Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Outrage Growing in Chicago Over Teen Shooting; Accused Cop's Lawyer Speaks; Manhunt Expands for Paris Terror Suspect; Tensions Escalating Between Russia and Turkey. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired November 25, 2015 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:42] CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: All right. This case in Chicago of this 17-year-old getting shot up by police and dying on the scene is only growing in its intensity and the outrage from it.

So we're going to talk now about what the fate is of Officer John [sic] Van Dyke. It's 37-years old. He has been charged with first- degree murder.

We just got the dash cam video of the actual incident. Sixteen shots, 15 seconds. What we don't know -- what we need to know is what was going through the officer's mind, and maybe that will help us understand why this has taken a year before there were any charges at all.

For that incite, exclusively this morning, Daniel Herbert, attorney for Officer Van Dyke.

Thank you, sir, for taking the opportunity.

What can you tell us about what Officer Van Dyke says and believes was happening that night?

DANIEL HERBERT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, first of all I'm a little bit limited as to what I can speak to regarding what was going on with my client because of the pending case. However, I can indicate that the reason my client, Jason, fired his weapon that evening back in October 2014 is that he truly was in fear for his life as well as the lives of his fellow police officers.

CUOMO: When you see the video, it does not show any of the normal indications of threat that we've come to associate with deadly action by police.

What do you see?

HERBERT: Well, I think I saw the same thing that everyone else is seeing now when I first saw it back, well, almost a year ago. At first seeing it, it's difficult to explain, however, after watching it several times, and most importantly, getting the perspective of my client, that is when I came to the conclusion that his actions were justified. Again, you have to look at what my client, Jason, was experiencing at

the time in which he fired his weapon. And at the time in which he had fired his weapon, he had already been aware of the fact that this individual had been walking through the neighborhood and waving a knife that caused a disturbance at a couple of businesses, had stabbed the windshield of a squad car where police officers were involved, had popped the tire of a squad -- excuse me -- popped the tire of a squad car where police officers were sitting in that squad car.

People had called for a Taser. No Taser was available. So at the point in which my client got there, this had been going on for, I believe, 18 minutes, and when he jumped out of the car, the subject made a motion, which put my client in fear that this individual was perhaps going to attack him with the knife.

CUOMO: Well, the motion will be a question of fact. It's certainly not easy to see on the video, but that's part of your job is to make things clear that aren't clear to everybody else.

But the other officers did not act the same way. How does that hurt your analysis?

HERBERT: I don't think it really plays into it too much. I mean, I know that it's -- that prosecutors spoke to that fact, and I know that the media has spoken to that fact, but quite frankly, I don't -- I don't think it's a big issue because of several reasons.

Nobody was in the perspective of my client. Nobody was in the same position...

CUOMO: They were right next to him.

HERBERT: ...my client was.

And -- correct, they were -- they were next to him. But there's many reasons why people don't fire. The less distance that somebody has, that's a reason or a factor that somebody will take into consideration about firing. The ability to have shielding is another consideration. The ability to retreat is another consideration. The prospect of crossfire is also another factor that comes into play.

So I agree that the video shows that these officers were in the same vicinity, but the video alone, it's not enough to make the determination that one officer's perspective was the same as my client's. Because video, no matter how clear it is, there are problems with video. And most important, I think, is the fact that video, by its nature, is two-dimensional, and it distorts images. So what appears to be clear on a video sometimes is not always that clear.

CUOMO: Well, what's clear in the video and off the video is that 16 shots in 15 seconds, the legal standard, as you well know, just for the audience, is not show that it was just a reasonable fear of serious injury by the officer, but he's going to have to justify each one of those shots. And he shoots him after he's on the ground, after he's no longer moving, and after he reasonably cannot be considered a threat, at least to my mind.

How are you going to deal with that?

HERBERT: Well, I'm going to explain it exactly the way science has explained it and various studies have explained it. A police officer with average skills with a firearm can fire four to five shots in one second. So what we have in this case, we have two volleys of shots, and then there is a pause in between the two volleys.

The first volley was anywhere between 12 and 13 shots. That likely took three seconds or less. There is a pause, which my client, he paused to reassess the situation. That's exactly what he was supposed to do. That's exactly what he was trained to do. At that point he saw the individual was on the ground. He made the decision that he was going to approach this individual and eliminate the threat by getting the knife out of his hands and putting handcuffs on this individual.

CUOMO: Well, there's a reason...

HERBERT: And so at this point he had...

CUOMO: There's a reason that the videotape has sparked such outrage, because it seems to show such a one-sided account, but obviously, the process has two sides. Not an easy conversation for you to have, not just because of the limitations of the ongoing case but the subject matter itself.

So counsel, thank you for coming on to give us the perspective of the officer involved. If he makes the decision to talk about this, what's going on in his head from his first-person account, will be very helpful. But thank you, sir, for coming on New Day. Appreciate it.

HERBERT: OK. Thank you.

CUOMO: Michaela?

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Chris.

The manhunt is expanding now for the eighth suspect in the Paris attacks. Police now are trying to track down this man, another man who drove the suspect before massacre. Who is he? We're going to take a look next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PEREIRA: Escalating tensions this morning after Turkey shot down that Russian fighter jet on the Syrian border. Russian officials call it a, "planned provocation." This as we're learning that the Paris terror attacks could actually have been worse.

Here to discuss both stories, retired Major General James "Spider" Marks, our CNN Military Analyst, formerly with the Army, now the Executive Dean of the University of Phoenix. Also CNN Terrorism Analyst, Paul Cruickshank.

Gentlemen, thanks so much for being here.

Spider, let me start with you. We have this graphic. It shows the differing accounts, one of Turkey, one of Russia. Russia here is the red line. I don't know if you can see this. But you can see on your screen that in their account, their fighter jet skirts just beneath the white line, which is the Turkey border, the southern tip there. Whereas Turkey's account, the yellow line, it goes right over the Turkish border there. If it went over it -- reports are that it did so for 30 second -- was Turkey right in shooting down that plane?

MAJOR GENERAL JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: You know, Alison, that graphic is extremely helpful, but it's not relevant in the larger discussion. Whether Turkey has a legitimate claim -- and ostensibly, it does -- that Russia interfered with their airspace -- let's just give them that -- the fact remains is that Turkey should not have taken this aggressive action, irrespective of the fact that as a matter of routine, Russia is incredibly provocative with its military forces.

We've seen that in our recent past, clearly, in Crimea. And they routinely -- they routinely, Alison, poke neighbors, and certainly, the Western powers and NATO, in the eye.

PEREIRA: So then why shouldn't Turkey have taken them down?

MARKS: Well, that certainly would give Turkey the legal authority to do that, but we're talking well beyond legal authorities. What Turkey needs to realize is that there is an escalation that would occur. Again, Turkey and Russia have been -- you know, they have been enemies, there's been animosity, vitriol for the last multiple centuries.

The fact remains is that Turkey is a member of NATO. Certainly, you got a legal right. You should've acted with a little bit more discretion and discipline and not shot it down.

PEREIRA: OK.

MARKS: And then if you look into the details of what the attitude that Russian aircraft was, was it an attack posture, was it really threatening, or was it simply violating the airspace of Turkey? And if the United States or other partners will as a matter of routine shot down or engaged in Russian aircraft, we have walls that are aligned with Russian aircraft that have been shot down because they were provocative.

PEREIRA: OK. Quickly, Spider, Russia now says it's deploying a missile defense system to Syria as a result. What now?

MARKS: Well, Russia would, as a -- I would tell you that the base that Russia has in Syria probably already has air defense capabilities inherent, located, already deployed there. They're now just announcing that. That's my view.

You don't send any forces into any location geographically without providing a three-dimensional projection, and that includes a dome over the top so that all their forces on the ground are prepared for anything that might be hostile coming from the air down or from ground to ground type attack.

PEREIRA: OK.

MARKS: So for Russia to say that, it's great. I think that's an acknowledgment of what they already have in place. And as a logical step for them to do.

But the big issue is what we call a concentrated purpose, unity of effort against a common enemy, and right now we've got Russia doing its own thing, and we've got NATO powers and certainly, the coalition doing its own thing, trying to go against ISIS, and Russia going against anti-Assad forces.

PEREIRA: OK. All, let's move on to the latest developments in Paris, because there are many.

We now know more about what the so-called ringleader of the attacks was doing the night of the attack. What do his cell phone records reveal?

PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORIST ANALYST: Well, Alyson, they reveal that he went back to the scene of the crime of the attacks. He went back to tenth, eleventh, twelfth (inaudible) back to the Bataclan. And one possible explanation for why he did this is that he possibly wanted to go back there to film all of this for propaganda purposes, ISIS already drilling into their recruits the need to film everything for propaganda.

And the plot, which was supported in Belgium and Germany, where he was the ringleader, the police found GoPro cameras in that plot. So it's quite possible that being perhaps was trying to film this and send the video over to ISIS.

PEREIRA: And what about the reports that there was something even bigger planned? There was an attack on the financial district planned.

CRUICKSHANK: Yes, the Paris prosecutor revealing yesterday that Abdelhamid Abaaoud and that other man inside the safe house in Saint- Denis, who blew himself up during the raid, at least those two were planning a major attack, a suicide attack, on the La Defense area of Paris, which is an area where you have high-end shopping malls, bringing out the possibility that they were planning a Westgate style mall attack -- remember that attack in Nairobi from Al-Shabaab in 2013 -- on the high-end Paris mall with the world's media all in Paris to see this, this sort of second wave of attacks being planned. And fortunately, they got information leading them to the Statehouse, otherwise I think this could have totally traumatized France.

PEREIRA: Absolutely. All right. Paul Cruickshank, thank you so much for all of the latest information.

Spider Marks, Thank you for the analysis. It's great to see both of you. Happy Thanksgiving. We will talk again.

MARKS: Happy Thanksgiving, folks.

PEREIRA: Thanks. You, too.

Let's get over to Chris.

CUOMO: All right. If this seventeen-year-old was shot a year in Chicago, why is there outrage now? It's because the video just came out. That's why. The police just released it, and it shows this kid getting shot 16 times in 15 seconds.

So what is behind the timing? We discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PEREIRA: Russian officials now saying Turkey's shooting down Russian jet was a "planned provocation" but saying they're not willing to go to war. How will Vladimir Putin respond this ongoing crisis?

Here to discuss all of this, CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour.

Interesting, just even from yesterday when we spoke to you, so many new developments. I was looking. It's believed that this is a first time a NATO country has shot down by Russian plane.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, the statistic yesterday was that it's the first time since 1952 the Russian or Soviet...

PEREIRA: Right.

AMANPOUR: ...jet had this kind of engagement with the NATO country.

PEREIRA: This is significant.

AMANPOUR: Yes, it is significant. But the equal significant is the fact that neither side wants to escalate, and that was the message out of the emergency NATO meeting yesterday.

PEREIRA: That's good.

AMANPOUR: Very good. Obviously, you know, the Russians are putting out sort of noise that they're moving missiles and defense, but they've already got them in Syria...

PEREIRA: Right.

AMANPOUR: ...frankly. That was the news before they even put their troops on the ground in their new base, which has led to all of this Russian escalation -- that they have defense systems.

The question is really how will eventually Russia respond. Most people do not believe that Russia wants to go to war with NATO, which is it would be. However, the former U. S. ambassador to Russia tweeted yesterday -- basically, I'm paraphrasing -- it will be tomorrow, it won't be next week, I don't know when it'll be, it might not be militarily, the Russia will respond somehow.

So it's already started ramping up bombing, according to reports from the ground, of these anti-Assad forces. So, you know, maybe that's what it's going to do, just sort of try to obliterate all the forces that, I don't know, the U.S. and others are trying to support there.

PEREIRA: Well, and that's the problem, right? Because we seem to feel that the big foe is ISIS, but does this pull our eyes from the ball? Because this is a distraction, an important one to pay attention to.

AMANPOUR: See, here's the problem. While everybody gives lip service to the main foe being ISIS, most of the coalition led by the United States, France, obviously does believe that ISIS is the target to be defeated right now. Russia doesn't. Russia believes that actually the main thing is to keep Assad in power...

PEREIRA: And that's where the U.S. is at odds with them.

AMANPOUR: Yes, and also Turkey obviously believes that Assad have to be defeated because otherwise ISIS won't be defeated.

One of the most interesting sort of push backs against Russia yesterday by presidents Hollande and Obama was that they reject Russia's claim that if you just help Assad his forces can be liberated to fight ISIS.

That ain't happening. Assad is not fighting ISIS. Assad is simply defending himself and trying to gather his troops. And he has a little rump statelet that's left, which Russia is supporting.

So the idea that everybody thinks so, why don't we just get Russia on board, and, you know, we can fight ISIS. Well, as yet, Russia hasn't actually been really front and center in the fight against ISIS.

PEREIRA: So essentially, we have two coalitions.

AMANPOUR: Well, yes, and that's the real problem.

PEREIRA: Right? And that's Russia and then the US coalition.

AMANPOUR: That is very, very problematic. And with different objectives.

And everybody we've been talking to obviously, since the Paris attacks, and since, you know, people's minds have been more concentrated on what has to happen in Syria, have said first and foremost, we have to have one strategy, and right now we have two, and maybe two-and-a-half, three strategies. And so it's a real problem.

PEREIRA: So that's the conversations that are happening now with world leaders. We know the President Hollande has already met with Obama. We know that he is set to meet with others, and specifically, perhaps one of the most interesting and important ones is meeting with Vladimir Putin.

So here, is he going to try to make the case for unanimity in this fight, or is that a lost cause?

AMANPOUR: Well, it really mustn't be a lost cause, because otherwise, you know, nothing's going to get done. And what you heard yesterday from President Obama and President Hollande was that, "Russia is the outlier." It's like Russian and Iran and Assad and United States and all the others trying to -- trying to, you know, lead their own coalition.

So you probably -- the readout probably will be that Hollande will tell Russia that we have to act in concert. We have to get this thing done together. But, you know, they don't believe in the word "coalition," because Russia's not NATO and because Russia has such a different view of the situation on the ground. But yes, the fact that there's many objectives going on.

But I will say what's interesting. You heard President Hollande go much more in detail than President Obama did, and he basically said we have to step up targeting. He specifically said our priority is to deny ISIS the territory they have -- to systematically take away their territory. But he also started talking about closing the Syria-Turkey border.

PEREIRA: Border, yes.

AMANPOUR: And so a lot of people who I'm talking to, quite a few former NATO officials, including U.S. officials linked with NATO, believes there needs to be a no-fly zone over that border, which will, you know, sort of make sure that border doesn't become a place of conflict, try to stop terrorism going back and forth.

PEREIRA: Right.

AMANPOUR: And try to allow local forces and civilians some protection to then fight the battle on the ground in Syria.

PEREIRA: Well, there's certainly several high-level meetings that are taking place, and we'll watch them, and we'll get your analysis going forward.

Thanks so much for being with us.

AMANPOUR: Thank you.

PEREIRA: All right.

A lot of news to get to. Let's do it.