. Having said that, everybody in Israel seems to agree one of the major

reasons that Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted to come now, tomorrow will be exactly two weeks before the March 17th elections in Israel. And I think initially the -- his political advisers thought that if he came here at this particular time, it would bolster his popularity in Israel and try to help him get re-elected. He's in a bitter fight right now. The polls show it's going to be extremely close. He might not be re-elected. He might be re-elected. But it's very close right now. If his intention was, and I think it was at least in part to try to score political points back home in Israel, I think that probably backfired because as concerned as the Israelis are about what's going on with the negotiations with Iran, they're also deeply concerned about any deterioration in the U.S.-Israeli relationship and they feel the prime minister, the way he's handled the invitation to speak before Congress, has contributed to a weakening of that U.S-Israeli relationship. And you have half of the political establishment in Washington very upset with him. That's not good from Israel's perspective.

BANFIELD: And my apologies to the fine Senator Dianne Feinstein, who I always mess up when I say her name.

Thank you, Wolf Blitzer. By the way, prop to you, because you've got a big special report coming up, special coverage of Prime Minister Netanyahu's address to Congress tomorrow. It's going to starting at 10:00 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN. Wolf's going to be a big part of that. Also stay tuned, Wolf at 1:00 today.

The family of a 12-year-old who was killed by the Cleveland Police while he was playing with a pellet gun, the police thought it was a real gun. Well, that family is suing the city for wrongful death. And just wait until you hear what the response from the city has been.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: So the city of Cleveland today is sparking some outrage because the city is claiming that a 12-year-old boy, who was shot and killed by police, is responsible for his own death. You might remember this case. It was back in November when police opened fire on this boy, Tamir Rice. Tamir was holding a toy gun, a pellet gun, in a park with kids play. Lots of calls came in. One of them said, it might be a fake gun, but we're not sure.

Officers may have mistaken it for a real firearm. But the disturbing video shows the shooting happened within two seconds of police arriving on the scene. Just two seconds. The city's attorneys blame the boy in a court document that was filed in response to a lawsuit that came on behalf of that boy. His family filed it.

Now, it is a lawsuit, so the city is expected to defend itself. But this morning Rice's grandmother, Mildretta Warner Davis, told CNN's "NEW DAY" that he was disappointed that the city is blaming her grandson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MILDRETTA WARNER DAVIS, TAMIR RICE'S GRANDMOTHER: No. No. He did not cause his own death. He was just a kid out there playing. And to me if he was any threat to anyone out there, one of them kids would have went home and told their parents.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: So the case is far from over because the family's lawsuit is going to continue. And the criminal investigation that's going on parallel to this, into the Cleveland Police officer and his actions, the one who shot Rice, well that's still ongoing too. Officer Timothy Loehmann reportedly has a bit of a checkered past as well. Numerous complaints were filed against him when he worked as an officer for another police department in the Cleveland area. And one complaint documented, quote, "a pattern of lack of maturity and discretion and not following instructions." And that is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a whole lot more in that report too.

I want to bring in CNN legal analyst Paul Callan and HLN legal analyst Joey Jackson to talk about this tragic shooting.

All right, so one thing I think people need to be aware of is that the city had to respond. It was being sued. You have to file an answer. Had they any other option, Paul?

CALLAN: Well, I think what people have to understand is that this allegation that the child was acting improperly or negligently, it's horrible for the family that's suing to hear, you know, he's shot down by the police and they're blaming the kid? I mean what could be worse than? But in lawsuits, you generally allege that the other party was also negligent or acted improperly. So there's nothing out of the ordinary about this in terms of what we see in court every day but I can understand how the parents react.

BANFIELD: And at the same time, Joey, the city is also dealing with an investigation that's ongoing by the county. I mean the county's looking into this. This could end up as a major criminal event.

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: It really could be. And what we're speaking of is the officer's actions and whether or not they're indictable. That is the officer, should he be charged with any criminality stemming from the events of that day. And there's a lot to unpack here, even regarding the initial 911 call, Ashleigh, we remember that. The officer not being informed that they were relaying on the 911 call that it may be a toy gun. What you just also stated that the officer didn't have knowledge of that. But what you also stated was the checkered past of the very officer who fired that weapon within two minutes of being -- excuse me, two seconds of being there.

BANFIELD: Two seconds. Yes, two seconds.

JACKSON: And to Paul's point, you know, look, when you file an answer, there's something called comparative negligence. This is a very important point. If you, as the city, can establish that the other person -- and this is how they do it in Ohio -- is more than 50 percent responsible for what occurred to them, then, guess what, it's a complete bar to any recovery. It's called the comparative negligence doctrine. And that's why they're responding.

And the final point here, Ashleigh, remember, these are lawyers, not politicians. There's a very political element to this, of course, and there's a very raw element to this. There's a 12-year-old that's dead. We need to be mindful of that. The lawyers, in responding, are simply trying to get the city out of liability. They're not necessarily trying to sue the family at this point.

BANFIELD: So I do have a question about the city in particular. And that is this. They knew that -- well, they should have known -- they should have known that the background of this officer was that he was, quote, "emotionally immature," that's a quote from his former department --

JACKSON: Right.

BANFIELD: That he was -- he had a dangerous loss of composure during live range training. That's another quote. And that he had an inability to manage his personal stress. So in the lawsuit from Tamir's family, they're actually suggesting, you should have known you had this kind of a guy who could be trigger happy.

JACKSON: And one --

CALLAN: This is -- this is the most important part of their case because they're trying to establish that you knew this was a reckless, dangerous officer. You gave him a gun. You gave him the right to shoot people and, look at this, now we have a 12-year-old child dead.

BANFIELD: Now look what happened.

JACKSON: One step further, you knew that he should not have been holding a gun. You knew that he probably should not have been on the police force based upon the allegations.

BANFIELD: Or you should have known.

JACKSON: Knew or should have known, absolutely.

BANFIELD: There is an allegation that they didn't check these former documents from his former force in the Cleveland area. So I -- you're right, you're absolutely right when you say there's a lot to unpack here. It's not as simple as it seems on the surface.

Joey, Paul, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

JACKSON: Thank you.

BANFIELD: Coming up, quite a disturbing new development in the war against ISIS. This time the target is a man who founded Twitter.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)