Confronting a White Supremacist

Listen to this episode

S1: The following program may offend those who say fudge instead of another F word. It may also offend those who say fudge. When asked to rank their top three desserts.

S2: It’s Thursday, June 18th, twenty twenty from Slate, it’s the gist. I’m Mike Pesca. Today, Donald Trump used a Nazi symbol in online advertising, told us he should be given credit for popularizing the holiday of Juneteenth and was rebuked by the Supreme Court for his administration’s DOCA policy. And in all cases, he had the same excuse. I was ignorant.

Advertisement

S3: And you know what? I believe him. Now, Donald Trump in his life and his administration has an interesting relationship with ignorance. It has saved us from him and him from himself. So many, many times ignorance over if anyone takes his calls to interfere with the election seriously. Ignorance, if he knew that Don McGann and other staffers over the years would actually follow his orders. Ignorance, overtax law, ignorance over his companies, redlining policies, ignorance over what actually was the truth about the Central Park five. Ignorance, ignorance, ignorance about Dacca. His administration ignorantly went about implementing the policy and were smacked down. Well, how is he supposed to know of the red triangle that the Nazis used to symbolize political prisoners? Trump said it was an anti four symbol and teef experts said it wasn’t really. The Trump campaign said, oh, we’re supposed to know we’re too incompetent to be properly informed. You can’t blame us. As far as Juneteenth, this is from The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Trump said he pulled many people around him, none of whom had heard of Juneteenth. Mr. Trump paused the interview to ask an aide if she had heard of Juneteenth. And she pointed out that the White House had issued a statement last year commemorating the day Mr. Trump’s White House has put out statements on Juneteenth during each of his first three years. Oh, really? We put out a statement to Trump White House, put out a statement. Mr. Trump said, oh, OK, good, good. Hadn’t heard of it. So how could you blame him? Didn’t know his administration had acknowledged it every year. So how can you blame him? Really, the bottom line is, how could you blame him? He’s just the guy who didn’t know make America great again. When he doesn’t know how he doesn’t know. When was it ever great before? That is an idea of pretty much 50s pre civil rights. I alone can solve it. How does it know? So you can hold him to it. And let’s take Obama gate.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S4: Obama gate. It’s been going on for a long time. It’s been going on from before I even got elected. And it’s a disgrace that it happened. And if you look at what’s gone on and if you look at now all of this information that’s being released and from what I understand, that’s only the beginning. Some terrible things happened and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again. And you’ll be seeing what’s going on over the next over the coming weeks. But I wish you’d write honestly about it, but unfortunately, you choose not to do so yet. John, please. What is the crime exactly that you’re keeping? You know what the crime is? The crime is very obvious to everybody. Well, you have to do is read the newspapers except yours, John.

Advertisement

S1: I don’t know what he’s talking about. The reporter didn’t know what he’s talking about and he didn’t know what he’s talking about. Ignorance will set him free. It’s worked before. It will work again. So let us all commemorate Juneteenth, everyone. What what month is that again? Yeah, who knows. On the show today, I spiel about the charges against Atlanta Police Officer Garrett Roff. But first, Josh Levine, not just a colleague, not just a friend, not just a very tall fan of the New Orleans Pelicans, but a podcast. Our Josh hosts the new season of Slow Burn, which is about David Duke. He of the KKK. And for one term, the Louisiana state legislature. Josh Levine. Up next.

Advertisement
Advertisement

S5: The new season of a slow burn is upon us. The Slate historical series that looks at the past and certainly related to the present is this season about David Duke, the Klansmen who gained elected office in Louisiana. Josh Levine is hosting the series this season. He is the national editor here at Slate. Host of the sports podcast Hang Up and Listen.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S3: Author of The Queen. And now proper podcast, narrative podcast host. Although he did a little bit of that with the Queen for Slate also. Josh, thanks for agreeing to come on the GST.

S6: It was a tough decision, but I’m glad I made the right one.

S1: Yeah. Thank you, Mike. When David Duke when he was running for the Senate, you know, late 80s, early 90s, you were, what, a young boy living in Louisiana. What were your impressions of him then as you reflect back?

Advertisement

S6: Yeah, I was born in 1980. Duke was really a major presence in Louisiana between 89 and 91. The thing that mostly he evokes is just kind of feeling of dread and confusion that I had. And who was really the first real political consciousness that I had was following these races that Duke was and is something that didn’t seem like particularly abstract or like a game, but is something that could have serious consequences for me and my family and the state and a lot of people in Louisiana. I mean, the things that I remember specifically are the iconography. He had these blue signs, blue background with his name and white type. And still to this day, I have never seen political signs that were this large. Just like physically large, the people that had the Duke signs and the people that love Duke were really into David Duke. There weren’t people. There were just like I think that guy’s kind of okay. Like the people that really voted for Duke and were willing to show it, they wanted a really big sign. And so there are these signs to be like on the roofs of people’s houses and on restaurants and stuff. And so that is something that I really remember. And then I also remember seeing him, as I talked about on the podcast in the stands, an LSU football game, which we would go to these games as a family and to see him work the crowd and people there being really enthralled with David Duke. And I found that disturbing.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: I would say, did they did they try to meet him or did they throw things at him or did they enthusiastically pump his hand and then turn back to rooting for the majority black tigers on the field?

S6: Yeah, I remember him being received really enthusiastically by the crowd at Tiger Stadium. And, you know, maybe before then as a kid, not really thinking about how race and everything to do with college sports in the South. And, you know, the fact that people watching these athletes maybe would have a different attitude about them if they encountered them off the football field.

S7: Yeah. And as you describe in the podcast, the LSU stadium was your something like your happy place or safe place. No doubt Death Valley being someone’s safe place. But that listeners should know that for you, it represented a lot of good things.

Advertisement

S1: And at least as you portrayed in the podcast, that image had a searing effect on your perception of that once beloved place.

S6: Yeah, for sure. I mean, it’s definitely, you know, feeling a sense of really strong identification with this team and then feeling really alienated as you’re in a crowd of people who you would think are your people. Like people who also feel that strong affiliation. It’s very kind of alienating and strange. You know, I think a lot of people in the state of Louisiana felt that way even when they were not in Tiger Stadium during this period. One of the statistics that is really, really remarkable and powerful is that when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1890, he won nearly 60 percent of the white vote. The majority of white people in the state, like the guy wanted him to be senator, wanted him later to be governor. That’s just the reality of this period.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: So there’s another way to look at the Duke phenomenon, which is to note that there are like 7500 state senators and state representatives and among them in the last 30 years. So that’s just at one time. So there must be tens of thousands. Or if you do the math, maybe it’s approaching, you know, 100000 people who served in his state legislature. And it shouldn’t be shocking in a country where, as you say, you know, 10 percent of the people around that time had positive associations with the Klan. Maybe it shouldn’t be so shocking that one seat went to one. He claimed former Klansman and that guy only got one term. You know, maybe. He really is this outlier that shouldn’t be ignored because he had these hateful attitudes. But also we shouldn’t read too much into his actual power or what he represents. If anything, he represents, you know what? That a tiny, tiny, tiny speck of any one actually elected to a powerful position is of his ilk.

Advertisement

S6: Yeah. I mean, you can draw analogies between Duke and, I think fringe characters across time and different places geographically in Lyndon LaRouche had some level of success in the 1980s. And I’ve seen an analogy being made there. But I think it’s important to understand the particulars of the Duke story that this is somebody who was the best known open avowed white supremacist in the country, who had been a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, who is known to have sympathies and affection for Adolf Hitler, and was also someone who is known for being incredibly ambitious, having run for president. And so he was not somebody who was one of seventy five hundred state legislators. This was a famous person who was known to be looking at this race as a stepping stone. And so I think his election meant something. It was it was symbolic. It meant something, obviously, to Duke. But I think he was able to use that platform to go somewhere else to make himself bigger, more popular and make himself into somebody who was covered in a very substantial way by the press, which helped get his message out, but also, you know, gave him this sort of legitimacy that allowed him to present himself as a mainstream politician, a candidate, a serious candidate, and one who got an enormous number of votes in these two big elections that followed that state rep race.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: So, yeah, let’s talk about the attention that he got. There is at least in the episodes that I listened to, a through line, an unstated really of the debate that’s playing out now between platforming and de platforming. Do you allow even reprehensible views to be aired, perhaps in the pursuit of knocking those views down or debating with them? Or is it better just to never give those views an airing? And two instances that you talk about as he debated Jesse Jackson, who was much more famous and didn’t need the platform, but was of the opinion that when you have these views, it’s good to engage them in debate and show that they’re wrong. And you also go back to his college days when there was a sort of a speaker’s corner Hyde Park institution at LSU, where he would almost always, never draw a crowd or convince anyone and be mocked. But he did get a chance to talk. So where do you come down on that question of platforming versus not?

S6: There’s a third example that’s also really important that we get into in the second episode, which is Duke appearing on a tomorrow show which was hosted by Tom Snyder, which is that vehicle that he really used to make himself nationally prominent. And Snyder and the people that booked that show were looking for people who were just kind of beyond the range of acceptable opinion. They wanted to be edgy and book people that they thought were interesting and they would agitate people. And so it’s also important to note, just like the kind of valence of these conversations in the late 60s and early 70s, just the idea, the notion that you would censor someone for what they might say. And it was just totally fringe opinion at that point. It was considered worse, I think, by most people to censor hateful speech than to present it. You know, when Duke went to the University of North Carolina in 1975, I wasn’t able to get this into the podcasts. But I find it fascinating. A bunch of black students got up and protested during his speech and prevented him from talking. And just the amount of agita that that caused at the school with people saying that the protesters were worse than Duke with saying that this was the day democracy died at the University of North Carolina. So I say all of that, too, to say like the normative approach was you let people like David Duke talk and that we need to air these views and hear these views. And that’s an American value. Unlike, I think people need to understand that that is kind of the baseline. And so what I would argue is that, you know, Jesse Jackson was better prepared than Tom Snyder was to talk to David Duke. You know, I say in the podcast and it’s true, he never prepared questions. He wanted it to have a kind of conversational vibe of just like we’re just two guys talking. And I think people underestimated Duke, and he definitely did. The Duke had been talking about the stuff his entire life. And he was prepared to pivot and. And, you know, just be nimble and agile and could answer anything. And so people who weren’t steeped in this stuff and weren’t as knowledgeable as him. We’re just going to get run over. And so I think if you’re going to give somebody a platform, you need to be very prepared, very conscious of what you’re doing and why. And you need to, you know, understand what someone like Duke is going to use that platform for and why they’re doing it.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: So here’s another thing about David Duke that I want to ask you, which is that you often hear that the way racism actually spreads in our society, at least, is that you have these kind of figureheads who are so blatantly over the top, explicitly racist. And what that allows is not even necessarily for those people to convince anyone, but from a propaganda standpoint, to act as a benchmark. And then because they’re out there being the quote unquote, real racist, you can have a whole raft of racist policy, follow them and say, well, I don’t believe what David Duke believes. I’m not explicitly racist. You know, they’re the real racists. This is just more a moderate version of whatever policy you are favoring that probably has racist overtones like, say, testing welfare recipients for drug use. What do you think David Duke would say about that?

S6: What I would say is that that’s not how Duke functioned politically and these three campaigns. The state rep, the U.S. Senate and the gubernatorial campaign, he presented it as one that was not about being anti black. It was pro white. It was about fairness, about, you know, he said that affirmative action was racist and everybody should be treated equally no matter what race they were. And he gave cover to more overt Vermaelen racism by cloaking it in this kind of language of equality and fairness. And I think a lot of people in the state of Louisiana at the time, particularly those who were struggling because of the oil bust, were definitely inclined to think that they were being treated unfairly. And it was about time that somebody spoke up for them. But I think the other thing that he did, which I think a lot of politicians do, is say I’m the only one who’s telling you the truth. Everybody else believes this and I’m the only one. He’ll say it out loud. He is arguing that he was just more authentic than any other politician. I think in that way, he tried to create the sort of tribal feeling and his supporters that you weren’t just supporting a politician. You’re supporting a cause that were like this family, that we all know this and we all believe this. And finally, you have to be embarrassed about your beliefs. He, like, made people feel OK about being racist.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: One thing I was always curious about Louisiana is I think the 10th or 11th, most Catholic state, the most Catholic state in the south, and most of their Catholics are white. So he did do did so well with white Louisianans. But the Klan has its history is anti Jewish, anti black and anti Catholic. Did you do any reporting to figure out what Catholics thought of Duke or what Duke thought of Catholics?

S6: So the 1920s Klan. No, like really big Klan. There was more of a political party than a kind of terrorist. Insurgent movement was extremely anti Catholic. But part of Duke’s mission in the 70s was to rebrand the Klan. He wanted the kind of danger of it. He wanted to use it to get notoriety. I worked with him being interviewed on these national talk shows. He had a big white tent. He was like women. Women are welcome in the Klan. Catholics, you can come on in, too. And he would get more media coverage for that, like The New York Times, that a feature on the women of David Duke’s Ku Klux Klan. Yeah, and in these races and in the late 80s and early 90s, he would talk a lot about I love Catholics. My. You know, this people working for my my campaign are Catholic. And I didn’t get the sense that there was a big kind of segment of Catholic voters in Louisiana who were like really anti Duke because of the Klan’s historically anti Catholic views. I think in Christian religious communities, there were a lot of people that opposed him, moved ahead of the main anti a.D.A group was a minister. But I didn’t see or, you know, in my reporting haven’t found that there was this big breakdown between Catholics and non Catholics.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: So I’m not going to ask you. You know, without David Duke, do we get Donald Trump? His election was, you know, so close. And overdetermined, and you can’t just take out one element and say this was that there’s no way to actually prove it, but there a way to, you know, demonstrate some currents that do flow. And I was wondering if you could put your fingers on them.

S6: One thing that is a big take away from the end of the first episode is the anger in the crowd at Duke’s victory rally. Jason Berry, who is a journalist who is at the rally, says one thing that just really, really struck me was how angry people were. Even though the guy had won and it was just such a A.I. establishment A.I. Authority message that people thought they were sending in this the messenger that they chose. The analogy that I draw is like people who think that voting is a way to send a message, that they think that, you know, whether they feel disenfranchised by the world and they want to send a signal about that disenfranchisement. It’s just a real strong connection there about hating the people who are running things, blaming whether it’s black people or immigrants for your lot in life or what’s going on in the world and wanting to have those feelings validated. And maybe the only way that you think that you can express those feelings in a socially sanctioned way is in the voting booth.

S7: Josh Levine is the host of Season four of Slow Burn. It’s all about David Duke. Thanks so much, Josh. Thank you, Mike.

S1: And now the spiel ratio. Brooks didn’t deserve to die. Police officer Garrett Ralfe may very well deserve to be convicted of murder. And those are two things, I believe. And I want you to know upfront, as I discussed the press conference and the argument set forth by Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard, frankly, a few of the things that Howard said confused me and a few others boggles my mind. Howard, a 20 year, 20 plus year D.A. came in second in a primary to retain his seat that was held a little over a week ago. So he is trailing his female challenger, also an African-American, who he is branding as being overly deferential to the police. Howard also faces two lawsuits filed by female former subordinates who accuse him of sexual harassment. It is not far fetched to say that Paul Howard is fighting from behind to hold on to office when his main rhetorical weapon is to present himself to the voting public as tougher on the police than his rival is. None of that really says anything about the law. There is the case to be made that in shooting a fleeing suspect with or without a weapon that is or isn’t considered lethal. Just that fact alone. Suspect fleeing you shooting. That might not constitute a reasonable act of self-defense. So before we hear from prosecutor Howard, let us play a bit of a radio lab episode which dealt with the case. Howard himself references his Supreme Court case that governs how police are to be evaluated after they’ve shot someone. The case is called Graham. And this is Radio Lab Produce from Matt Kielty, who reads the Supreme Court decision to host Jad Abumrad.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S8: See if you put yourself in the shoes of an officer in the moment and look at the world through their eyes. And that’s how you have to understand these. Right. And where does that where does where did that idea come from? So that comes from Graham like that comes from the Chief Justice, William Rehnquist’s opinion, which every here the reason is of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. And it’s calculus must embody an allowance for the fact, and this is extremely important, that police officers are often forced to make split second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. And so, as you can see, this this idea of reasonableness is circumscribed very tightly by time. It’s not asking, like, what a reasonable officer would do here in general during a moment where where they have to use force. Instead, what it’s asking is, what would a reasonable officer do in this split second in this little tiny sliver of time where where the force actually occurred. And in fact, that moment legally has come to be known as a superseding event. Meaning what? What does that mean? Meaning this is a fence kind of crazy. Meaning that that that moment, that superseding event, it essentially breaks the chain of causation. So if you think of time, it’s just this like continuous flow. This is like, no, you break that, you stop that, and you take this one little moment and you pluck it out and you’ll like this moment. This is the one moment that you look at that’s all they can think about the jurors.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: Now, there’s another Supreme Court case regarding fleeing suspects and there is applicable Georgia law, which could very well directly apply to Officer Ralf’s decision making. But we should take seriously what Radiolab was talking about that you have to consider in the moment, the exact moment right when Garrett Ralfe had a Taser fired at him. What was in his mind, the standard? You can argue that it’s over deferential to law enforcement, but the standard is that the officer, if he reasonably feared incapacitation was right or allowed to act with force and the officer would know that a Taser, while not a lethal weapon, could incapacitate for five seconds and an armed, incapacitated officer, officers or armed could be shot after his gun was taken away from him. And therefore, an officer would be reasonable to fear for his life and respond with even deadly force. Now I say right. I’m not saying good, saying the courts have traditionally held that such an officer is reasonable in acting that way. And we call this a justifiable shooting and we don’t do so for moral reasons. But that is the legal designation. But there were aspects to the killing of Rashad Brooks that would complicate that. Namely, that Ralph knew the Taser didn’t hit him. This is something that Howard argued and also that Ralph knew the taser was all used up. And the D.A., Paul Howard, did argue that. But he also argued so much more. So much of which seemed incomplete or contrary to facts. For instance, here was his description of how Brooks comported himself with the police during the encounter.

S9: Brooks, on the night of this incident was calm. He was cordial. His demeanor during this incident was almost jovial.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: Well, yes. Up until the moment that he very much wasn’t. At no point did Paul Howard say before fighting off the handcuffing and stealing the officers tasers. Howard didn’t say that the once jovial man then resisted arrest. No. The district attorney painted a picture of a cordial, calm man who was then killed. No interesting moments of lack of calm or any upheaval for 41 minutes and 17 seconds.

S9: He followed every instruction until he didn’t.

S1: And the moment he didn’t was, I think, quite confusingly described by Paul Howard this way.

S9: Mr. Brooks was never informed that he was under arrest for driving under the influence. And this is a requirement of the Atlanta Police Department when one is charged with a DUI.

S1: Let me now play you that moment. It is caught on tape. The audio’s very good. This is the officer, Garrett Ralph, attempting to handcuff Rashad Brooks.

S10: I think you’ve had too much to drink to be driver.

S1: What about the police officer then proceeded to handcuff the drunk driver who had blown over a 1.0 on the breathalyzer, the legal limit being a point oh eight. And that very second, Brooks spun out of the officers grasp. The two went down to the ground. They were joined by a third officer who was tasered and his attorney says concussed.

S9: Here is Howard’s description of that grabbed from the rear by Officer Rourke, who made an attempt to physically restrain him.

S1: And this is what I said, eyes. I was watching Howard’s press conference after he said that. What I said. Am I insane? Clearly, Ralph said, I think you’ve had too much to drink to be driving as he begins to put on the handcuffs, i.e., that is the charge. Drunk driving. Now, perhaps half a second later, Ralph would have uttered the legal phrase, I charge you with a violation of Georgia penal code driving under the influence. Although according to legal experts who I’ve seen quoted, it’s perfectly in keeping with properly informing a suspect he’s under arrest to tell him. I think you’ve been drinking too much to drive. The phrase is effectuating an arrest. And quite often the officer will cuff the suspect and then say, here is why I cuff you. That is fine. That’s standard operating procedure in this case. The officer didn’t even have a chance to say that if he was going to because the handcuffed suspect attacked him. That violation, what Howard says was a violation of informing the suspect of what he was being arrested for was no mere critique. It is literally a legal charge that has a prison sentence attached.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S10: Also, Ralph is charged with seven violations of office. Each one of those carries a one five sentence. These are violations of his oath of office for the city of Atlanta, arresting Mr. Brooks for the DUI without immediately informing him.

S1: Now, it may seem that I am harping too much on this detail of the interaction, whereas the very important part is the shooting. But the reason I do that is the shooting is ambiguous. And I thought that is what Howard would spend the most time on. He didn’t. He actually spent most of his time setting a scene that runs contrary to what we can all very plainly see in here on the video. The shooting can be interpreted many different ways. But the moment of arrest, I do not think can be. And yet Howard did. He just told us the opposite of what we see on the tape at this point. I would like to pause and not discuss a legal argument, but a moral argument, somewhat of a practical argument that’s been advanced all around this story. I will quote Trevor Noah making it because he argues the perspective pretty well. But also, so many people have referred me to his definition of defend the police. They say that’s the one to pay attention to. So he has become I don’t know, I don’t say spokesman, but someone who at least effectively channels the very real, very raw emotions of the moment. Here’s Trevor Noah.

S11: You have a man who is sleeping in his car. You know what’s messy about this whole thing is we forget you are dealing with a drunk person. You’re dealing with someone. The very fact that, you know, a lot of sign a contract when you’re drunk. The very fact that you don’t want to do anything when you’re drunk tells us something about drunk. We know what a drunk person is in society. They’re not going to do the logical thing. So as a policeman, if a drunk person doesn’t a logical thing like I feel like you shouldn’t acknowledge the fact that the drunk. It doesn’t mean they deserve to die, they’re drunk. We know what drunk people do. I’ve been drunk. You’ve been drunk. Everyone has been drunk. You don’t deserve to die for being drunk. And if police cannot respond or cannot handle a drunk person, then then they shouldn’t be responding. Your Shobha, he’s drunk. How to solve a man wrestling with a drunk person on the ground. How does it get that far?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: It gets out of hand because the not logical brain of the drunk person decided to do something unwise. That, again, I feel like I got to say this because I’m going to hear it differently. But it doesn’t deserve a death sentence. But that is the answer to Trevor Noah’s question. Trevor Noah’s creed to core, which included the idea that the police should have just let Brooks walk home or give him a ride home is an actual contradiction when you think about it, of Howard’s picture of Brooks being nothing but calm and cordial. Howard takes the beginning part of Brooke’s actions and asks How could things have even gotten so out of control with such a calm person? How could that calm person die? Noah takes another look at the same set of actions and asks, How could the police let such an obviously impaired person to influence the situation to the degree he did? One question that has been asked is essentially, why are you arresting drunk drivers? Well, a million and a half drunk driving arrests are made every year, one point four nine nine nine nine million of them don’t end in a shooting. Are we not to arrest drunk drivers? Are we not to do so with handcuffs? Because Rishard Brucke tragically broke free of his cuffs, assaulted an officer, and then when trying to flee, was shot. I’ve heard it argued that cops actually don’t need to be involved in traffic stops to the degree that they are. I think that’s a fine argument to ponder and think about. But driving under the influence is just about the most serious traffic infraction that doesn’t involve an actual homicide. Or might it might still yet. Of course, we need to stop drunk driving. Of course we need to. What’s the word? Oh, yeah. Police it. And we do need to arrest violators. What’s the other way? A bench warrant, a ticket like a busted tail light that maybe you show up for. Maybe let pile up in your glove compartment. Keep on drunk driving. It is beyond the shame that this instance of drunk driving ended as it did. But it’s being folded into this broader argument that arrest duties should be taken away from the police or that detention of drunk drivers should be executed with officers who have no arrest power. That’s ludicrous. And this and here comes the horrible part, because we live in America to have arresting power to give that to the police means that the officer will be armed because so often a subject is armed. And once guns are present, things can and do go poorly. In this case, because of Garratt Ralph’s actions, his decision to shoot the gun, but also, yes, very much because of Ray Charles Brook’s actions. We don’t want to say it. Not this week, maybe not ever. I don’t want you to interpret it as quote unquote blame. But Rashad Brooks actions certainly played a role. Today, we learned he was once incarcerated and was on probation and feared going back to prison. So that makes us understand his motivations. I don’t I never think that he deserved to die. And I don’t think that Ralph should have shot him. I never will. People say you can’t put yourself in that situation. No. But if I did and I shot him, I’d say that was wrong of me to do. Even if someone missed me with a Taser, I should not kill that person. We need societally to get to the type of policing where the clear message, through the law, through tradition, through training, through judicial decisions is that that should not go on. I thought Paul Howard would have a pretty big lift in convincing me that we’re at that place already, that justice would entail taking an officer who is trained a certain way, who was told what wasn’t wasn’t lawful, who was told he had protections of the law of the Graham ruling and others and to acknowledge all that. But then Howard would make the leap. And this, I knew, would be quite hard to convince us that we’re in that place already.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S12: In other words, what Paul Howard would have to do in his press conference is to say, yes, I know we have all these traditions. We have all these rulings that seem to favor the officer. But if you look at the facts as a fair minded person in this case, this officer does deserve to go to jail because that is not only justice in the abstract sense, and this is what I thought Paul Howard’s job would be, but that is justice if we actually follow the rule of law as it is written. I’m not saying Paul Howard wasn’t successful in his effort to convince us of that. I’m saying he largely did not even try to make that case.

S1: And that’s it for today’s show, Margaret Kelly is the Gist associate producer. Did she actually know, unlike Donald Trump, that Finland was not part of Russia? Of course she knew Finland wasn’t part of Russia because otherwise Finlandia vodka would just be Smirnoff. Daniel Trader, just producer says no, not da da. Joe Patterson filled in today, helped edit the show. He’s a former editor of Surfer magazine. And that’s why he’s bracing for the second wave. The gist. We will be off tomorrow on Juneteenth. It is tomorrow, June 19th, which I knew about before Donald Trump even mentioned debt improve. Adepero Dupere. And thanks for listening.