Return to Transcripts main page

CUOMO PRIME TIME

Rayshard Brooks' Family Attorney On Atlanta Shooting; Trump Tulsa Rally Not Expected To Enforce Social Distancing Or Require Face Masks; Seattle City Council Bans Police Use Of Chokeholds And Crowd Control Weapons. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired June 15, 2020 - 21:00   ET

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


[21:00:00]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Today, an independent panel, investigating the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency's leadership concluded that they violated the Agency's own scientific integrity policy, when it put out a statement supporting the President without including input from the office in Alabama. Those officials dispute the finding.

The news continues. Want to hand it over to Chris for CUOMO PRIME TIME.

That seems a long time ago. Doesn't it, Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: Well it was. It was many - it was many tragedies ago.

But you know what? When you lie, to please power, it often violates your own set of ethical guidelines. And that's what they're dealing with at NOAA, and that's what the rest of us are dealing with every damn day.

COOPER: Yes.

CUOMO: Coop, you are the man, great to see you, Happy Monday.

I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.

I say "Happy Monday." And I wish each and every one of you a good day and a good night. But I know many of you are worried. You're sick. You're sad. You're scared. And yes, you're angry.

The pandemic has gotten boring. But that doesn't make it go away. This thing is doing exactly what a virus does. It's spreading. And we have to look at why, and remind what we can do and what will happen if we don't do it.

And while nobody out there needs or should need another example that we need to change how we treat one another, and how we police, we get the Rayshard Brooks situation, a tragic killing by any definition in Atlanta that is echoing in waves of outrage, once again, across the land. But it's not as clear a story as that of George Floyd's killing.

Thankfully, much of it is on video, so we don't get tortured by various people's takes, from officers and witnesses.

I know this video can be disturbing. But I think not paying attention to the reality is more disturbing. So, here's what we know.

Cops were called by Wendy's to remove a car from their drive-thru lane. Police come. Find an apparently intoxicated Mr. Brooks. Half an hour of peaceful dialog ensues. He's talking about his sister and where to go, and walking home.

This - this video is moving way too fast. But we're going to take you through it again, don't worry.

After they have the dialog, and they allow him to move his car, they then attempt to arrest him. Now, this is where it gets more complicated. Mr. Brooks resists. That cannot be in dispute.

The officers don't seem to know how to control him. That is a very key point for me. I'll make it in more detail later about why it matters so much to me in this situation.

Because they cannot, two of them, control one inebriated, apparently, Mr. Brooks, they go to the TASER. Brooks gets up, takes a swing at one of the officers, grabs the officer's TASER, takes off running.

I don't see that Mr. Brooks had what some describe as drug-induced super strength, that sometimes you'll hear discussed. I see poor technique, and that matters in this analysis.

If you can't do your job using minimal force, you wind up using more and more force. Hence, two officers, not being able to control in a struggle, that anybody who's had any measure of fight-training sees they don't know what they're doing on the ground with this man.

They don't. I'm sorry. No disrespect to police. I have high regard for how many of you do the job, men and women. This is not good technique.

They then use the TASER, because they could not control him. He then gets the TASER and then what you happen see here ensues. He gets away from two officers, because they don't know how to restrain him. He takes off. The officer then shoots toward Brooks and hits him, OK?

Now, did he have the TASER? Yes. Did he appear to reach behind his shoulder and shoot at the Officer, as he was running away? Yes. The officer is Garrett Rolfe, R-O-L-F-E. Rolfe is chasing a man who's running away, and shoots him twice in the back.

Yes, Brooks resisted. Yes, he hit a cop, and got their TASER, and took off and, arguably, tried to use it. He was also shot multiple times, while running away, by police, who knew who he was and where he lived.

And one key point. That what he was pointing at them was not a gun. Because they had already searched him, and knew he did not have a gun. And yet, this is going to be heartbreak all across the board, and already is. And the question once again looms above us, what is justice.

[21:05:00]

The Police Chief stepped down Saturday. The officer who shot Brooks may be charged any day. The Brooks family, once again, crushed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GYMACO BROOKS, RAYSHARD BROOKS' COUSIN: You people that are looking around the world and you have your feelings, before it happened to us, I can only guess at what you felt. But now, I understand.

Life shouldn't be this complicated. Life shouldn't be where we have to feel some type of way if we see a police or somebody of a different color.

We're going to have to bury him. We're going to have to say, "We miss you." And if we didn't say we love you enough, we've got to apologize to him for not telling him that we loved him that much.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) they took my cousin, man. They sure - I can't breathe. I got to go. I have to go. You all - you all took my cousin from me. I want you all to know that you all took my cousin from me, you all took him (INAUDIBLE). That wasn't the first (INAUDIBLE) because he wasn't no drug dealer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All we do is just watch now, right? There's nothing to say. There's nothing to understand.

You know exactly what that family is going through now. You've seen it so many times. They don't understand. This doesn't make any sense to them. They don't break it down in some type of points for and against.

And there just doesn't seem to be any answer. Hopefully, what we're getting is a will to have an answer, a will to see it as something more than another episode and a horror story.

Justin Miller is an Attorney for Rayshard Brooks' family.

Counselor, thank you for taking this opportunity to represent the family's perspective on this situation.

JUSTIN MILLER, ATTORNEY FOR RAYSHARD BROOKS' FAMILY: Thank you for having me, Chris.

CUOMO: Counselor, a little bit of a macro point. When you look at this situation, what is this case about for you?

MILLER: This is hard. The video, you just showed, I mean, living that. It brought me to tears. And I do this for a living.

But to answer your question, to me, it's about his daughters and his son. It's about that 8-year-old girl who had that dress on, on Saturday, waiting for her father to take her to the skating rink. It's about a wife who's never going to see her husband again, and

didn't get to tell him how she felt, and different things she wanted to express to him that - that she'll never be able to express.

It's about cousins and aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews, and - and a lot of people who loved him who will never get to see him again.

So, justice - justice is a hard thing to really fully put your - put your hands around. And, in this one, I - really, all of them, but in this one, right now, I don't know if we'll ever be able to say we really got it.

CUOMO: You and I learned that justice is defined as fairness under law. There is no fairness when somebody is gone. There is no balancing of the equities because the life can never be given back.

What do you think is the reason this happened? You both - you and I both know there are complications in this case.

MILLER: Right.

CUOMO: What is your analysis of why Mr. Brooks died?

MILLER: I think it's a - it's a combination of what you were talking about earlier before I came on. Yes, it does have something to do with the way Mr. Brooks reacted in the situation.

But it also has a lot to do with the police officers' training. I think they're trained to be more militarized than they need to be, and then they're placed in communities with people that they don't know.

So, these two officers, you know, I don't know them personally. But I just don't believe they lived in that community, or they - or they've been in that community and hung out there or went to church there.

And I don't believe their children went to school there. You know, I would wager that those officers' first contact with that community is when they became police officers. And I could be wrong, but that's usually how it is.

And, in Atlanta, in like other cities, you know, there are different pockets of people. And before you police a pocket of people, you should have to do 100 hours, at least, of community service, so you know the people you're around.

CUOMO: Why does it matter?

MILLER: Because if they need--

CUOMO: Why does it matter, Justin? Why does that matter?

[21:10:00]

What's the pushback? The pushback point is, "No, they're there to enforce the law. And that's what they do. And it's not personal. It's not a - this isn't about palling around." What's the counterpoint?

MILLER: Well, I mean, 90 percent of the time, the interactions with police officers are not something that they need to go and crack somebody's head. I mean there are a lot of interactions with police that--

CUOMO: Like this one.

MILLER: --that end perfectly, just like this one.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: They spoke for half an hour to this guy. They let him move his car.

You know, if you thought he was drunk, you know, you probably shouldn't have let him move the car. But they - they, you know, because if you're going to arrest him for being inebriated, you should have figured it out in a half hour, you know.

So, he moves the car. They talk to him. It's all good. He wants to walk home. He wants to walk to his sisters. The guy's "Sister pick me up." Then they decide to arrest him.

MILLER: Correct.

CUOMO: Now, this is going to come down to perception on what they had to use, what force they needed to use.

He definitely resists. No question about it. Rayshard Brooks was wrong to resist. You're not supposed to. It is de facto illegal unless your life were in threat in that moment. And it's a tough bar to make, as we both know.

MILLER: Right.

CUOMO: So, building that in, what was the right thing for police officers to do with a Rayshard Brooks resisting?

MILLER: Well, it depends on what point you're talking about. So, after the scuffle, I believe the right thing to do was to try to catch him, right? And if you can't catch him, then you can't shoot him, because you can't catch up to him like--

CUOMO: Now, let's talk about why, Justin, because we take this stuff for granted.

MILLER: Sure.

CUOMO: This is not about him. I don't know Justin. This is not about how we feel about it. It is for him. It should be. He's representing the family.

This is the standard of in the State of Georgia, when an officer can use this type of force that was used. Put it up on the screen, please. This, I know you know it, Justin. But this is just for the people at home.

"Peace officers may use deadly force," deadly force, OK, "to apprehend a suspected felon," apprehend means what you think, capture, "only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon," now here they knew he did not, because they had already searched him.

MILLER: Right.

CUOMO: And he had no gun on him. "Oh, but he had the TASER."

MILLER: Damn right.

CUOMO: The police do not consider it a deadly weapon. It is intermediate force.

"Or any object, device, or instrument, which when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury."

Now, we highlighted that part of it. Does the TASER - now, there's a secondary analysis also.

So, if it's not about the weapon, if they believe that he's committed a serious crime, that involves the infliction of, or threatened infliction, of serious physical harm, they may do that too.

That is a very tough legal standard that does not apply here. I don't believe they have a reasonable case to make, these officers. They let him move the car. They talked to him for half an hour.

If they thought he had just killed somebody, or was going to kill someone, when they intercepted him, they shouldn't have handled it this way from jump. So, let's put that to the side.

The TASER, beating, not even beating them up, escaping from them, right, because they just didn't know what they were doing on the ground, Justin. I don't know what your experience is with that kind of training.

Two officers should be able to hold down one guy who does not seem that he's cranked up on meth, or on crack, or on anything like that that sometimes, anecdotally, people say make someone super-strong. I don't see it.

He runs away, points the TASER at them, tries to fire it. Does that trigger, no pun intended, does that spring their ability to use the force they did?

MILLER: I don't think it does. And if you look at the video closely, the officer dropped his TASER, and put his hand on his gun before Mr. Brooks turned around with that TASER, and - and just randomly shot it in the air.

CUOMO: What does that mean to you?

MILLER: So, he already was going there. He was already going to lethal force.

He was already going to shoot him in the back before any of that stuff with Mr. Brooks happened. So, I think he's going to use that as a defense. But if you look at the tape, you'll see he was already headed in that direction.

CUOMO: And it's important for people to do this. Who shoots somebody in the back?

We saw this with Walter Scott. Now there, the officer didn't know there was video, lied about the episode, and then somebody else, the bystander in South Carolina showed us the video.

Someone who shoots somebody else in the back generally is an enraged human being. They're so angry that they shoot at the person, even though the person no longer presents a threat. That's not a police officer.

A police officer is trained to de-escalate. The officer is allowed to use force that Justin and I can't use unless our life is reasonably in jeopardy, because they're given an assumption of knowing how to use that power.

The Chief is gone. One of the officers was fired. The other is on desk duty.

The prosecutor was on with Anderson, and seemed to have I - I've, frankly, I've never heard a prosecutor, before any charges come down speak in as harsh tones as I heard this prosecutor.

[21:15:00]

If there are charges, what charges do the family believe are warranted?

MILLER: The family's not (INAUDIBLE) both officers to be charged. That's part of what they've been saying the entire time. But they're definitely going to let the D.A.'s Office make that decision.

CUOMO: OK. So, they're just watching the situation. They just wanted to be treated in all seriousness, and whatever the system says, that means they'll watch.

Justin Miller, thank you. Please send our condolences to the family. I'm very sorry that they've become relevant in this way.

MILLER: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: God bless and thank you for doing the job.

MILLER: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: All right, look, we'll follow it. We'll see what happens. We'll go through the analyses. We'll do some more, later in this show. This is not an easy case.

It's not George Floyd, why, because them arguing that Floyd resisted is not supported by anything that we have seen. Now, they're hiding the body camera video. They can, under law. I don't mean to ascribe any animus on that.

But here, we have video, and someone is resisting. But then he is running away. And that could very easily change the legal analysis for the prosecutors. All right, there's one problem.

Now, another problem, the pandemic is doing what we thought it would do. We're not getting the summer off.

So now, the President gives what message to this country? "No mask. Social distancing, masks, optional. You don't want to wear one? You do want to - you don't want to keep anybody else safe? Fine. Come to the Trump Rally in Tulsa," inside what he hopes will be a record-setting crowd.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta looks at what that could mean, and why Tulsa's top doctor is very worried, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, where are we with the death toll from Coronavirus? Well, in terms of cases, we're going to be well into the millions.

In terms of deaths, it could surpass 201,000 by October, according to one new model. It's 30,000 more than was projected just last week, why? We're not doing the right things where and when it matters.

Here's the trend, 18 states rising in numbers. The South is a blanket of red, including Oklahoma. That's where the President is going to be this weekend for his Tulsa rally.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta joins me now.

The first point of pushback, Sanjay, is "Look man, this is what the virus does. It spreads. This is what we expected. Why do we have to be in a sense of panic about it all the time?"

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Look at other countries around the world, Chris. I mean, we've had 600 people die in the last 24 hours. Have we gotten used to that? That's more people than have died during this entire pandemic in other countries.

They don't have a therapeutic. They don't have a vaccine. We didn't have - this didn't have to happen, this sense of inevitability, right, that I think you're describing that I think a lot of people have sort of resigned themselves to, it's not inevitable.

It's a pain. Yes, this is tough. This is Mother Nature sort of fighting back, I guess, in some ways. But this did not have to happen, when you - when you cite these numbers of millions of people get infected, hundreds of thousands of people going to die.

By the way, that IHME (ph) model that you just cited, 200,000 people would die by October 1st, I believe, they say, keep in mind, Chris, you know, back in, when we were talking about this in April, they were saying 60,000 people would die by August 4th.

That was the model then. We're almost - we're twice that, essentially now, and it's the middle of June. So, not only are we doing bad we're doing far worse than even the models suggested at the time.

CUOMO: Then why would the President do what he's doing, Sanjay?

GUPTA: So, this isn't inevitable--

CUOMO: Because look, you don't have any better data than his guys do, right? I mean, they're the ones studying all this at the CDC.

He's having his Rally in Tulsa. Forget about the optics of where he's going to do it, and when he's going to do it. But "No mask, mask optional, social distancing, not necessary, let's pack it in, and let's have record numbers," why is that OK, like who's telling him that's OK?

GUPTA: It's not OK. No, I can't imagine anyone is telling him this is OK. I mean, you heard Vice President Pence sort of justifying it today. But I think even he was sort of searching for the language to make this OK. Nobody is saying this is OK.

Let me show you the, you know, the CDC, they'd put risk factors on different kinds of gatherings, right? As you might guess, a virtual gathering is going to be the lowest risk.

The gathering that we're talking about here is the highest risk, right? 20,000 capacity, I believe, in this particular arena, that's the number of people they want in there.

There'll be no physical distancing. It's indoors, obviously. People coming from all over the place, many of them elderly, they're then going back to their communities, you're putting people shoulder-to- shoulder, masks optional, the virus is the virus, Chris.

I mean we've been talking about this for 5.5 months. The virus hasn't changed in all this. It's a contagious virus. And - and that scenario there is the worst case. I cannot believe that in the middle of the - in middle of June, after

all that we've learned about this pandemic that that would even be a possibility. And it looks like it's actually going to happen.

By the way, we have learned other good things as well, in terms of what might work, Chris.

Masks, went back and forth on masks, take a look at the numbers. Question often comes, "I have the virus. What's the likelihood I would spread it to you, if I did not have a mask on?" About 17.5 percent they say.

CUOMO: Wow!

GUPTA: It's - these - this is early evidence. If you have a face mask on, it's 3 percent. You know, it's about a six-fold improvement--

CUOMO: Right.

GUPTA: --mitigation in spread. It's not perfect. But it makes a difference.

You want to get back to some sort of normalcy, you want to have the freedoms to go out and stuff like that, it probably should involve wearing a mask, for - for the reasons I'm showing you there.

The data is becoming clearer. So, I don't know how to answer your first question, "Who says this is OK?" My guess is nobody says it's OK.

CUOMO: Well we know one guy does. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thank you very much for being a voice of reason--

GUPTA: You got it.

CUOMO: --and science, as always. Be well.

GUPTA: Thank you so much.

CUOMO: All right, so we showed you more than two dozen examples of systemic racism in our country, just last week.

[21:25:00]

So, what happens? Well now, we got to fight about it, right? OK, so here's the criticism. "Systemic racism, OK maybe, but not under Trump. That's old data. That's Obama, it ends."

OK, you want more? Let's do it. Our little fight, with facts, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: People don't like the truth about systemic racism, "Not real, not that bad, not on our watch." These people also just happen to be politically aligned with this President. You can decide for yourself why?

Yes, some of our data on this issue does stop in 2016. But the question is why, and only some does. They want the truth? Here it comes.

[21:30:00]

First, the Fed only runs the complete numbers every three years. So, where's the 2019? Good question. Ask Trump. Ask the same people who were defending him. They're over a year late. Why hide the numbers if it's the best economy for Blacks ever?

When you look past the Rs and the Ds, you see, yes, incomes for Black people have slightly increased over the last 30 years. Hooray! No. Not hooray!

The bigger trend is those same people further - falling further and further behind. This is about a relative assessment, White versus Black, not just going up, it's relative.

The true measure of wealth isn't about the numbers on your check. It's the gap between what you have and what someone else does. That's why we use the word - the more complete Federal data, and not the annual income figures that come out every quarter.

And the latest numbers show Blacks behind by a 10:1 ratio. Their portion of the pie is actually shrinking right now.

In the early 90s, the ratio between the wealth Black families compared to White households was about 22 percent, OK? It's almost half that in the latest numbers. Again, half that.

If you want to talk about the data, the proof is an Administration that actively chooses not to see the truth, an Administration that fought in court to stop collecting data on how many companies pay people of color, that won't even let investigators look at data to see if banks are making it harder for Black people to get loans, and ended the government's participation in a program to collect data on how police interact with Black people.

So, don't play with the data when you don't even want to accrue any data. Arguing with the numbers, because the truth doesn't fit a political agenda, doesn't work when you try to bully CNN's polling, and it doesn't work when so many are in the streets living the reality that, to you, only looks like charts and graphs. Over the span of American history, the Trump Administration is a rounding error, playing gotcha politics, ignores the moment we find ourselves in, one pushing to finally fulfill a promise that for too long has just been words on parchment. Either all women and men are created equal by what we see every day or they are not.

That area of Seattle, full of protesters, largely free of police, appears to have a new name, and the police are taking a new approach to the demonstrators. You've heard from the Mayor.

Now, the Chief is here to explain her strategy. Are they in sync? Plus, some breaking news about what the City Council just banned, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: BREAKING NEWS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: All right, breaking news tonight.

The Seattle City Council has voted unanimously to ban the use of chokeholds by the Police Department, also banned, from using, in crowd situations, weapons like chemical irritants, teargas, water cannons.

The move comes as President Trump again says he's considering Federal action to address the ongoing occupation of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, now also known as the Capitol Hill Organized Protest or CHOP.

Here's Trump today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If they don't do the job, I'll do the job. And I've already spoken to the Attorney General about it. But if they don't do the job, we will do the job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Now, look, you can hear all the legal experts in the world say, "That's an empty threat. He can't do it. It has to be asked for, except for very specific conditions."

Let's talk to the Seattle Police Chief, Carmen Best, here to weigh in, thank you very much for joining us, Chief. Appreciate it.

CHIEF CARMEN BEST, SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT: Good evening. Thank you for having me. I appreciate being here.

CUOMO: So, I've heard you speak on this several times. Forget about the President. Let's just talk about the perception.

You guys are not in control of your own City. You got people all over the place. They burned the police out of the precinct. You didn't like it. You didn't want to surrender the precinct. The City caved to pressure.

Now they're saying you'll never get it back. It'll never be a police station again. How is that law and order?

BEST: Well that's a lot of questions there. But I'll - let me start by saying this.

CUOMO: Cherry-pick it.

BEST: Yes, I will. I'll do that.

I can tell you that what's happening in Seattle, there's not a "No Seattle Police Department Response Zone," as people have sometimes categorized the - the Capitol Hill-occupied protest area.

You know, there is a small area in a section of the City where we're dealing with some occupants, and some of the issues there. But Seattle is not under siege. And we are still responding to every single call in every area of the City.

When it comes to that particular area, we have - if they - we get a call, there's an important emergency 911 call, we're going in. We're going to do our job. I have a list of reports we've taken already.

But we also have to be considerate of the delicate situation that we have there. The last thing, the last thing, I want to do is have any issue of violence occur in the area. So, we're being very judicial about how we do it - I mean, judicious, I mean.

CUOMO: Right.

BEST: About how we do it and how we go in.

And I would say to you, while we're dealing with that issue, more than anything, I'm focused on the future. How are we going to re-envision the future of policing with all that we have going on in the country, and specifically, in Seattle, for me today.

CUOMO: One--

BEST: It's - go ahead.

CUOMO: Chief, let me just take one more beat on this, and then I want to talk to you about what needs to change.

BEST: Sure.

CUOMO: It is hard for people to look at this. And look, I've spoken to the Mayor multiple times.

And Mayor Durkan has said, "You know, this could be a Summer of Love. This isn't the first time we've seen this. We're not as panicked by it as the rest of you guys are, when you see it."

It looks bad that they kicked you out of your own police station. And you do not have control of the streets where they are, Chief, just to be fair, from all the reporting on the ground.

These guys are negotiating with you, calling themselves a sovereign, making lists of demands, and also asking to be taken care of, even though they're a sovereign, which I don't quite understand.

How is that to be perceived by people outside of Seattle as a good situation?

BEST: Well I wouldn't call it a good situation. I mean words matter here.

[21:40:00]

So, what we have here is a situation where people have occupied an area, and we're working with them. The City is working with them. It has negotiators to work with them, to have a peaceful resolution. Ultimately, we want to make sure that people don't get hurt.

And it's not a situation where there's lawlessness. We do have some concerns. But we are responding to the area. We're doing so carefully.

We're making sure that we take care of reports that have been given, and that we're following up on each of those reports and trying to make sure that people are arrested, and we find any perpetrators of any crime. So, that has not stopped.

But you, admittedly, there are some barricades that - that prevent us from going in, as quickly, and as efficiently, as we like to. And certainly because we're not in the precinct, response times across the entire East - East Precinct Area have increased.

So, I definitely want our officers back in that precinct. I'm not thrilled about the situation. But we recognize too that we have to make sure that we protect everyone's safety, ultimately, in this situation.

CUOMO: What is the one thing? People always ask for like dozens of points of change. Let's just start with one to get past the status quo that we're in. What is one thing you think has to change?

BEST: Well, there's a lot of things. But I would say I would start with, we have to just re-envision how we're going to move forward.

You know, the Seattle Police Department has been under a Consent Decree for almost a decade now, and we had done everything that we were asked to do by the Federal Government.

And yet, when I stood at the parade the other day, the Black Lives Matter march, I should say, not parade, it was very clear to me that it wasn't successful. People are angry.

They had a lot of signs about the Police Department, and defunding the Police Department, and issues of brutality. And we can't ignore that. We have to acknowledge that there's a long history there.

And having the, you know, a Federal Consent Decree did not resolve the issues that we're dealing with. And I - I really sat and thought about it, and I really had an epiphany that we're going to have to change.

And having one institution such as the courts that itself has its own history of racist practices and oppression, trying to direct another institution, which is the Police Department, which is struggling through our own history isn't the answer.

We have got to work directly with the community. We got to invite them in, bring them in, under the tent, engage with them, so that we know that we're doing the right thing and the community is well.

We work for the people and we - we let them down in some ways, very clearly by the number of demonstrations that we're seeing, and the number of Black men who are dying at the hands of injustice.

CUOMO: Well it can't happen soon enough, Chief. We will continue to watch the situation. I appreciate you coming on the show. You are always invited to make the case to this audience.

BEST: Thank you.

CUOMO: Chief Carmen Best.

BEST: Thank you very much.

CUOMO: I wish you the best. Take care.

BEST: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right, now look, this is happening in Seattle, in the context of one case, then another case, then another case.

Now we have this shooting, the death of Rayshard Brooks, OK? This is a reminder of two other high-profile police killings of young Black men. And yes, police officers have been getting hurt also, shot, killed.

Is that an aspect of this problem? Of course. It's all about unnecessary violence. This case, though, Brooks, is going to be a tough one. It's going to be controversial, for good and bad reasons.

Let's get perspective through some top legal and policing minds, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME. (END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: The Officer who shot Rayshard Brooks has been fired. He'd been on the job for six years. The other is on desk duty. He'd been on the job two years. Does that matter? Probably a little bit. The family wants a criminal case. The law on this may be tricky.

Let's get the legal and law enforcement analysis with Joey Jackson, and Charles Ramsey.

Gentlemen, always a pleasure, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Ramsey, thank you for being with me tonight.

First, do we have a quorum of agreement that this case is going to be a little bit trickier than what we saw with George Floyd or even recently with Ahmaud Arbery? We in agreement on that, basically?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Agree, Chris.

CHARLES RAMSEY, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER PHILADELPHIA POLICE COMMISSIONER, FORMER WASHINGTON, D.C. POLICE CHIEF: Yes.

CUOMO: All right, fine.

JACKSON: I would, yes.

CUOMO: So then, let's move forward.

First, Joey, on the side of - hey, if we have it in the Control Room, can we put up the standard of use of deadly force by an officer, again, just to have it, when we talk about this?

Joey, what is the argument on the side of the police not having had the right grounds to use deadly force?

I'll put it up there again just to remind people. Here's when you can use deadly force, all right, if the person that you're dealing with has a deadly weapon or any device.

It could be a hubcap that if you think the way they're using that hubcap could cause serious bodily injury, or when you think that person has created a really - committed a really bad crime, which means that they could be a really threat of serious harm to others. That part, I don't think, fits here. That's why we highlighted the other part. So, in that context, Joey, what do you see?

JACKSON: So, breaking it down further, here's going to be the analysis, consistent with what you showed, Chris.

Number one, was the officer in immediate fear of death or serious physical injury? That's the first inquiry.

Number two, was the force they used proportionate to whatever threat was posed?

And number three, did they act reasonably under the circumstances?

There's an argument to be made in this case, that when a person is running away, when they're having a TASER, which is not a dangerous or deadly weapon, certainly it's a dangerous one, did you or was there a need to shoot and fire when they turn, and proceeded to run, and you're shooting toward the back? You let the person go. You live to fight another day.

[21:50:00]

Now, as it relates to a defensive position, the defense is going to argue it was a split-second decision that needed to be made. The officer evaluated the circumstances, and in that split-second contact he fired and shot.

On the alternative side, the prosecution is going to say that "You were not in immediate fear of death certainly that the force you used was disproportionate. You had a weapon, and you acted unreasonably under those circumstances."

Those are going to be the competing narratives. Ultimately, if it gets that far, a jury will make the determination.

CUOMO: OK. So, in terms of the police perspective on it, what did you see in this altercation? Chief Ramsey?

RAMSEY: Well, let me go back a bit in the video that was shown from when they first made contact with Mr. Brooks. At one point in time, when they first get him, out of the car, the officer asked two questions.

One is, "Do you have a weapon?" And he says "No." The second question was "Do you mind if I pat you down?" He said "OK." He patted him down. Well, at that point in time, you know he's not in possession of a firearm or a deadly weapon. Now, he was never out of their sight from that point on.

And so, when the second stage of this occurred, which at the time they began to try to handcuff him, and he starts to struggle and fight, eventually getting one of the TASERs, I believe it was the officer who did not fire, whose TASER was taken, and he's able to take off running.

Even though, at some point, he turns and actually looks like he fires the TASER, TASERs aren't like a semi-automatic, where you can just fire over and over and over again. It's got to reset and all that, which most people wouldn't even realize that if they're not accustomed to using them.

So, he didn't pose any threat, in terms of serious injury or death to the officer, at the time he fired the shot. And so--

CUOMO: And they also had - they had information on him. They knew who he was. They knew where he lived, then they had his car.

RAMSEY: Yes. They had his driver's license.

CUOMO: So--

RAMSEY: You got a car--

CUOMO: --theoretically, you could have gone and gotten him whenever you wanted.

RAMSEY: Exactly.

CUOMO: One more question for you, Commissioner, and then back to you, Joey.

I have been making something of - I mean, please, I have always trusted you to keep me straight on things. Tell me if I'm looking at something too deeply.

When I watch this altercation, I see two officers, Commissioner, who do not know how to deal with somebody on the ground. And it, to me, it's got to speak to not having the training, Commissioner, that, you know, I have studied this stuff for a long time, as a journalist, and as a fighter.

They do not know how to control him. Yes, he's a good size guy. I don't see any evidence of super-drug strength that anecdotally we talk about sometimes. If anything, he was kind of sleeping in the car. They didn't know how to deal with him. They had to go to the TASER.

Do you see something in here that speaks to inadequate training?

RAMSEY: Well, I mean, it could very well be. I don't know what training they provide in that Department for officers.

There are courses in ground fighting, which is exactly what it's called, which help officers learn how to actually overpower an individual when you're in that situation. Now, it is a two - two against one situation.

CUOMO: Yes.

RAMSEY: The one officer had (INAUDIBLE) his hand, which really puts him at a disadvantage, because now he's only got one hand to actually use, and try to bring the person under control. He was probably using the Drive Stun of the TASER, which is a pain compliant technique.

So, it's very possible that that could have been an issue there or this guy just stronger and just overpowered him.

CUOMO: Joey, last word to you.

JACKSON: I think what we have to look at is what the Chief said, which is a very significant point. And that's, initially, before even the running, you had patted the person down.

You made the determination, at that point, that they didn't have a weapon. And so, now you're shooting him, based upon the TASER that he has looking backward toward you, and - but he's proceeding to run.

You have his license. You have the car. You live to fight another day. You preserve his life. You don't take the shot, and thereby, you avoid criminal charges, more importantly, you preserve a life.

And, at the end of the day, that's what we're looking to do. Tamp down the situations. Allow a person to live. And not overly be aggressive such that you take someone's life who is a brother, a cousin, an uncle, a member of the community, and that's the big tragedy here, whether there are charges leveled or not.

CUOMO: Commissioner, you believe there's going to be charges here?

RAMSEY: Well against the one officer that fired the shot, there's a strong possibility that he'll be charged.

I doubt if the second - I didn't see anything from the second officer that would indicate anything criminal. In fact, you know, quite frankly, even reviewing it administratively, for a suspension, I don't see anything that Officer did that would necessitate that.

CUOMO: Joey Jackson, Charles Ramsey, thank you, Gentlemen, both, be well. God bless.

RAMSEY: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right, we're watching history unfold with remarkable speed when it comes to what we're seeing in this country right now, policing, race, the pandemic.

[21:55:00]

But there's another huge moment in America that came as a surprise today from the Supreme Court, why some Conservative justices agreed with their Liberal colleagues, what does it mean? Next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: You know it's been five years since the Supreme Court declared same sex marriage legal. There was a big celebration then, and rightly so, but it was never the end of the fight.

Today, the High Court delivered another win for the LGBTQ community, 6-3 vote. The Court ruled Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't just make it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex. It also forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, and gender identity.

The decision extends workplace protections to millions of people. And it is a stunning defeat for the Trump Administration considering the Court's Conservative-bent.

In fact, the President's first nominee, Neil Gorsuch, wrote the opinion, and joined Chief Justice John Roberts, with the Liberals, to form the 6-3 majority.

The three dissenting justices criticized the majority decision for what they see as amending the law rather than interpreting it. And there is something to be said about that.

Until Congress protects this slice of America, they will not be safe. It does suggest hope for advancing that cause. But it comes at a critical juncture in our society, where Movements like this one, where thousands--