Return to Transcripts main page

CNN TONIGHT

Obama, Netanyahu Face Off; Fatal Shooting by LAPD Sparks Controversy; SNL Takes on ISIS

Aired March 2, 2015 - 22:00   ET

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


DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: You just saw "360" special report, "The Isis Threat." But you may be surprised to see what has some people really outraged when it comes to ISIS.

This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon and we want to know what you think of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Looks like your ride is here. You be careful, OK?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dad, it's just ISIS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Everybody is laughing about that sketch from "Saturday Night Live." But it's more shocking to a lot of people than anything Dakota Johnson does in "50 Shades of Grey."

But why shouldn't ISIS be fair game for jokes? Are there just some things that you just can't say? And who gets to decide that?

I'm going to talk with two men who couldn't disagree more.

Plus, caught on camera. Los Angeles Police shoot and kill a homeless man that they say tried to grab an officer's gun. But is this case as simple as it looks?

I'm going to talk to an eyewitness.

And Benjamin Netanyahu is speaking to Congress tomorrow whether President Obama likes it or not. What does the Israeli prime minister really want and will he get it?

We're going to get into all of that tonight. Again, thanks for joining us. But I want to begin with a deeply divided relationship between America and Israel.

For two countries that are supposed to be allies, things are pretty chilly right now and the White House is trying to get out in front of Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress tomorrow.

President Obama is saying he and the prime minister had a, quote, "substantial disagreement over Iran."

White House correspondent Michelle Kosinski is here. She joins us now with more.

Good evening, Michelle. Both Secretary of State John Kerry and Marie Harf expressed concern that Prime Minister Netanyahu would divulge sensitive information during his speech tomorrow.

Is there a reason to be concerned?

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Right. We heard that from the White House, too. I mean, there's a lot of concern on Capitol Hill about this. It seems like someone in the Israeli delegation has been sort of putting out these teasers that we're going to hear something tomorrow that we have not heard before.

And what's interesting is over the past couple of days we have heard some sensitive information come out. And the White House has implied that it was coming from the Israelis leaking or as the White House put it, cherry picking certain sensitive information.

The last time it was about the U.S. and other negotiators looking for a 10-year plan in the deal with Iran. And at the time when the White House was asked about that specifically, they said no, no, no, that's not really accurate. But now it turns out it does seem to be accurate, based on what President Obama has said about the negotiations today.

So no one really knows at this point what Netanyahu could let fly in terms of sensitive information. But the concern is absolutely there -- Don.

LEMON: What would the National Security adviser have to say about -- Susan Rice, about working out a deal with Iran?

KOSINSKI: It was interesting because she was the one who a few days ago was the first in the administration to really acknowledge the tension that was there between these two countries right now. I mean not in a deeper sense, but at least between the two leaders. And the awkwardness of the situation. I mean, you know, when the invite came from Republicans in the House, the White House wasn't even notified.

So she spent a good 20 minutes at the top of her speech today laying out how strong the relationship is first, kind of walking back her comments in the past couple of days where she said that partisanship is destructive to the fabric of this relationship. But then she explained the negotiating position, some of the things that the U.S. and other allies want to see from Iran, as well as being reassuring.

Here's some of what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Now I want to be very clear. A bad deal is worse than no deal. And if that is the choice, there will be no deal. (END VIDEO CLIP)

KOSINSKI: And she also addressed head on some of the Israeli's biggest fears here and some of their desires in a deal with Iran, if there would be one, things like why not make this an indefinite length of time for a deal for them to comply. Why not just sanction them and walk away. But she faced all of those saying, well, taking steps that extreme would be steps toward no deal at all. But remember, we did hear from President Obama tonight saying that right now it's more likely than not, given the West demands that Iran say no to a deal at this point -- Don.

LEMON: The president also speaking out today about the tensions with this crucial ally, Michelle?

KOSINSKI: Right. He, too, wanted to first lay out the strength of the relationship at its core, all of these shared values, the unprecedented sharing of intelligence and military, that kind of cooperation. But he also stressed that there is, as you put it earlier, this substantial disagreement.

Here's what he said the Israelis are looking for.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks that the best way to do that is either through doubling down on more sanctions or through military action ensuring that Iran has absolutely no enrichment capabilities whatsoever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOSINSKI: It was interesting to hear him say for the first time that Netanyahu's coming here at this point so close to his election is a mistake, but he called it merely a distraction in this strong relationship overall -- Don.

LEMON: Michelle Kosinski, at the White House.

Michelle, thank you very much.

I want to bring in Fareed Zakaria now, host of CNN's "FAREED ZAKARIA, GPS." "New York Times" columnist Nicholas Kristof.

Fareed, I'd like to start with you and ask you about, the president is -- Netanyahu is expected to criticize the president tomorrow in his speech, which is about getting a deal, about striking a deal with Iran for its nuclear program.

Which is a bigger threat do you think right now, Iran or ISIS?

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST, FAREED ZAKARIA GPS: You know, they're very different in nature. The threat from Iran is the threat of a major country that would acquire significant new capacity and have the ability to dominate. Let's remember, Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. It does not have

a clear path to a nuclear weapon. People have been saying for 10 or 15 years now that Iran is one year away from a nuclear weapon. So --

LEMON: Why so people say they're months away? So what is the exact figure?

ZAKARIA: Well, as I said, I've been briefed by intelligence officials both the United States and Israel and for 10 years they've been telling me they're one year away from a nuclear weapon.

ISIS is a much more immediate direct threat. Obviously on a smaller scale. So they're somewhat different ones. You've got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I think it's fair to say that the United States is certainly trying to make sure that the danger of a nuclear armed Iran is minimized as much as you can, given that -- and this is something that people forget. Iran is a very big country, very rich comparatively speaking. It's $50 billion to $60 billion of oil revenues. And nuclear technology is now 70 years old. This is not like the cutting edge stuff.

LEMON: I'm going to ask you, what about Iran helping us fight ISIS? You said it's a very rich country with lots of assets. What about Iran helping?

ZAKARIA: Well, the reports we have most recently, very recent reports are that Iran's commander of the Quds Forces, a man named Suleimani, Qassem Suleimani, has been involved in the planning and the operations to retake Tikrit, a crucial city in Iraq.

It's clear the -- you know, ISIS is a -- is a joint enemy. I don't think that there are, you know, any communications between the two. But inevitably, there is an overlap of interest, both in Iraq, by the way, and in Syria, but also in Afghanistan where they don't like the Taliban. So in a very odd way, if there were a strategic raproshma between the United States and Iran on the nuclear issue, all of a sudden it's possible that things on the ground from Iraq to Syria to Afghanistan might get a bit easier.

LEMON: Interesting. ISIS already rules over an area I think that's larger than the United Kingdom. So then how do we go about -- how should the United States and the allies go about fighting these extremists? That's a big area to rule over.

ZAKARIA: Well, remember, much of it is desert. This is a part of the world in which the towns are on the rivers. And it sounds very glamorous to talk about these vast swaths of territory. It's all empty desert.

The way you fight them fundamentally is you have to get the locals to fight them. This will not work.

Why did Mosul fall? Why did Tikrit fall?

LEMON: Is this a war for Muslim to fight? Is that what you're saying?

ZAKARIA: And it's for the Iraqis because you cannot -- Mosul is a city of I think 1.2 million, 1.3 million people. There are 2,000 ISIS fighters there. They can't hold Mosul without the fact that the locals are supporting it because they don't like the Shiite government in Baghdad, what they regarded the Shiite government.

So you've got to get that local politics right or else you send all the American troops in the world and it won't make a difference.

LEMON: You spoke to King Abdullah of Jordan about this. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING ABDULLAH II, JORDAN: Now I've said this to leaders both in the Islamic and Arab world and to the world in general, this is a third world war by other means. This brings Muslims, Christians, other religions together in this generational fight that all of us have to be in this together. So it's not a Western fight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Does the Arab world want the United States to get involved?

ZAKARIA: I think King Abdullah's view is he's weary of that. I think he knows that that would be great -- a great advertisement for ISIS, for the Islamic State. Right. They would say come, this is the great jihad, we're fighting the Americans. That's what they want. That's why they're doing these videos.

That's why they take the Christians, I think. It's all meant -- it baits to draw the West in. Because otherwise, there are local organizations that's trying to battle the local Shiites. But they want to be something much bigger.

My own view is you don't want to play their game, we want to play our game.

LEMON: Back to Benjamin Netanyahu. What are we going to hear tomorrow in his speech?

ZAKARIA: I think we're going to hear a very tough, uncompromising view on Iran nuclear issue, which is essentially a position I think that -- if you were to take Benjamin Netanyahu's negotiating position, there isn't even a ghost of a chance that there would ever be a deal. I think that no Iranian government would ever do a deal.

Remember, the nuclear program in Iran was started under the Shah of Iran at the prodding of the United States of America. So Iranian nationalism is tied with this. It's not just the Mullahs. I think that his line which is zero enrichment, as we understand it, no centrifuges, is something I can't imagine any Iranian would go for.

LEMON: Fareed Zakaria, thank you very much.

Now I want to turn now to Nicholas Kristof.

So, Nicholas, I'm going to ask you the same thing I asked him, what's the bigger threat, you think, ISIS or Iran?

NICHOLAS KRISTOF, COLUMNIST, NEW YORK TIMES: I mean, they are hard to compare in the sense that right now in Syria you have had, you know, more than 200,000 people killed, you have three million refugees. You have ISIS and -- Syria essentially a failed state.

Iran right now, I mean, people aren't dying. There is the potential of a real catastrophe. And if Iran gets nuclear weapons, then Saudi Arabia may get them as well. If there isn't a deal, we may have fighting that would have a dramatic consequences worldwide. You know, and then there's North Korea which we haven't talked about which is a greater nuclear threat than Iran. It has many more weapons.

LEMON: Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to a pro-Israeli group in D.C. And this is what he had to say about Iran. Let's watch and then we'll talk.

OK. When you get it, let me know, please.

A poll of Americans showed -- published in December, here's what it found. It found that 51 percent of Republicans want the United States to lean forward, you know, with Israel, on Israel, but only 17 percent of Democrats agree.

Why do you think that support for Israel's government went from a bipartisan issue and then it became a Republican issue?

KRISTOF: You know, I think it's fascinating that Netanyahu has essentially taken this strong bipartisan relationship between two countries and turned it into a relationship between the Republican Party and the Likud Party. And, you know, the upshot is that increasingly because of Netanyahu's hardlined policies, the upshot is that the strongest base of support for the Israeli government is not American Jews, but rather American evangelicals.

LEMON: Interesting.

KRISTOF: Which is a remarkable turnabout.

LEMON: Here's Benjamin Netanyahu. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I plan to speak about an Iranian regime that is threatening to destroy Israel, that's devouring country after country in the Middle East, that's exporting terror throughout the world, and that is developing, as we speak, the capacity to make nuclear weapons. Lots of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So if everyone is divided -- I mean, he has a right to be concerned about Iran, right? KRISTOF: Absolutely.

LEMON: But if everyone is divided, does this do any good for anyone, Israel or America? Or no one?

KRISTOF: Well, I mean, Netanyahu is going to make -- there are valid criticisms he made of what appears to be the emerging deal with Iran. And there are, you know, legitimate concerns. Netanyahu is a very flawed messenger partly because he objected to the earlier deal and partly because he doesn't offer an alternative.

LEMON: Right.

KRISTOF: And if we do not go ahead with a deal, then do we want a military solution? Do we want Iran to go back to enriching up to 20 percent and more? You know, so certainly it's very valid to have objection to the proposed nuclear deal. I'm not sure that Netanyahu is the one to make it. And he does add this polarizing partisanship to everything that he does.

LEMON: A number of top Democrats including the vice president won't be attending the speech. Do you think that they should? Do you think Congress, everyone should attend this speech?

KRISTOF: You know, I mean, I think if I -- I would certainly be to attend -- I think the idea of staying away -- it seems to me they may as well go and listen to a foreign leader. But I do object to the way -- when you have Netanyahu speaking, everybody sort of wants to jump up every minute and applaud wildly as if he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's just feels to me a little bit overdone.

LEMON: Fareed wants to say something.

Go ahead, Fareed.

ZAKARIA: I just think it's -- this is a very bad precedent. I don't disagree with anything Nick said. But the idea that when the opposing party for the president controls the Congress that they would invite in a chief critic of the president's foreign policy, I think Robert Kagan in the "Washington Post" made a wonderful point.

What if it would have been like if the Democrats had invited Jacques Chirac of France to come at a Joint Session of Congress to bash George Bush just before the Iraq war. But what would it be like if, you know, Congress had invited critics of President Reagan from around the world, of whom there were dozens and dozens of heads of state to give these Joint Sessions.

It's a terrible precedent that John Boehner has set and it will -- I hope it will not be taken --

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: But can -- so then can him coming here to speak, can it backfire? KRISTOF: I think in some ways it already has. And you know, this

relationship is tenuous and within Israel there is growing criticism of Netanyahu which makes it all the stranger that the American politicians are embracing him so torridly.

LEMON: Yes. Thank you, Fareed. Thank you, Nick.

KRISTOF: Thank you.

LEMON: Appreciate it.

We've got a lot more on the story to come. When we come right back, fears that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may disclose sensitive information in his speech tomorrow. Would he really do that?

Plus, the "SNL" sketch that's got a lot of people up in arms. But if you don't laugh at this, do the terrorists win?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Looks like your ride is here. You be careful, OK?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dad, it's just ISIS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Israel's prime minister now just hours away from addressing Congress. The White House expressing concern tonight that Benjamin Netanyahu will disclose sensitive details about the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.

I'm joined now by Alan Dershowitz, emeritus professor of law at Harvard University and the author of "Terror Tunnels." Now available on e-books. And Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street.

Good evening.

Alan, first. Secretary of State John Kerry expressed concern that Prime Minister Netanyahu would divulge sensitive information during his speech tomorrow. You have a close relationship with the prime minister. Do you think that he'll give away classified information?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF LAW AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY: No, of course not. He knows how to keep a secret. What they're really worried about in the administration is that he'll make an effective case against the deal.

Look, if he were coming here to favor the deal the way David Cameron was sent to the Senate to favor the deal, the White House would be thrilled even if it was the day before the election.

The protocol issue is not nearly as important as the substantive issue. This is the most important foreign policy decision of the 21st century. Every Congressman should come and listen with open ears and an open mind to what the prime minister has to say. And I would invite my friend Jeremy to urge the congressmen who are staying away, 70 percent of whom were supported by J Street, to come and listen and then they can disagree.

LEMON: OK.

DERSHOWITZ: After they've heard both sides of the issue.

Jeremy, will you urge the congressmen that you supported to come and listen?

JEREMY BEN-AMI, PRESIDENT, J STREET: Well, you know, I don't think that it's my place to tell them what to do. Each of them is going to make up their own mind. The issue here is really what is the best approach to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And that's the discussion we need to be having. And the question of who goes to the speech and who doesn't I think is really secondary.

The question is, has the prime minister found the right timing for the speech. Has he found the right venue. Is this -- is the way to make his case. And in fact I would agree with Nick Kristof, who said before the break that in a way he's sort of set back his own cause because the very people that he's trying to convince of the substance of his argument on behalf of the state of Israel and its security are the very people he irritated enough that they're not going to show up.

LEMON: But Jeremy --

BEN-AMI: But they're not be open to what he has to say.

LEMON: Is it, as Alan says, that the -- the fear here is that they might make a compelling case rather than, you know, it's an election and they're concerned that he should not be here before an election?

BEN-AMI: Well, you know, the interesting thing is I don't -- I don't think there's a member of Congress that actually isn't familiar with the case that the prime minister is trying to make. It's been pretty well covered and documented. He's a frequent guest on the Sunday talk shows. He's had plenty of meetings with every single member of Congress and of the Senate. And there's more than enough contact between his team and all the folks on the Hill.

So I don't think this is a question of this is his only unique opportunity to make the case and I don't think that that's what the speech is actually all about.

DERSHOWITZ: But I think this really is an opportunity to do it at this point in time. What I'm very worried about is the administration is saying it's too early. We don't know enough about the deal. But as soon as the deal is made they're going to say it's too late.

There has to be an opportunity for there to be a great debate. Congress has the full authority on the Constitution as the coequal branch of the government to disagree with foreign policy decisions. That's why I feel fundamentally disagree with what was said in your earlier segment by another guest who -- when he said it was a terrible precedent.

LEMON: Fareed Zakaria.

DERSHOWITZ: To invite somebody you disagree -- yes. It's a great precedent. I wished it happened more often. I wish more Congress people would invite people who disagree with the administration. That's what our system of checks and balances is all about. Congress should hear opposing points of view --

LEMON: But, Alan -- but isn't there a certain -- isn't there a certain protocol that you must take, especially when you're dealing with sensitive issues like foreign policy that you should --

DERSHOWITZ: Well, does the White House -- does the White House check first with the speaker of the House before they invite somebody to a state visit?

LEMON: Well, the person who is in the White House is the leader of the free world and are dealing with issues and sensitive information --

DERSHOWITZ: No. No. That's --

LEMON: Hold on, let me finish.

DERSHOWITZ: That exactly was wrong.

LEMON: Sensitive information that many people may not have access to.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, that's exactly what's wrong. The president is not the leader of the free world. The United States is the leader of the free world, the United States government is divided between coequal branches. Congress has as much power. Congress was elected more recently. It may have a greater mandate.

The idea that the president makes decisions on foreign policy without being checked and balanced by Congress is a mistake of constitutional dimensions.

LEMON: All right. Let's Jeremy get in.

DERSHOWITZ: We have to make sure we undo that mistake and that Congress has full authority to check and balance and criticize presidential deals.

LEMON: OK. Go ahead.

BEN-AMI: I do think there was a tradition, though, of politics stopping at the water's edge. And I think there was something to that, and it helped for a very long period of time in this country's history that these kinds of disagreements are well and good. But when it comes to foreign policy we do speak with one voice.

And I think that all that this required would have been some coordination between the speaker and the ambassador of Israel and the White House to figure out how to do this and when to do it, and do it in a way that didn't inject, even if it's just the appearance of partisan agendas in the middle of this which means that you don't have the discussion about the actual deal that Alan himself wants to have.

(CROSSTALK)

DERSHOWITZ: And let's have that discussion. Remember we don't speak with one voice. Senator Menendez, a liberal Democrat, is very, very questionable about this deal. The "Washington Post" is very concerned about this deal. David Brooks of the "The New York Times" is concerned about this deal.

BEN-AMI: There are a lot of concern.

DERSHOWITZ: The Saudis are concerned about this deal. Let's have a great debate. Every congressman go and listen to the prime minister of Israel, then make up your mind. But don't make up your mind before you've listened to an important voice on this issue. That's what I just urge everybody --

(CROSSTALK)

BEN-AMI: You know, there's something in what you're saying, Alan, but I also think it's very important that we do actually see what the deal is going to be. I don't think it's too late once there is a deal to actually debate the merits of the deal.

DERSHOWITZ: Let's make sure --

(CROSSTALK)

BEN-AMI: The White House is saying, you know we are going to take the toughest possible stand we can here in the last few weeks, we're going to get the maximum amount of concessions that we can't. We can't talk about the sensitive negotiations happening right now.

So let's see where they end up, let's have that debate, which I think is totally reasonable because this is so important and such a sensitive matter.

LEMON: All right.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: We're having a debate right here. They should have it in Washington as well. That's going to have to be the last word.

Thank you, Alan. Thank you, Jeremy. I appreciate it.

BEN-AMI: OK. Thank you.

DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.

LEMON: A deadly police shooting in Los Angeles. Police say a man was killed after reaching for an officer's gun. A witness caught the violent confrontation on camera. I'm going to talk to him next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: A Los Angeles Police Department defending officers who shot and killed a man following a violent street confrontation. The police says the man tried to grab an officer's gun.

The incident was caught on camera as you can see and we're showing it to you. But the video may be disturbing to some viewers.

Here's CNN's Kyung Lah.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KYUNG LAH, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is how the fatal confrontation ends, captured by Anthony Blackburn on his cell phone.

ANTHONY BLACKBURN, WITNESS TO LAPD SHOOTING: I heard officers saying, he's going for -- he's going for my gun. And that's when the officers backed up and five shots were hanged out.

LAH: But we're learning now, how this unfolded. Video from an overhead security camera obtained by CNN and seen for the first time today reveals a more complex picture. The surveillance video shows the man known among L.A.'s homeless as Africa, apparently dealing drugs from his tent. He gets into a fight with a man in the orange tent next to him violently, tipping the tent and kicking the man. About 25 minutes pass on the video before a number of officers arrive and at first, they talk calmly to Africa. When Africa dives into his tent, officers draw their weapons. About 30 seconds later, Africa comes out swinging at police. On Anthony Blackburn's video you can hear the sound as officers use their tasers which police say doesn't subdue him. You then hear an officer saying Africa is reaching for his gun.

(CROSSTALK)

LAH: Homeless Africa died on the sidewalk outside a shelter. Union Rescue Mission Andy Bales doesn't blame the LAPD who in a news conference showed pictures of the officer's gun, proof they say shows a struggle over the weapon. The chief of police says officers did all they could given the circumstances.

CHARLIE BECK, LAPD CHIEF OF POLICE: The reality is this is much more than a problem that the police alone can solve.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LAH: Two of the police -- a two of the officers were wearing body cameras. That video was not released yet. The police chief here in Los Angeles saying that that video will eventually be released once the probe is complete. But Don, something we should point out is that those officers were wearing the body cameras as part of a pilot program here in Los Angeles. The mayor of the city pledges that eventually every single office in this city, about 7,000 of them will eventually be wearing those body cameras, Don.

LEMON: It's interesting to see the video, thank you, Kyung Lah. And Anthony Blackburn witnessed the shooting and was in Kyung's report, he joins us now. Since we don't have the body camera video but -- I mean, you caught -- got it from the very beginning. Anthony, you were there. What did you see?

BLACKBURN: What I saw, you know, what everybody saw on the video, you know, the officer shot him with the taser once and then shot him with the taser the second time. You can hear them pulling the trigger on the taser and electricity going through his body and once he fell to the ground and the officers, I thought they was just going to handcuff him. And once, you know, I heard the officer screaming saying, he's going for my gun, and I just heard the -- you know, I just witnessed right there in the front of my face, the gun shots ranged out.

LEMON: Did you see the man go for the officer's gun as the officer said?

BLACKBURN: No, I didn't actually see the man going for the officer's gun, because it was so many officers around him. I didn't see that. You know, that probably was another side view or something like that. I didn't see that from my actual angle.

LEMON: What got your attention? Why did you start filming in the first place?

BLACKBURN: What got my attention is that, you know, they was ready to -- well they had already had he pause right there so -- you know, because they, I guess, apparently they were pursuing a suspect. So I stopped and once they said they were going to tase him, I just took out my phone and started filming.

LEMON: Yeah. We can hear in the background, after the altercation happened and you see them, you know, putting up the police tape, that they're screaming and there are people screaming at the officers. It sounds like a mob, a whole horde of people. How many people were out there and what were they saying to these officers? What happened?

BLACKBURN: Well, you know, it was profanity, it was ringing out and you know, they was like you killed that man, you just killed that man, and you know -- you know the man just -- I watched the man take his last breath right there. You know, he was dead.

LEMON: Anthony Blackburn, thank you.

BLACKBURN: Yes, sir.

LEMON: Up next, I'm going to ask two former police officers what they see when they look at the video of the deadly confrontation. And also ahead, Saturday Night Live did they cross a line with this clarity (ph) of a car commercial. A dad drops off his daughter not to join the army but to join this. You'll see.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take care of her.

(LAUGHTER) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Death to America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Fatal police shooting in Los Angeles, caught on camera, and the video is disturbing. But what can we learn from watching it? Joining me now is Neill Franklin, he is a retired state police major and Tom Verni, a retired NYPD detective. Tom, you first, so you heard from my last guest, he talked about the same questions arise every time there's a police-involved shooting. Why couldn't they have shot this guy in the leg or so that he became immobile rather than killing him?

TOM VERNI, FORMER NYPD DETECTIVE, POLICE ACADEMY INSTRUCTOR: I think the odds of shooting him in the leg would probably be the odds of someone shooting the last standing hair on my head. You know, in an ideal situation you would like to shoot someone in the kneecap and disable them. But, quite frankly police officers are trained to shoot generally in center mass which is to stop the threat of whatever is occurring at the time and that's predominant across the police departments, across in the United States. So state like common, especially the city likes L.A. where the training is similar to New York.

LEMON: Neill, the police commissioner saying that the threat was, that the -- they believe the suspect was going for the officer's gun. You can hear the officer is saying, drop the gun, and the man wasn't armed. But what was your reaction when you heard that?

NEILL FRANKLIN, RETIRED MARYLAND STATE POLICE MAJOR: Yeah. Obviously, he was not that armed so the only thing that I thought of was that he was going for the officer's gun or at least the officer thought he was going for his gun. I hate to be in this position of Monday morning quarterbacking. So, you know, in generally speaking to this, we have a long way to go with training. We had four officers trying to subdue this particular individual who obviously had some mental health issues, as many of our homeless population do. You know, in corrections, we train our corrections folk to subdue people and how to collectively take down someone and restrain them. It was very problematic in this scene here, I saw two officers trying to subdue, trying to restrain, and two were kind of standing up just kind of like reaching for the gentleman's legs. We need to do better training here in this scenario.

LEMON: OK.

FRANKLIN: This happens quite a bit.

LEMON: I'm sure you agree that better training -- can always use more training, but four officers to take one person down is that -- that's not unusual is it? Is it too much for it?

VERNI: No. I was in situations where --

FRANKLIN: No -- VERNI: We had six or eight officers trying to take down someone half

the size of myself and I'm not that big of a guy so --

LEMON: Whenever we have -- whenever we have this people say, you should -- he tried to grab the officer's gun, that's what they're going to say. You should comply with a police officer, what do you make of that assessment? If he had never resisted or gone for the officer's gun, this would not have happened.

VERNI: Oh yeah. Well, we've seen this play out in other incidents that's occurred within the last year that have been pretty newsworthy where people are not complying with the police, that's one issue. Here, you have someone who may have mental health issues, and whenever you're dealing with someone with mental health issues, right off the value, dealing with a set of circumstances that's going to completely unpredictable. And I'm sure the doctor could probably collaborate that you know, during the process of the institutionalization that's occurred with less of couple of decades, you have a number of people that are out on the street that -- you know, possibly some of them should be locked up into some long term care. But they're out on the street because at some point a decision was made that their issues could be handled throughout patient on medication.

LEMON: Does the location of the call impact the officer's mine set, when they were actually in the scene, because you heard Neill say, you know, this is in -- we say it, Skid Row, right where it happened. People have mental health issues -- he had a mental health issue. Does that affect you think -- where it happens?

VERNI: Oh, yeah. Anytime you can respond to a location, let's say, a homeless shelter or places of Skid Row like this way and I've been through L.A. and I've seen this area, you know, you're definitely going the take extra precautions knowing that very likely one or more people you're going to be dealing with are going to have some sort of mental illness that may or may not be treated at that time. And in accordance with my experience, you have people who have a mental illness, they're supposedly on medication. Many times they are not on medications for one reason or another, and on top of that, they are using some sort of illegal drugs or alcohol, but just exacerbate the whole situation, not they're really amped up.

LEMON: Hey Neill, I want to talk to you about -- about body cameras, because Los Angeles they try them, they want them now to every officer to have one. There are several officers there who had the sort of experimental ones that they're working on. Is that going to make a difference in this case? We have it on video from the gentleman you saw earlier. Will this make a difference?

FRANKLIN: It is possible that it will, if two officers were wearing body cams, because you're going to -- you're going to great a different perspective. And hopefully the way they're positioned on these officers, will give you kind of like the police officer's view of what was going on. One thing I fear is that they're in such close proximity to the person that they're trying to apprehend, I'm just wondering how clear the pictures will be. Hopefully, they'll get a different perspective so that we can -- we can see exactly what that perspective was from the police officers themselves.

LEMON: Let's talk about the aftermath that happened there, to both of you gentlemen. They were -- when they were putting up the police tape, one of the officers who is black was being screamed at. Let's listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, I'm heading up my hands.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's the one that killed him right there (beep). That's the one, the black (beep). The black (beep), the black (beep) killed him right there, yeah (beep). He killed (beep).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He killed him (beep). I don't why he is there. He killed him (beep). It's right there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you back up? Can you back up? Can you back up? (Beep)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: OK. So we hear that. They're being directed, that's been directed at a black officer, Neill. They're calling him everything that Uncle Tom sellout, and all kinds of other vile things. Are we getting to a point in the country where if a white officer shoots a black suspect he's a racist, if a black officer shoots a suspect then he is -- then a sellout.

FRANKLIN: I think we're not getting to their point. We are already to that point. We've been there a while with the number of police killings that we've unfortunately had over the past few months and years in this country. I mean, just think about John Crawford who was in the Walmart in Ohio, Tamir Rice who was the young teenager in the park with the pellet gun and you know, where the -- I believe the officers came in too fast too close. You know, it's case after case after case and people are frustrated. So yeah, you're going to have people shouting various things such as what you saw in the video and it's very unfortunate and we have to get along with this, going top on this, asap.

LEMON: Tom?

VERNI: Yeah, this is nothing -- this is nothing really, I mean, anything too new for those of us who have been in law enforcement for any period of time. I mean, I've worked with a number of black officers over the years and at all kinds of different demonstrations that we would be at, I would catch -- you know some heat being the white officer from folks in the black community but then, the officers standing right next to me who were black, they would catch probably just as much and maybe even more heat than I was. There would almost be demonized, but --

LEMON: You think -- you said it's worse for black officers?

VERNI: In some occasions I've seen it be as -- FRANKLIN: Oh, yes.

VERNI: Bad or worse for a black officer than it would be for a white officer.

LEMON: Why is that?

VERNI: Because there are some people I think they really believe that the officers if they are of the same race, would be black or Hispanic hat have you, that they feel that they are a sellout in some way, but they've sold out their own race by working for the police department which they feel is -- you know, kind of trampling all over them.

LEMON: I have to go quickly, Neill, last word.

FRANKLIN: Yeah, in one -- I just want the say from an incident, the management standpoint, those officers that were directly involved in that shooting, in any shooting. When other officers come on the scene, they should be removed from dealing with the public.

LEMON: All right.

FRANKLIN: I think they eventually got to it but not soon enough.

LEMON: Tom Verni, Neill Franklin, thank you very much.

FRANKLIN: Anytime.

LEMON: Saturday Night Live takes on ISIS in this sketch starring Fifty Shades of Grey, starring Dakota Johnson, but did SNL go too far and who decides what you can say and what you can't? We'll debate that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: It is the Saturday Night Live this weekend. You missed a sketch that has some people up in arms. Dakota Johnson stars as SNL takes on ISIS. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TARAN KILLIAM, ACTOR: Well, this is it. You need any help with your bag?

DAKOTA JOHNSON, ACTRESS: No, that's all right. I got it.

KILLIAM: How about some, walking around money.

JOHNSON: Dad, it's OK.

KILLIAM: OK. Just make sure to --

JOHNSON: Call you when I get there. I know.

KILLIAM: Yeah. You know, you could stay home, do another year of high school. JOHNSON: Very funny, Dad. Jokester.

KILLIAM: Well, I'll see you at thanksgiving.

JOHNSON: Yeah, I'll see you. Hey, dad?

KILLIAM: Yeah.

JOHNSON: Thanks.

KILLIAM: You got it, kiddo.

(BEEP)

KILLIAM: Looks like your ride is here.

(LAUGHTER)

KILLIAM: You'll be careful, OK?

JOHNSON: Dad, it's just ISIS.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE) KILLIAM: Take care of her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Death to America.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ISIS, we'll take it from here, dad.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, should ISIS be fair game for jokes or are there some things you just can't say and who get to decide that? Here to debate is Dean Obeidallah, he's a comedian and host of SiriusXM's The Dean Obeidallah show and Steven Bucci, director at the Allison Center for Foreign Policies Studies at the Heritage Foundation. OK so, Dean --

DEAN OBEIDALLAH, HOST, SIRIUS XM, THE DEAN OBEIDALLAH SHOW: Yes.

LEMON: Everyone laughed here --

OBEIDALLAH: Yes.

LEMON: In the studio, right? By the way, that was the star from Fifty Shades of Grey, right?

OBEIDALLAH: Yes.

LEMON: Dakota Johnson and also Taran Killiam from Saturday Night Live. Is it too soon?

OBEIDALLAH: Absolutely not, I think that we should be mocking ISIS even more than that frankly, and I'm not saying that as a comedian. I wrote an article in the Daily Beast how comedians in the Middle East, Muslim comedians in Iraq, in Lebanon, the UAE are making fun of ISIS using YouTube and on TV, and the reason why is because they want to use their skill to undermine extremism and to give people a sense of a cathartic release. They don't want people shivering in fear, they want them laughing at these people, and we know that people in ISIS don't like that.

LEMON: OK.

OBEIDALLAH: So I think it's really for -- we should be mocking them as much as possible.

LEMON: Steven, I don't think you agree with that, because you wrote -- you tweeted this, you said, "SNL ISIS skit also draw a moral equivalence between ISIS murders and the U.S. Military. That is wrong.

STEVEN BUCCI, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, first I want to say, Don, you know, I'm in favor of mocking ISIS. I think that would be wonderful. We should do it to the fullest extent. I don't think this particular skit did that. I think ISIS would have looked at it and said, "Great, this is like a commercial for us. This is exactly what we want you westerners to do. Give us your daughters and we'll take them and do something with them."

LEMON: But some people will say that you're taking it too literally.

BUCCI: Maybe so. I also and my comment in the tweet had to do with the fact that the commercial that they're spoofing had to do with a daughter going off with the American military. And here she's going off with ISIS. You're drawing a moral equivalence there which I have a big problem with in this case.

OBEIDALLAH: I don't see. It's actually a parody for a Toyota Camry commercial which uses the U.S. Military to try to sell more cars to us. But in reality and it shouldn't we be laughing at these people? Look at Mel -- Mel Brooks and the producers had Hitler...

LEMON: Right.

OEBIDALLAH: And got a lot of pushback for that. And I wrote a CNN article today...

(CROSSTALK)

OBEIDALLAH: This is so important...

LEMON: Right.

OBEIDALLAH: That we laughed at this -- at this monster. It takes a cathartically and it takes their power away --

LEMON: But what about the families? What about the families? The people who are dealing with loved ones who are going off into these horrific situations and getting -- ended up in the hands of ISIS.

OBEIDALLAH: The real focus of this is mocking ISIS on one level, but mocking people that would be taken in by the sales pitch of ISIS. It's a ransom (ph) red meat sales pitch, and we should mock this person to wake them up, that is wrong. Do not -- get sucked into ISIS.

LEMON: Steven, if we pull back on satire, isn't that taking away freedom of speech in a way?

BUCCI: Oh, absolutely. And they have a perfect right to do this. I thought it was kind of a crappy satire frankly, I didn't -- just didn't think it was funny.

LEMON: He didn't just like the joke, didn't he?

(CROSSTALK)

BUCCI: It wasn't outplays for SNL's normal standards.

LEMON: So you agree on sometimes a joke is just a joke, Steven, right?

BUCCI: Oh, of course.

LEMON: Yeah.

BUCCI: And as I just said, I think we should satirize these guys, we should mock them. I just thought this one was poorly done and could be taken the wrong way, I did, and so did a lot of other people. So I think they missed it with a lot of us.

LEMON: Good point, quick.

OBEIDELLAH: I saw, I mean, most of the Twitter pushback that I saw in my article in CNN were conservatives upset with this. I'm not sure why, there's nothing in here. Offensive to anyone except that you're going to read something in there that's not in there. Let's make fun of ISIS, let's mock people good suck (ph) in, and to their recruitment pictures, really important.

LEMON: Thank you, guys. Steven, thank you. Thank you, Dean.

BUCCI: Sure thing.

LEMON: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: That's it for us tonight, thanks for watching. I'm Don Lemon. I'll be back here tomorrow night. "AC360" starts right now.