On the Record: Analyzing the Derek Chauvin trial

TEST.

>>> IT'S TIME TO GO "ON THE

RECORD" WITH WRAL NEWS.

>>> FOR 2 WEEKS WE HAVE WATCH

THE EMOTIONAL AND INTENSE

MURDER TRIAL OF FORMER

MINNEAPOLIS POLICE OFFICER

DEREK CHAUVIN. CHAUVIN IS

CHARGED IN THE DEATH OF GEORGE

FLOYD, A DEATH PEOPLE AROUND

THE WORLD SAW BECAUSE A

TEENAGER RECORDED IT.

WHILE THIS TRIAL IS BEING HELD

IN MINNEAPOLIS, ITS

IMPLICATIONS REVERBERATE

NATIONWIDE.

TONIGHT, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE

ARGUMENT FROM THE PROSECUTION

AND DEFENSE WITH TWO EXPERTS

WHO WILL BREAK DOWN THE BIGGEST

MOMENTS THUS FAR.

GOOD EVENING AND THANK YOU FOR

JOINING US FOR "ON THE RECORD".

I AM LENA TILLETT.

TONIGHT WE WILL HEAR FROM

REPORTER JULIAN GRACE.

THIS WEEK HE SHARED A VERY

PERSONAL STORY ABOUT AN

ENCOUNTER HE HAD WITH POLICE

AND WHY THAT EXPERIENCE IS

SHAPING HOW HE NOW PARENTS.

BUT FIRST, OUR GUESTS TONIGHT

ARE PATRICE ANDREWS THE CHIEF

OF POLICE IN MOORESVILLE.

SHE ALSO SERVES ON THE

GOVERNOR'S PRIME COMMISSION.

JOHN RUBIN IS A CRIMINAL LAW

PROFESSOR IN THE UNC SCHOOL OF

GOVERNMENT AND REGULARLY

TEACHES AND CONSULTS JUSTICE

PROSECUTORS, PUBLIC DEFENDERS

AND OTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE

OFFICIALS.

THE SHOW BEEN MURDER TRIAL

BEGAN WITH VIDEO SHOWING THE

ARREST AND DEATH OF LLOYD FROM

JUST ABOUT EVERY SINGLE ANGLE.

WE ALSO HEARD VERY TEARFUL

TESTIMONY FROM SOME OF THE

WITNESSES AND BYSTANDERS THAT

DAY INCLUDING SOME MINORS.

HERE'S A BIT OF IT.

>> I STAYED UP APOLOGIZING TO

GEORGE FLOYD FOR NOT DOING

MORE.

>> AT SOME POINT, DID YOU MAKE

A 911 CALL?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

I DID CALL THE POLICE.

>> WHY DID YOU DO THAT?

>> BECAUSE I BELIEVE I

WITNESSED A MURDER.

>> PROFESSOR RUBEN, HE SAID HE

CALLED THE POLICE ON THE POLICE.

TELL US HOW EFFECTIVE THAT

EMOTIONAL TESTIMONY WAS

COLLECTIVELY FOR THE STATE?

WHAT DOES THAT DO FOR A JURY?

DOES IT RESONATE?

>> FIRST, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE

VIDEO EVIDENCE, THESE ARE

EYEWITNESSES TO THE AXE THAT

WERE COMMITTED AND PROSECUTION

WILL WANT TO CALL THOSE

EYEWITNESSES TO TESTIFY TO WHAT

HAPPENED.

THE EMOTION THAT THEY BROUGHT

TO IT REINFORCES THE SHOCK THAT

THEY HAD BY SEEING THIS AND HOW

INCOMPREHENSIBLE IT WAS TO

THEM.

ONE OTHER POINT THAT I THINK IS

WORTH MAKING IS THAT THE

DEFENSE HAS BROUGHT UP THE IDEA

THAT THERE IS THIS MENACING MOB

OF PEOPLE THAT'S MAKING IT MORE

DIFFICULT FOR THE OFFICERS TO

PERFORM THEIR DUTIES.

ONE THING IN CALLING THOSE

WITNESSES TO THE STAND AND

HAVING THEM RELATE TO THE JURY

IN THE WAY THEY DID IS THE

PROSECUTION HAS INTRODUCED THEM

TO THE JURY.

THEY ARE NOT A MENACING MOB.

THEY ARE A GROUP OF ORDINARY

PEOPLE WHO WITNESSED THIS EVENT

AND WERE TRAUMATIZED BY IT.

>> IT WAS INTERESTING HOW

DIVERSE THOSE BYSTANDERS WERE.

YOU SAW FIREFIGHTERS AND

SOMEONE WHO HAPPENED TO BE AN

MMA FIGHTER.

YOU SAW A CHILD, JUST NINE

YEARS OLD.

SOMEONE WAS A CHILD RECORDING

THAT VIDEO.

CHIEF ANDREWS, I WONDER IN

TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE

FEELING, THOUGH, AFTER WATCHING

THOSE VIDEOS WHICH ARE VERY

DIFFICULT TO BOTH WATCH AND

DIFFICULT TO LISTEN TO.

FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE AS

SOMEONE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, DO

JURIES RESPOND BETTER TO

VISUALS LIKE THIS OR CAN THEY

BEGIN TO TUNE IT OUT?

WE HAVE SEEN IT SO MANY TIMES

AND IT SO DIFFICULT WORK

>> NO.

THAT'S A FANTASTIC QUESTION.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE VIDEO

CAN'T BE SHOWN ENOUGH TO THIS

JURY.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT

THAT THE PROSECUTION MAINTAIN

THE EMOTION AND THE GRAVITY OF

WHAT WE SAW AND REALLY KEEP THE

JURY IN THAT MOMENT AND KEEPING

THEIR MINDS FRESH AND HEARING

AND THE SENSES REALLY ENGAGE.

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, WE

DO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE TRAUMA

THAT IS CAUSED EVERY TIME

ANYONE WATCHES THAT VIDEO.

IT'S UNIMAGINABLE, RIGHT?

INCOMPREHENSIBLE AS ATTORNEY

RUBIN STATED EARLIER.

BEING THERE AND WITNESSING

THAT.

BUT NOW HAVING TO RELIVE IT AND

THEN BRINGING THE JURY INTO IT.

I WILL SAY AS TRAGIC AND AS

HORRIBLE AND HORRIFIC AS

WATCHING MR. FLOYD'S LAST

BREATH AS IT WAS, IT'S

CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE

PROSECUTION CONTINUE TO USE

THAT VIDEO AS IT IS TO REALLY

START TO DRIVE MORE POINTS HOME

ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON MAY

25th, 2020.

>> WE DID HEAR FROM THE POOL

REPORT THAT A JUROR HAD TO STOP

FOR THE DAY BECAUSE SHE BECAME

SICK WATCHING THAT VIDEO OVER

AND OVER AGAIN.

PROFESSOR RUBEN, MANY HAVE

NOTED THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF

LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO HAVE

TESTIFIED AGAINST DEREK CHAUVIN

COMPARED TO PREVIOUS TRIALS

FROM THE LONGEST-SERVING

HOMICIDE DETECTIVE IN

MINNEAPOLIS, THE COMMANDER WHO

TRAINED HIM, ON UP TO THE

POLICE CHIEF.

I WANT TO PLAY A QUICK CLIP.

>>> TO CONTINUE TO APPLY THAT

LEVEL OF FORCE TO A PERSON

PRONE DOUBT, HANDCUFFED BEHIND

THEIR BACK, THAT IN NO WAY

SHAPE OR FORM IS ANYTHING THAT

IS BY POLICY.

IT'S NOT PART OF OUR TRAINING.

AND IT CERTAINLY NOT PART OF

OUR ETHICS OR VALUES.

>> PROFESSOR RUBEN, THE

COMPOUNDING EFFECT FROM HEARING

FROM THOSE MEMBERS OF LAW

ENFORCEMENT ARE GOOD FOR THE

PROSECUTION?

>> CLEARLY, I THINK IT IS.

THE POLICE WHO ARE TESTIFYING

ARE EXPERTS IN THE USE OF

FORCE.

THEY ARE ALSO THIS OFFICERS

SUPERVISORS.

WHEN THEY TESTIFY THAT THIS WAS

EXCESSIVE FORCE, THIS WAS

IMPERMISSIBLE FORCE, THAT IS

SIGNIFICANT.

IT'S ALSO UNUSUAL TO HAVE THIS

PUBLIC, THIS THOROUGH, THIS

CONSISTENT OF A DISPLAY OF A

DENUNCIATION OF AN OFFICER'S

CONDUCT.

YOU MAY HAVE DEPARTMENTS THAT

TAKE PERSONNEL ACTIONS WITH

OFFICERS THAT THEY ARE UNAWARE

OF, BUT THERE IS A CONCERN

PERHAPS THAT THERE IS A BLUE

WALL OF SILENCE AND TO HAVE SO

MANY OFFICERS TESTIFY THAT THIS

WAS IMPROPER CONDUCT I THINK IS

SIGNIFICANT.

AND ITS UNUSUAL. FOR THAT

REASON IT HAS A BIGGER IMPACT.

>> CHIEF ANDREWS, YOU TALKED

ABOUT THE BLUE WALL.

WHY DO YOU THINK IN THAT CASE

THIS IS NOT HAPPENING?

>> I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT

THAT THE BLUE WALL THAT HAS

EXISTS IS REALLY STARTING TO BE

CHIPPED AWAY.

I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE ARE

SEEING HERE.

TO SPEAK IT AND TO SAY IT, PUTS

A REAL SPIN ON WHAT HAS

HAPPENED.

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO

HAVE HISTORICALLY STUCK

TOGETHER, RIGHT, FOR GOOD AND

BAD AND EVEN THE WORST, STUCK

TOGETHER.

TO SEE THAT THEY ARE ON THAT

AND SOME OF THEM ARE VISIBLY

UNCOMFORTABLE SAYING THAT WHAT

HAPPENED HERE TRULY WAS

BREAK.

>>> WELCOME BACK TO "ON THE

RECORD" TONIGHT.

WE ARE ANALYZING THE SHOW BEEN

MURDER TRIAL.

PROFESSOR RUBEN, I WOULD LIKE

TO BEGIN THIS PART WITH YOU.

THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN CONSISTENT

IN THEIR QUESTIONING.

THEY ARE ARGUING THE DRUGS IN

GEORGE FLOYD'S SYSTEM COMBINED

WITH UNDERLYING HEALTH

CONDITIONS ARE ACTUALLY HOW HE

DIED.

I WANT TO PLAY ONE KEY BACK AND

FORTH.

>>> DRUG USE.

CERTAIN DRUGS CAN CAUSE

HYPOXIA, AGREED?

SPECIFICALLY FENTANYL.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> HOW ABOUT METHAMPHETAMINE?

>> IT CAN.

>> A COMBINATION OF THE TWO?

>> YES.

>> IT THAT IN STILL REASONABLE

DOUBT?

>> I'VE HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE

TALKING ABOUT THE IDEA OF

REASONABLE DOUBT.

THE WAY I THINK OF IT MORE IS

THAT THE DEFENSE IS TRYING TO

COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE

NARRATIVE OF WHAT HAPPENED.

WHICH MAY CAUSE A JUROR OR

JURORS TO HAVE A DOUBT.

THE ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE IS

THAT THE FORCE THAT WAS USED

WAS NOT SO EXCESSIVE AS TO

CAUSE THE PERSON WHO WAS

HEALTHY AND NOT ON DRUGS TO

HAVE DIED FROM THIS USE OF

FORCE.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS FIRST,

WE HAVE OTHER TESTIMONY AND WE

HAVE THE VIDEO THAT SHOWS THE

DEGREE OF FORCE THAT WAS USED.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE MEDICAL

TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENSE'S

CLAIM.

THEY ARE MAKING THEORETICAL

ASSERTIONS THAT DRUG USE COULD

CAUSE THIS PROBLEM. HARDENED

ARTERIES COULD CAUSE THIS

PROBLEM.

BUT THE EVIDENCE, THE TESTIMONY

THAT HAS COME OUT SO FAR, WAS

THAT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THE

CAUSE OF DEATH.

THE CAUSE OF DEATH WAS THE

FORCE APPLIED TO GEORGE FLOYD.

>> WE DID HEAR FROM THE

PULMONOLOGIST TODAY WHO

TESTIFIED AND HAD VERY CRUCIAL

TESTIMONY.

IF WE COULD LISTEN TO THAT

QUICKLY AND WHAT THEY HAD TO

SAY.

>>> WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS THAT

HALF OF HIS BODY WEIGHT PLUS

HALF HIS GEAR WEIGHT IS COMING

DOWN.

THAT'S 91.5 POUNDS COMING DOWN

DIRECTLY ON MR. FLOYD'S NECK.

>> CHIEF ANDREWS, TALK TO US

ABOUT THIS PRONE POSITION THAT

WE HAVE BEEN HEARING SO MUCH

ABOUT.

HOW LONG ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO BE

IN THAT POSITION?

HOW LONG SHOULD THAT RESTRAINT

LAST WHEN SOMEONE IS IN

HANDCUFFS?

>> SO, ONCE SOMEONE IS IN

HANDCUFFS, AT THAT POINT IN

TIME THAT PERSON IS NO LONGER

ABLE TO EXUDE OR EXERT THE TYPE

OF FORCE BACK TO THE OFFICER OR

ANYONE ELSE.

THAT PERSON IS SECURE.

WHEN YOU PLACE THEM ON THEIR

STOMACH, WE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT

THAT PRONE POSITION IS NOT A

FOREVER POSITION, RIGHT?

PRONE POSITION IS ONLY TWO

HANDCUFFED, TO SECURE THAT

PERSON AND THEN YOU MUST ROLL

THEM TO THEIR SIDE AND MUST GET

THEM OFF THE GROUND.

PRONE POSITION HAS BEEN TAUGHT

TO BE A DEADLY POSITION WHEN

YOU START TALKING ABOUT

ASPHYXIATION.

POSITIONAL ASPHYXIATION.

OFTEN TIME THAT OCCURRED IN THE

PRONE POSITION SIMPLY BECAUSE

LIKE WE HEARD TODAY WHEN WE

TALK ABOUT THE BUCKETS.

THE BUCKET SYSTEM, THE BODY IS

NOT ABLE TO GET THE BREATH.

THAT'S SIMPLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING

. QUITE FRANKLY, THE

PROSECUTION DID A FANTASTIC JOB

TODAY REALLY DEMONSTRATING

THAT.

THEY HAD A FANTASTIC WITNESS

THAT REALLY DID PUT US ALL

THERE.

WE COULD SEE REGARDLESS OF WHAT

MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN COULD

POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN IN MR.

FLOYD'S SYSTEM, THAT DID NOT

CONTRIBUTE TO HIS MURDER.

>> WE BEEN HEARING A LOT IN

THIS TRIAL ABOUT SO-CALLED DUTY

OF CARE. EVEN IF YOU ARE TRYING

TO ARREST A SUSPECT, THERE'S

THIS EXPECTATION THAT YOU ARE

SUPPOSED TO DO EVERYTHING THAT

YOU CAN TO ENSURE THAT THEY

SURVIVE WHATEVER THAT

INTERACTION IS.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THAT

APPLIES HERE, CHIEF ANDREWS?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

ANYTIME SOMEONE THAT YOU ARE

ATTEMPTING TO TAKE INTO CUSTODY

OR IS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY

EXPRESSES THAT THEY ARE HAVING

SOME SORT OF MEDICAL CRISIS,

THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO DO

IS MAKE SURE THEY ARE OKAY AND

PROVIDE A LIFE-SAVING CARE THAT

THEY NEED, WHETHER IT'S CALLING

AN AMBULANCE, DOING CPR WHILE

YOU ARE WAITING ON THE

AMBULANCE.

WHEN THERE IS AN OFFICER

INVOLVED SHOOTINGS, THE OFFICER

WILL RECOVER AND ADMINISTER

LIFE-SAVING CPR OR WHATEVER

NEEDS TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO

PRESERVE THAT PERSON'S LIFE IF

THE INJURY AT THE TIME WAS NOT

FATAL.

WHAT WE SEE HERE IS THAT FAILURE

OF DUTY TO CARE FOR MR. FLOYD.

THAT WAS A FAILURE.

IT WAS A CALCULATED FAILURE.

AND SO, THAT'S ANOTHER THING

THAT WE SEE.

THE TREMENDOUS ISSUE IN THIS

CASE IS THE NEGLIGENCE, THE

WANTON DISREGARD FOR MR.

FLOYD'S LIFE THAT WE SAW LEAVE

HIM THERE ON THE GROUND.

>> CHIEF ANDREWS, THE DEFENSE

SAYS THAT DEREK CHAUVIN MAY

HAVE BEEN DISTRACTED BY THE

GROWING CROWD.

WHAT DO YOU TELL YOUR OFFICERS

ABOUT A GROWING CROWD?

WHAT ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO?

SHOULD THOSE FACTORS BE

CONSIDERED HERE IF YOU ARE

HAVING PEOPLE YELLING AT THE

OFFICERS WHO ARE ENGAGING WITH

THE SUSPECT?

>> I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING TO

BE SAID ABOUT THE FACT THAT

THERE ARE GOING TO BE TIMES

WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE

YELLING AT YOU.

RIGHT?

THAT'S NOTHING NEW FOR LAW

ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS.

WE HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO

SEPARATE OURSELVES FROM THAT.

THERE ARE ENOUGH OFFICERS THERE

THAT COULD HAVE -- AND I

REMEMBER MAKING THIS COMMENT

THAT IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT

THOSE OFFICERS WERE SO

PASSIONATE IN BLOCKING THOSE

BYSTANDERS THAT THEY COULDN'T

BE AS PASSIONATE IN SAVING MR.

FLOYD'S LIFE.

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE MOB WAS

CAUSING UNDUE DANGER TO THE

OFFICERS THERE WERE KEEPING THEM

FROM DOING CPR OR EVEN SITTING

MR. FLOYD UP IS ABSOLUTELY

RIDICULOUS.

>> FINAL QUESTION TO YOU,

PROFESSOR RUBEN.

I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN

SOMETHING TO OUR VIEWERS.

IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN

HEARING A LOT ABOUT IN TERMS OF

GEORGE FLOYD'S PAST. HIS

STRUGGLES WITH DRUG USE.

IN THIS TRIAL, WE WILL NOT HEAR

ABOUT DEREK CHAUVIN'S PAST

EXCESSIVE FORCE COMPLAINTS.

WHY IS ONE ADMISSIBLE BUT NOT

THE OTHER?

YOU ARE HEARING PEOPLE

CONCERNED THAT IT SEEMS LIKE

GEORGE FLOYD IS ON TRIAL AND NOT

DEREK CHAUVIN.

WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?

EXPLAIN WHY THAT CAN HAPPEN.

>> MOST STATES HAVE EVIDENCE

RULES THAT RESTRICT THE

ADMISSION OF PRIOR CONDUCT OF

PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE CASE.

PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH NORTH

CAROLINA LAW, IT'S CALLED RULE

404B EVIDENCE.

YOU CAN INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF A

PRIOR BAD CONDUCT TO PROVE THAT

ON THIS OCCASION, THE OCCASION

THAT IS SUBJECT OF THE TRIAL,

THE PERSON ACTED IN THE SAME

WAY.

THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT,

BUT THAT'S THE GENERAL RULE.

I LOOKED AT EACH PIECE OF

EVIDENCE WHICH IS DIFFERENT.

I'VE LOOKED GENERALLY AT IT, SO

IT'S HARD FOR ME TO COMMENT ON

IT SPECIFICALLY.

IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE JUDGE IS

BEING PARTICULARLY CAUTIOUS

HERE.

THE EVIDENCE AGAINST CHAUVIN,

OFFICER CHAUVIN, WOULD BE VERY

DAMAGING AND MIGHT CREATE A

GROUND FOR APPEAL IF HE'S

CONVICTED.

THAT MAY BE ONE REASON WHY THE

JUDGE IS ALLOWING THE EVIDENCE

AGAINST GEORGE FLOYD AND NOT

AGAINST THE OFFICER.

THE OTHER THING THAT I NEED TO

SAY IS THE DEPARTMENT MAY HAVE

MADE ITS OWN BED ON THIS.

THERE WERE PREVIOUS COMPLAINTS

AGAINST OFFICER CHAUVIN ABOUT

NECK RESTRAINTS.

IN EACH OF THOSE INSTANCES, THE

RULING WAS HE HAD ACTED

REASONABLY.

THE RULING HAS BEEN THAT IT WAS

UNREASONABLE AND THEN HE WOULD

HAVE BEEN ON SPECIFIC NOTICE

NOT TO ENGAGE IN NECK

RESTRAINTS OF ANY KIND OR AT

LEAST AT A TIME WHEN HIS LIFE

IS NOT AT RISK.

AND SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN

ADMISSIBLE ON THOSE GROUNDS.

BUT HAVING NOT ACTED IN THE

PAST, THAT MAY HAVE AN IMPACT

NOW.

>> INCREDIBLY INSIGHTFUL.

THE COMMENTS FROM YOU BOTH

TODAY FROM POLICE CHIEF ANDREWS

AND PROFESSOR JOHN RUBEN.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME

TODAY.

>> THANK YOU.

>>> UP NEXT TO A POLICE

ENCOUNTER REMEMBERED FOR A

LIFETIME.

>> I WAS SCARED.

I WAS REALLY SCARED BECAUSE I

DIDN'T STOP ANYTHING UNDER MY

SEAT WORK

>> JULIAN GRACE RECOUNTS HOW THE

COST LET HIM NAVIGATE A

TEENAGER.

>>> WELCOME BACK TO BYE.

DURING OUR 5:30 NEWSCAST THIS

WEEK JULIAN GRACE SHARED ONE OF

HIS FIRST INTERACTANTS WITH LAW

ENFORCEMENT AS A TEENAGER AND

HOW THE CONVERSATION MANY BLACK

HAVE WITH THEIR KIDS ABOUT

INTERACTING WITH POLICE

AFFECTED HIS ACTIONS THAT DAY.

HERE'S A PORTION OF THAT STORY.

>> Reporter: IN THE INTEREST OF

FULL DISCLOSURE, I WAS SCARED.

I WAS REALLY SCARED BECAUSE I

DIDN'T STOP ANYTHING UNDER MY

SEAT.

THE OFFICER, WHEN HE CAME UP,

ASKED ME IF I COULD SEARCH THE

CAR.

I SAID YES.

THE MOMENT HE ESCORTED ME OUT

OF THE CAR, IT HAPPENED.

SQUAD CAR HERE.

SQUAD CAR THERE.

SQUAD CAR RIGHT THERE.

I'M SURROUNDED BY OFFICERS.

I'M LIKE, WHAT IS GOING ON

HERE?

I'M SO NERVOUS.

THE NEXT THING I KNOW THE K9

UNIT COMES IN.

THERE IS A CANINE GOING INSIDE

MY CAR THAN OUTSIDE MY CAR AND

THEN BACK INSIDE MY CAR.

AS ALL OF THIS IS HAPPENING,

I'M LOOKING AROUND AND I CEASED

PEOPLE STANDING ON THEIR

PORCHES.

I SEE PEOPLE ON THE SIDEWALKS.

I SEE PEOPLE IN THEIR CARS.

THEY ARE ALL LOOKING AT THIS

LITTLE TEENAGE BOY SURROUNDED

BY MEN AND WOMEN IN BLUE.

I'M EMBARRASSED.

I'M HURT.

BUT I'M SCARED MORE THAN

ANYTHING.

ABOUT 20 MINUTES PASS AND THE

OFFICERS DID NOT FIND ANYTHING.

THE OFFICER WHO CONDUCTED THE

STOP MAKES A BEELINE STRAIGHT

TOWARD ME.

HE LOOKS AT ME AND SAYS, I'M

GOING TO LET YOU GO WITH A

WARNING THIS TIME FOR SPEEDING.

BUT NEXT TIME REMEMBER THE

SPEED LIMIT IS 35.

INSIDE ME IN THAT MOMENT I

WANTED TO PROTEST.

I WANTED TO SAY WAIT A MINUTE.

YOU KNOW I WASN'T SPEEDING.

YOU KNOW I DIDN'T STOP ANYTHING

UNDER MY SEAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE

PROOF OF THAT.

BUT THEN I REMEMBERED THE TALK

THAT MY DAD GAVE ME.

AND ALL OF THE AMBITION TO

PROVE THAT I WAS RIGHT AND THAT

THIS WAS AN UNJUST STOP

EVAPORATED.

I JUST LOOKED THE OFFICER IN

HIS EYES AND I SAID, YES, SIR.

HE IN RETURN GAVE ME MY DRIVERS

LICENSE, MY REGISTRATION AND

THEN I WAS FREE TO GO.

>> JULIAN GRACE JOINING US NOW.

I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT WAS ONE

OF THE MORE POWERFUL STORIES I

HAVE SEEN.

I'M CURIOUS ABOUT WHY YOU

WANTED TO SHARE YOUR STORY

RIGHT NOW IN THIS MOMENT IN OUR

COUNTRY?

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME ON.

WE HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS,

RIGHT?

EVERYBODY IS ALWAYS TALKING,

BUT SOMETIMES WE ARE NOT

TALKING TO EACH OTHER.

THE TALK, AS WE CALL IT, IS

SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS IN A LOT

OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HOMES ON

HOW TO CONDUCT YOURSELF WHEN

FACED OR STOPPED BY AN OFFICER.

THOSE STORIES TRANSCEND THROUGH

SO MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE

EXPERIENCED THAT.

SOME SITUATIONS ARE WAY WORSE

THAN MINE.

BUT I WAS VERY FORTUNATE THAT

MY FATHER REALLY BROKE DOWN THE

STEPS I NEEDED TO TAKE TO

CONDUCT MYSELF TO MAKE SURE

EVERYTHING GOES SMOOTHLY AS

POSSIBLE WHEN I ENCOUNTER AN

OFFICER.

AT THE TIME WHEN WE WOULD

BROACH THOSE CONVERSATIONS, I

DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS TALKING

ABOUT.

I LOOKED AT EVERY OFFICER AS

OFFICER FRIENDLY.

THAT I REALIZED THERE WERE

THINGS I NEEDED TO DO TO PUT

MYSELF IN THE BEST POSITION

POSSIBLE TO POSSIBLY MAKE IT

BACK HOME.

>> ARE YOU HAVING THAT

CONVERSATION NOW WITH YOUR

CHILDREN?

YOU HAVE YOUNG, BEAUTIFUL

CHILDREN.

WHAT'S THE AGE THRESHOLD?

OR ARE THEY EXPOSED TO THIS AT

THIS POINT?

>> YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT

DISCUSSION, I FEEL LIKE.

EVERY PARENT IS DIFFERENT.

MY WIFE AND I WANT OUR KIDS TO

HEAR IT FROM US RATHER THAN

HEAR IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE.

THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS FINDING

A DIGESTIBLE WAY TO BREAK THAT

INFORMATION DOWN TO THEM.

THEY ARE REALLY YOUNG.

OUR OLDEST IS 12 AND THE

YOUNGEST IS FOUR.

IN THE MIDDLE YOU HAVE TO FIND

A WAY TO INFORM THEM WITHOUT

SCARING THEM AND TO MAKE THEM

FEEL COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO

CONTINUE TO PROBE YOU WITH

QUESTIONS ON HOW THEY SHOULD

BEST HANDLE THEMSELVES AND

CONDUCT THEMSELVES WITHOUT

MAKING THEM FRIGHTENED WHERE

THEY DON'T WANT TO BRING UP THE

TOPIC AND JUST HIDE THEMSELVES

FROM EVER DEALING WITH THAT

ISSUE.

>> HOW ARE YOUR CHILDREN

PERCEIVING WHAT IS HAPPENING

NOW WITH THE CHAUVIN TRIAL?

OBVIOUSLY IN THE SPOTLIGHT AT

THIS MOMENT, BUT WE SAW ALL

SUMMER LONG DEMONSTRATIONS

THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.

WHAT DID THEY MAKE OF IT?

WHAT WERE THEY SAYING TO YOU

ABOUT IT?

>> IT'S DIFFICULT, RIGHT?

THEY WANT TO KNOW WHY.

THEY WANT TO KNOW WHY GEORGE

FLOYD IS NO LONGER WALKING THIS

EARTH.

THEY WANT TO KNOW WHY NO ONE

STEPPED UP AND NO ONE GOT

INVOLVED.

THOSE QUESTIONS I DON'T HAVE

ANSWERS TO.

I DON'T.

BUT WHAT I TRY TO DO WHEN THEY

SEE THOSE IMAGES IS TO CREATE A

SPACE WHERE THEY CAN HAVE THAT

CONVERSATION WITH ME.

I THINK THE BIGGEST THING YOU

CAN DO AS A PARENT IS MAKE SURE

YOU DON'T SHUT OFF THE

INTERSECTIONS OF CONVERSATION.

SOMETIMES CHILDREN WILL ASK YOU

QUESTIONS YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE

THE ANSWER TO.

THAT'S OKAY.

BUT IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAT

YOU MAKE SURE YOU LISTEN TO

THEM AND HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO

SAY.

RIGHT NOW AS WE GO THROUGH THE

TRIAL, THEY ARE WONDERING IF

DEREK CHAUVIN WILL GO TO

PRISON.

THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS.

IF HE'S NOT SENTENCED TO

PRISON, HOW DO I EXPLAIN THAT?

HOW DO I EXPLAIN TO MY CHILDREN

WHEN YOU SEE THE MAJORITY OF

THE WORLD SAYING THIS IS

SOMETHING -- HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN

THAT HE'S GOING TO WALK?

>> PUTTING IT INTO PERSPECTIVE.

I'M SURE A LOT OF PARENTS

WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK.

>>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR

WATCHING AND THANK YOU TO OUR