The Daily - A Conversation With a Police Union Leader

Episode Date: June 29, 2020

In the weeks since George Floyd was killed by the Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, Americans have been confronting hard questions about bias and racism within law enforcement — and what the role of the police should be.In the process, many have asked whether the culture of policing can be changed or if the system needs to be reimagined entirely. Today, we talk to an officer at the center of that debate inside one of the country’s largest police unions.Guest: Vince Champion, the southeast regional director of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: Protesters across the country are calling for the abolition of police forces. But what would that actually look like?Last week, the House passed a sweeping police overhaul bill, aimed at combating racial bias and excessive use of force, by a vote of 236 to 181. The bill is not expected to pass the Republican-controlled Senate.

Hey there. Hey, how are you? Good, good. I'm Michael Barbaro. How are you doing? I'm Vince Champion. Hi, Mr. Champion. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Sounds like you've been having pretty long days, so we appreciate you. It's been interesting, to say the least.

Can you just start by telling me what you do? I am the Southeast Regional Director for the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. can you just start by telling me what you do? I am the Southeast Regional Director for the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. Basically, I'm the director for the police union. Got it. And for those who don't know the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, this is a major police union in the U.S.

Yes, sir. We are a national union. We are all over the U.S., but all around, we are probably, just the officers alone, we're at about 15,000 plus. that in this discussion and this debate about changing policing, that unions have been a barrier, that they have created systems. And I know you may disagree with this, but let me just get through it. The perception is that unions have created systems that protect police officers, at times even the most problematic officers, by making it challenging to see complaints against those officers and by erecting significant barriers to firing them. Do you think that that's fair? To a certain extent, yeah. Yeah, I do think so.

I do think so. From The New York Times, I'm Michael Bavaro. This is The Daily. Today. In the weeks since George Floyd was killed by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, Americans have been confronting hard questions about bias and racism within policing, and what the role of the police should be. And in the face of those questions is another question. Is the culture of policing and the resistance to change by some police unions so entrenched that whatever change is necessary would require fundamental

rethinking from the outside, rather than incremental change from within police departments and their unions. In that context, we wanted to talk to someone who sits at the heart of these questions. Vince Champion is a police union representative in Atlanta, Georgia. Georgia is a right-to-work state where police officers aren't required to join the union or pay dues, so the unions don't hold the same power to block reforms as they do in many states. And Champion has supported some of the reforms that unions have been criticized for resisting in the past, including banning chokeholds, the use of body

cams, and transparency around police officers' records. And like many law enforcement officials, Champion has forcefully condemned Officer Chauvin. But when it comes to another high-profile police killing in his own city, the killing of Rayshard Brooks just weeks after Floyd's death, Champion's views are more complicated. It's Monday, June 29th. Vince, I want to talk about the protests that have been happening all over the country. And I'm curious what you think as a union leader, when you have seen these vast crowds in 2,000 U.S. cities and towns protesting the death of Rayshard Brooks,

George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, among many others. What did you see when you watched those? I see people that have a message that they believe that it's systemic racism in the police departments. And they believe that because of the color of their skin, they're treated a certain way. They're afraid because of the color of their skin, their children may go out and not come home. I mean, that is what I heard. And one of the biggest things that I took out of all the videos that I watched and everything was the word de-escalation, that officers need to learn how to de-escalate. Valid points.

But I guess to answer your question, I think I heard what the protesters were saying. I don't disagree with the protesters. I want everybody to be able to say, you know, and be able to tell their kid, when we're not there to protect you, that man in uniform is. Go to him. And at the end of the day, that's what we need to get to. That's why I became a cop. You're talking about the need for change. And I wondered, just to start, what your views are on what needs to change in policing. I mean, what I would love to see is law enforcement go to anybody that's willing to represent the black community and have that conversation. What do you feel we're doing? And then we tell them, here's what we're actually doing now. How can we bring you the community to to us? And we meet in the middle? Is it that we need more social workers to where a police officer isn't acting like a social worker? Do we need to get more financing towards

where we can make a phone call, we being the police, to say, I need a psychiatrist here? And instead of them saying, well, we've got to find somebody that's going to take two or three hours because we don't have the money to put anybody there. Or can it be, yeah, we've got to find somebody that's going to take two or three hours because we don't have the money to put anybody there. Or can it be, yeah, we've got a person on call. They'll be there in 10 minutes. So now we can stand by and wait for them and then they can take over that mental health aspect, that child protection thing. And then we, you know, we are asked to do a myriad of things that are socially driven. And what I would rather see, like I was talking about having the ability to have a social worker on call. The unfortunate part is it's totally opposite of the defunding of law enforcement.

It comes down to the politicians, and I really hate to be that way, but it does. And instead of building parks that make no sense, putting flowers up and down the roads that probably are going to die and you're going to have to replace or something, why can't we take that budget money and move it over to there? I'll stand next to the community and fight for that every day. Well, what you're describing is similar in some ways to what protesters and activists and reformers are asking for. A social worker at a scene instead of a police officer, a therapist at a scene instead of a police officer. I hear you saying that that is at odds with defunding and dismantling police, but help me understand why. If a social worker takes the place of a police officer,

if a group of therapists is on call instead of a traditional police officer, then why do you need more money for policing? Don't you need less money for policing? Okay, well, one, you mentioned replace. I'm not asking to replace. They have to go hand in hand. There has to be more of them or as many of them as there is officers. I think to many years, there's going to be some skepticism to the idea

that there's not a lot of money spent on policing. And the question becomes, how is that money spent on policing? For example, let's go back to the therapist or the social worker who might go out and deal with a police call. Are you suggesting that a police officer needs to be with that social worker? Is there going to be two people at that scene? What if there's one? And if there's one, do we need that police officer?

What if there's one? And if there's one, do we need that police officer? I guess one of the interesting questions of this moment is, are you all called too much? Is the system built too heavily around the idea that you dial those three digits, 911, and a police officer with a gun shows up? Is that not what we need? What do you think? It's a good question. Because thinking back, I mean, there are scenarios where, yeah, we weren't needed. And maybe we shouldn't have got the call. But unfortunately, that's the system. They only know 911. Nobody knows the seven digit number or the 10 digit number to call anyone else. So I guess if you look at it that way, and you're framing it that way, I still don't know if there's enough funding. But if you're talking in relation to if we took calls away, I don't want to say away,

but calls that aren't necessary for law enforcement and we were able to, I don't know how we would do it, teach or whatever the word you use the public to call another number, then maybe, yeah, that would, that may be something that would cause the cost factor to go down. I mean, again, I don't believe that would be a systematic across the board defunding. I don't believe that would be a systematic across the board defunding. I think if we start doing that and, you know, let's say that using your argument that that works out, everybody starts to now call. You know, they see a homeless person talking to themselves instead of calling law enforcement. They call the therapist number. That person goes out. Everything goes real good.

They get that person someplace to live or figure out how to get them safe. And those calls for service go down and that leaves law enforcement to handle the real, I guess, emergencies. Yeah, I think if you put that in practice and then you start doing a cost analysis on it, it could actually lower the budgets. And I'm not even saying now that the budget shouldn't be looked at and seeing if there's another way to do that. Because look, a lot of officers, we're social workers, we're marriage counselors, we're doctors sometimes, we're more than actually what we were trained to be. I mean, we try to train for everything that we can, but we just can't be.

And then, but you then expect us to, not you, I'm just saying as a society as a whole, you expect us to, and then when we slip up, we're the enemy. And yeah, I mean, I can see your point. Right. And I think for the people who are calling for reform, what you have just described as a problem is to them a problem as well. Police officers train for one thing, public safety, being asked to respond to all manner of scenarios that are not pure questions of public safety. And then there being problems in those encounters that have now led people to question why police respond to those in the first place.

Good point. I mean, and I can't disagree with that. Good point. I mean, and I can't disagree with that. Do you ever find yourself as a union leader representing a police officer who has been disciplined and who faces perhaps expulsion, termination, and yet because of a contract or because of your own kind of union instincts and ethos, you're supposed to defend them. I'm thinking about, for example, officers that we have learned about over the past few years with 10, 12, 15, 17 complaints of misconduct against them who end up in one of these shootings and everyone looks back and says, well, look at that record. And then I always imagine, and maybe I'm misimagining, that there's a union official, maybe it looks like you,

and he is defending that officer from being terminated. I think you use a broad brush. When I first took over in Florida, the union, and I first elected as the president, I lost members because I refused to lie for them to try to keep their jobs. My job as a union representative is to give you the ability to be treated fairly. If you did wrong, we need to go forth and go before whomever we have to go for, for your due process. The one fortunate thing that I have in a right toto-work state is I'm not bound to represent everybody. I have the right, even though you pay your dues to us, and I have the right to turn you down for representation. have resisted efforts to make public complaints against police officers, and they have fiercely resisted eliminating, firing police officers

who are accused of a pattern of misconduct. Do you feel like unions are invested in the status quo in ways that mean that it is going to be hard, is hard, will always be hard to change policing in this country? I think that pattern should be checked. I don't know why anyone, union or other, in the police would want to have somebody on there that's going to cause this issue. I hope not. Again, a bad cop, whether we liked it or not, we get painted with a broad brush. So why would we want to continue having those individuals around causing those problems for us?

We'll be right back. On June 12th, less than three weeks after George Floyd's killing in Minneapolis, a police officer in Atlanta responded to a 911 call from a Wendy's employee who reported that a man had fallen asleep in the drive-thru lane. That man was 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks. I'm visiting. Where are you visiting? My mother's grave site. Oh, I'm sorry to hear that.

Yeah. How long has she passed for? It's been probably about a year and a half now, but... Okay, I'm sorry to hear that. My birthday's just passed. As my colleagues have reported, for much of the encounter, Brooks cooperated with police. The plate will get to you. Yes, I will. Okay, just wait here while I grab it. But after failing a sobriety test,

the two officers on the scene, Garrett Rolfe and Devin Brosnan, tried to handcuff him. Brooks then punched Officer Rolfe, took control of Officer Brosnan's taser, fired it, and ran from the officers. Officer Rolfe chased after him. Brooks turned around, fired a second taser shot over Rolfe's head.

Rolfe drew his gun and shot Brooks twice in the back, killing him. Five days later, the Fulton County District Attorney, Paul Howard, held a press conference. So, we have decided to issue warrants in this case today. Where he announced that Officer Brosnan was being charged with aggravated assault. We have had something quite remarkable that happened in this case, and it involves the testimony of the other officer, Devin Brosnan. But that he was participating in the investigation and would be a witness against Officer Rolfe. He plans to make a statement regarding the culpability of Officer Rolfe.

Who was being charged with murder and who, if convicted, would face life in prison or the death penalty. Rolfe was aware that the taser in Brooks' possession, that it was fired twice. Howard said that Officer Rolfe's life was never in danger. And once it's fired twice, it presented no danger to him or to any other persons. And Howard revealed new details about the encounter. What we discovered is that Officer Roth actually kicked Mr. Brooks while he laid on the ground, while he was there fighting for his life. We were able to conclude that based on the way that these officers conducted themselves while Mr. Brooks was lying there, that the demeanor of the officers immediately after the shooting did not reflect any fear or danger of Mr. Brooks, but their actions really reflected other kinds of emotions.

Both of the officers are represented by the International Brotherhood of Police and by Vince Champion, who quickly criticized the investigation. We wanted to understand why Champion, a union official who supports reform, is defending the officers in the Brooks killing. I wonder what it means to have a member of your union, a police officer, charged with murder in the line of duty? Well, and only to correct because of the severity, he's actually in Georgia being charged with felony murder, which means that if he's not put to death,

he will spend the rest of his life in prison without a chance for parole. And to answer your question, it's heavy on my heart and disheartening, not so much the charge, but the fact that the due process and the investigation that led to the charge was not done at all and very done improperly. What do you mean? I know you came out right away and you said that firing Officer Rolfe was rushed. Do you still feel that way after reading the charges, after watching the news conference from the district attorney, the videos, all the information that has come out? Yeah, and I even feel more so. You know, we've said from day one, we, the union, that looking at the videos and everything, we're not saying whether it was a good shoot or a bad shoot. We don't have enough evidence to say that. Normally, how the situation goes in officer-involved shootings, the GBI, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, does the investigation. The officer is either put on administrative leave with or without pay,

and then the results are turned to the DA or to the city. But the district attorney here decided to do his own investigation that he normally doesn't do. And then after he did his press conference, we found, I guess to be politically correct, misspoken, misspokens, if you will, or lies that he did. And we haven't even been entitled to all of the investigative material. So yeah, we still believe that it was a rushed investigation, and it was politically motivated. I just want to make sure I understand what you are referring to. When you say that there are cases where the district attorney may have misspoken, what do you mean? In his press conference, the district attorney may have misspoken. What do you mean?

In his press conference, the district attorney came out and stated that Officer Brosnan, the second officer on the scene, had turned state witness and he was going to testify against Officer Roth. That ended up not being true. Less than 10 minutes after that statement came out, the attorney for Officer Brosnan said that it never happened. He was not going to testify against the other officer. He never said he turned state witness. He's never pled guilty any charges. cooperated with the DA meaning answering questions and stuff but he's never said that he would be state witness so you know the question then becomes if you're not telling the truth now or you're having inconsistencies how can we believe your report or did you just do a shoddy investigation if that's the case you should have allowed what we consider the professionals which is a unbiased outside agency from Atlanta, the GBI, they're the state organization that does this. Okay, so those issues aside, and I understand why you have raised them,

I wonder what you make of the evidence that has been presented, knowing that it may not be entirely complete. To summarize what the district attorney has said in his public presentation, he said that Officer Rolfe's life was never in danger, that he shot Rayshard Brooks in the back when Brooks was running away, and that after Brooks was shot, Officer Rolfe kicked him as he lay dying. Do you dispute any of that? victim as he lay dying. Do you dispute any of that? Yeah. As far as, okay, the first one that you talked about, that Officer Ross' life was never in danger. Let's not forget there was a fight ensued. One officer did go to the hospital with a concussion. And I guess it depends on whether you subscribe to that a taser is not a deadly weapon.

But the taser is considered a deadly weapon under Georgia law. You're referring to the fact that Rayshard Brooks grabbed the officer's taser and shot it twice. At the officer. the district attorney's news conference, and what he said was that at the time that Rayshard Brooks was shot twice in the back by Officer Rolfe, he had twice shot the taser in such a way that it was essentially empty and unusable, and that this would be something that an officer like Officer Rolfe would know, having carried a taser, used a taser, that it contained two taser shots. So in that case, does that complicate the point that you're making here? No, because the taser isn't considered unusable after the two shots.

The taser also has a method or a way to use it in a drive-stun situation. And what that means is you can actually walk up to a person, like the old stun guns that arc in between and you used to touch people with them. The taser still has that effect, so it's still an active weapon. Sure, but Brooks was 18 feet away, I believe, at the time that he was twice shot, and he was moving away from the police. Well, that's your assumption that Brooks wouldn't stop and turn around and come back. It was evident that he was running, yes, but if he decided to stop and come back,

it could have been used. But at the moment that Officer Rolfe shot Mr. Brooks, he wasn't in close range, and it wasn't capable of being a stun gun. So I just want to be very clear on the question of in what way Officer Rolfe would have believed that his life was in danger in that moment. You're painting a scenario where something could have changed. Someone might have done something. Brooks might have turned around, might have come back at him. But at that very moment, 18 feet away or so when the cartridges had been spent and its only role was as a stun gun, how was Officer Rolfe's life in danger? Well, you're assuming that they didn't fire simultaneously. You don't know that. And we don't know that. You're assuming that he fired the taser and then the officer Roth shot. Well, neither. Nobody knows that, including the district attorney. You don't know when officer Ross decided to squeeze the trigger. We don't know when Mr. Brooks decided to squeeze the trigger. Did they do it at the same time? Did they not? We don't know. We can find that out. Did they not? We don't know. We can find that out. So again, you're making an assumption that, you know, Brooks fired and then the officer fired. We just don't know that. And I can't make that assumption either.

My recollection from watching – to squeeze the trigger. You don't know how much time it took him to draw his weapon. So I don't know how you can make any assumptions from that video. And if you're asking that, that's what you're asking for, assumptions, not facts. That's what you're asking for, assumptions, not facts. So in your mind, there's not sufficient evidence to discount the possibility that Officer Rolfe felt his life was in danger despite the distance, despite the state of the taser? I don't know. We're asking for due process and for an investigation. And if the investigation proves what you're saying is right, then that's an issue. If it's saying what you're saying is wrong, then it was a good shoot. But I don't have an opinion there because I don't work on opinions. I work on evidence and I haven't seen all the evidence and I'm not going to answer or get painted in a corner or try to ask a question. What I answered you with is as a taser

instructor, what we teach, what they say, what the law says, it doesn't matter. Quite honestly, if you read Georgia law, it clearly says that the taser is a deadly weapon. So, I mean, what's the difference if a gun's a deadly weapon, a taser's a deadly weapon, you point either one of them, then you're justified for using deadly force. I want to turn to the visual evidence that prosecutors pointed to in their presentation of Officer Rolfe kicking Brooks' body once he had been shot. And I know that talking about the specifics of this is tricky for you, but you are a longtime officer. You train people. You're a union representative. That feels like a singular moment in all of this is tricky for you, but you are a longtime officer, you train people, you're a union representative. That feels like a singular moment in all of this. And is that appropriate conduct, ever appropriate conduct for an officer?

Well, first off, to your first part of the question, during the press conference, Paul Howard never showed a video of Officer Roth kicking Mr. Brooks. He showed a steel shot. Yes, he showed a picture. Okay, he showed a picture. That's a picture. Now we all know a picture is worth a thousand words. We know what it appears from the picture. We don't know what led up to that, where exactly in time that was. But with all that being said, you are correct. There's no reason to kick a suspect. And, you know, we don't train to do that. We're not allowed to do that. You know, that's normally not the course of business. So that part of the question, I would agree and answer that. No, it shouldn't be done. However, do I take Paul Howard's word at what that's what that picture meant? No, sir, I do not. But that's why we have investigations. And even though it's been numerous times, the media has jumped out and swore that that officer was wrong. But

after all the evidence and the videos were looked at properly and in context, almost all of those have been turned over or they haven't been found guilty, but yet the video started out looking bad. And I'm, you know, and if we're going to get to a society where mayors and district attorneys can look at video and go, well, that looks bad. I don't like it. So I'm going to terminate you and charge you with murder. That's a, that's a bad precedent to start. I mean, ultimately, I'm asking all these questions because I think a lot of people's reaction to this incident, above all, is why did a man who was found asleep in a Wendy's drive-thru,

a man who was not armed when this interaction began, and a man who really just wanted to go home, why did he end up dead at the end of this encounter and at the hands of police? We did not just get shot because he was in the Wendy's parking lot asleep and he just wanted to go home. No, that's not what happened.

He chose to fight the officers. He chose to be a fleeing felon when he hit the officer in the head and gave him a concussion. And then the officers reacted at that point. So you can have the conversation all day, whether you agree or not that the shot was right or wrong, and we can wait for the evidence. But what you can't dispute, or you should not be saying, is that a man was killed because all he wanted to do was go home and he was just sitting in a Wendy's drive through and he fell asleep. So I don't I don't know. You know, words have meaning. understand that you need to say what you mean. And to say that our training should keep us from killing a man that just wanted to go home just isn't genuine.

I wonder if you believe, as many do, that race was a factor in his death. The prosecutor insinuated this when he spoke of other kinds of emotions. Do I feel, you know, a lot of people ask those questions and, you know, it's hard to answer because I personally don't ever see race. I never have. I've been in law enforcement for over 30 years. I don't care what your color, creed, race. I don't, it doesn't matter. You're a human being. I will treat you as that until you, you know, and I will act the same way you act towards me. If we're cordial, we're talking, we're going to be cordial and talking. If you're going to fight me, I'm going to defend myself. Do I think these officers decided to shoot Mr. Brooks because that appears basically what you're asking me because of his skin color? Absolutely not.

No, no, no. The question being, did race play a factor in this? Not was he killed because they sought out? they sought out? I don't, I mean, to answer your question, no, I don't think so. And I don't know how you could, I mean, other than we are in the climate that we're in today, how you draw that. Just to be sure I understand, in your mind, would a white man or a white woman who engaged in the same behavior as Rayshard Brooks, do you think that they would have also ended up dead? That's the way you want to ask the question? Yes. Okay. Cause it's kind of offensive.

Why do you think? Well, let me finish. If you're asking me if a white person, man or woman, would have done exactly what Mr. Brooks did, would they have been shot and possibly died from it? Yes. If they did exactly what it is, i believe that would have happened the same way but the way you framed it is that if it was a white person would they have been killed you know you keep saying would they've been killed mr brooks was killed because of actions that led up to it the officer did not go out again and I don't know why we have to keep stressing

this. He didn't go out to plan to kill Mr. Brooks or anybody that day. But the way you made it sound, if that was a white person, let's just would have been shot. I don't know how to say that any clearer. But let's caveat that by saying with the exact same actions. But they got to be the exact same actions. We have to be talking about the same situation and just switching the color. But I wonder if this connects to something that you said earlier, you said that you don't see race. And I wonder if you've ever heard pushback on that concept, the idea that it's possible to be colorblind. Because there's a

very strong line of thinking that... Yeah, that you're, that I've heard too, that I'm, apparently I am racist because I say I don't see color. No, let me just, let me just get through this because I think it's, I think it's important. That concept, it may be very well intentioned. I don't see race. But the thinking is that it's actually dangerous. Because if a person says, I don't see race, then what you may actually be saying is that you don't see Black people as different from white people or as treated differently.

And then, therefore, you don't see racism. And it means that no measures will be put in place to acknowledge that the reality of being a Black person is different than the lived reality of being a white person, right? So the point being, it's actually important to see race. It's important to see race in order to change policing. I mean, what do you think of that? I think that's the problem.

Why? When I say I don't see race, that means I treat everybody as the same. But it doesn't mean that I don't see the struggles that other people have. And that's the difference. And if that offends somebody, I apologize for that. But what I mean is they're a human being. But it's not that I don't see that there's racism. I'm not saying that there isn't. What I said to you is I don't see it as far as I don't do it. Me as my person, me as Vince Champion, I do not subscribe to that type of stuff. And, you know, it's interesting.

We're sitting here having this conversation, but nobody really wants to talk about how many times officers have stepped in and protected people from racism. And nobody knows about it because, you know, why? Because that's our job. And you talk about seeing it. Absolutely, we see it. That's our job. And you talk about seeing it. Absolutely, we see it.

You know, it just seems like everybody wants to make people talk different and act different when you ask the question. I don't see it. And that's the only way I can explain it. And for anybody to say that that makes me a racist, shame on you. You want to change what words mean. That's all there is to it. No, you're making clear that you do see it. You're saying you have seen acts of racism.

So you do see race. Correct. Racism. I'm curious. Go ahead. No, please. No, go ahead. racism. I'm curious. Go ahead. No, please. No, go ahead. Here's the, you know, you're walking down the road and I understand the questioning, but here's the problem that I see, how I see it.

A lot of people are going to have this argument about race and systemic racism in law enforcement. The statistics don't prove it. And you go and pull nationwide and you pull in certain cities and states law enforcement records. And I just did this because I had to do this in front of the city council in Chattanooga, Tennessee. In 2019, use of force, 59% were white, 39% were black. If you start looking nationwide, you start seeing similar percentages. So the issue is, the argument isn't there. My opinion, my opinion only, the statistics are not the issue. What the issue is, is the perception from the Black community that that is what's going on. community that that is what's going on. So where we in law enforcement fall short is we don't change and help change that perception. I want to counter what you have just described in those statistics and the idea that this is a question of perception rather than conduct and patterns. I'm sure you know some of this. Local and federal

investigations have found what they describe as systemic racial bias in the Chicago Police Department, in the Baltimore Police Department, in the Ferguson Police Department. Now, in Ferguson, what they found was that black drivers were more than twice as likely to be searched after being stopped as white drivers were. In New York City, where I live, data makes clear that police stopped and frisked Black and Latino New Yorkers at significantly higher rates

than they actually represent in the city. About 83% of the stops during about a decade-long period involved Black and Hispanics, even though they make up about 50% of the stops during about a decade-long period involved black and Hispanics, even though they make up about 50% of the city's residents. So 83% of stops, 50% of the city's residents. And in Minneapolis, just a few weeks ago, data showed that use of force against black people in that city was seven times greater than it was against white people in the city.

So the idea that it's just perception rather than a documented data-based conclusion about conduct does not seem accurate because all of that data seems to point to a pattern of racial discrimination. I'm not going to dispute the fact of what you're saying. One, I haven't pulled the stats. I'll take your word for the stats.

You said three or four cities. I said one city. So the thing is, you know, you can go to your states and pull yours. I can go to my states and pull mine. Now, is there departments that actually may have it? I'm not going to argue that point the Black community, this is how they feel. How do we prevent them from feeling that way? You keep saying feel, and I believe that is a deliberate word choice. But when a Black American is hurt or is killed in one of these interactions, in many cases by a white police officer, do you understand why that doesn't feel like a perception?

Like an experience? Sure, sure. And I can understand that. And I understand what you're saying. But we can do this all day long. But that's not helping anything. What we need to do is fix why it is the way that it is and why people feel that way. Because if we try to prove and try to change that and make it better to where it's not that way,

isn't it the same, whether it's a perception or reality? We talked about the concept of systemic racism in policing, and you said that you didn't think police officers are operating with racist assumptions. Do you think police officers operate with unconscious bias? Police officers, as you know, they have enormous discretion and power. They carry guns. They can end lives. And I think what people who are protesting and demonstrating now are talking

about are decisions that don't feel conscious. They may not be intentional, but they are kind of baked into how people operate and how they police. Are you asking me if I believe that's the rule or if that happens? If it can, if it does explain behavior and if it's a reality. Yes, I would say probably so. Could somebody, because of their upbringing and how they've lived their life and everything, subconsciously do that? Yeah. Yeah. And the main reason that I would have to say yes is when you're in a stressful situation, you technically you don to take over, not your thought process. So with that being said, you're subconscious if you've trained yourself over your years of living

a certain way, and maybe you've, I don't know, suppressed those because it's not societally acceptable and you're trying to be a good person in society that under a stressful situation could that bias come out unspannowingly i mean that only would make common sense since scientifically it actually it works in training and other stuff so So, yeah, I could see that that could be a true statement. Mm-hmm. And I think that's where somebody who is Black and somebody who has had an experience with a police that is unpleasant and maybe even violent would say that's not a perception, that's their reality.

Mm-hmm. And I agree with that. I'm curious what conversations you and your colleagues are having in this moment. I have to assume that you go into the office each day, the union headquarters, or you meet with rank-and-file officers, and you're all absorbing these

protests. And I'm curious what kinds of conversations you all are having in this moment. The conversations are really questioning whether we want to continue to do the job, what the conversations are becoming are more of, more of digging down in our personal being to decide is, did we do this job for the right reason or the wrong reason?

I walked into this job, my son has walked into this job for what it's for, to protect and serve. As cliche as that sounds, that's why we do this. We don't get holidays and weekends off. We know that going in. We know that the pay is not the best. We know that going in. We know we could get hurt or killed.

We know that going in. So you look at yourself and you go, you know, why are you doing the job? And that's been the conversation. Is the job getting to where it's not what you thought it was? It's not maybe for you? You know, now, are you becoming the dinosaur officer that needs to go? You know, everybody says things aren't done like they're used to. Well, that's true. They're not. So you've got to learn to conform and make these changes. And if you don't think you can, maybe it's time for you to move on. Well, I really appreciate your time, Mr. Champion. It's been good talking to you.

I think I enjoyed it. Thank you. During an interview on CNN, Paul Howard, the Fulton County District Attorney, was asked about claims that his prosecution of officers Rolfe and Brosnan is politically motivated. It is the same criticism we have had in every police case, particularly no matter how important the case was. The more important or significant the case, the more the accusation was that it was political. This is nothing new. Howard said that politics has played no role. We've charged it based upon the facts.

And I'm hoping that the people in this country will get away from the little criticisms and understand the broad picture. This is a 27-year-old man who's dead. He didn't have to die. These shootings are continuing to happen all over our country. And I think what those protesters in all over the country, they're not demonstrating because they thought Paul Howard did something political. They're demonstrating because citizens in our country continue to die and a high number of those citizens are African-Americans. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to nerdy. The window is closing.

We have to act, and people as individuals have to act responsibly. of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, told NBC News that the coronavirus was on the verge of becoming an uncontainable crisis in the U.S. We need to social distance. We need to wear our face coverings if we're in settings where we can't social distance, particularly in these hot zones. Over the weekend, infection soared across the West and South, with 42,000 new cases identified on Saturday alone. Texas and Arizona reported a record number of hospitalizations, and testing sites in Florida turned people away because lines became so long.

Look, if you listen to what the Secretary said, if you listen to what the President says, they're saying what they said three months ago. They're basically in denial about the problem. They don't want to tell the American people the truth. And they don't want to have any federal response except supporting the state, supporting the state. press after Azar, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo blamed the Trump administration for failing to act decisively and for giving little guidance to states. So I heard that and I understood where they were. I knew what they were saying. You're on your own. And it's not a good feeling, but it's

sort of liberating. As of Sunday night, the virus has infected more than 2.5 million Americans and killed at least 125,000 of them. Across the world, it has infected 10 million people and killed nearly 500,000. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.