17 Burst results for "Barry Friedman"
"barry friedman" Discussed on WCPT 820
"In Pennsylvania. Hi, Laurie. Welcome. Oh, hi. Last time I saw you, I lived in Asheville. Oh, my gosh. I'm neither from practice or but I used to be in Nashville. So you were there, and it was a roof party on the A place called Iraq. Yes. Love me some Asheville Anyway, Go ahead, Laura. Okay? Uh, well, uh, The funny thing is, I pulled up out of a book, A A tweet from Barry Friedman and on May 20th and 2019. Right when President Trump a former guy was about to appoint a Supreme Court justice nominee that like here, Yes. And, uh, anyway, so you know, the funny thing is that in 2012? Donald Trump paid for an abortion allegedly and he didn't contest it. Um, and apparently it was somebody that worked in the Trump grew. Which the president owned in New York City. I think knowing his character, we probably know how how many abortions he's paid for, and the fact that he appointed three Anti choice justices is just the awful icing on the awful cake. Okay? You know, it's like my friend Rob of Robin Trish yesterday. I don't know why Somehow we're down the X road. Oh, God, no, no, You can't drop that bomb and run. Let's have it. It's only one. I want one crazy, He said. I didn't know She was crazy cake with crazy icing. I thought she was regularly take the crazy icing. You know, she was crazy cake with crazy. I said this is a Republican party goes awful cake with awful icing. Several layers. Yes, Outlook, for instance. Did you think How long could she go? How Well can they go? Did you think that? Yes. How low? Can they go? Well? Mm hmm. Remington, You know, the gun company has subpoena the report cards, attendance records and disciplinary records of kindergartners and first graders murdered at Sandy Hook. In case you were wondering, Could it get more awful than Texas in terms of rat bastard is, um so yes. Yes, Bastard. People, all of them. Mhm, Okay. And I'll tell you why I can't put up with you people because your bastard people OK Soo in Rockville. Hello, soup. Hey, Good morning. I'm on two quick things. First of all, Is there anyone more cowardly than in Texas Republicans? They have no plans to enforce this law. Okay, It's really important. People understand that they're sitting back and appointing the vigilantes to enforce the law because they know it's illegal. They've got list. That's how it sneaks under judicial review, because it's not a state officer. It's private citizens that I mean, this is just so, uh, it's hard to even Get to the levels of awfulness of it, right? Right. So we need to shut down the whistle blower group, which we can not by putting dirty stuff on because that doesn't do the trick. Pro, probably like whistle blower dot com is hosted by Go, Daddy go to the go daddy site, file and abuse form. They are violating the personal records and the hip hop by hip hop apologies. If they reveal any medical information, they name any woman who's getting medical services. They're in violation. Yeah, these are the same people screaming about HIPPA rights when you ask, Are you vaccinated? I'd like to protect my own health. Yeah. Exact other thing we have to do is we have to boycott any company that gives money and I put up a list. The first was from Judd. Let him this morning. If you're getting money to Republican Texas, we will boycott you. If your headquarters are in Texas. We will boycott you Move. Terry McAuliffe has already inviting companies to come set up headquarters in Virginia. We have to. We have to power. Good luck Recruiting people to moved. Talent to move to Texas for sure. Good points. Um The president obviously slammed the Supreme Court Thursday for not blocking the Texas abortion law, calling it an unprecedented assault on women's constitutional rights. Um, which has been a lot of land for almost 50 years. The laws so extreme is not even allow exceptions in the case of rape or incest not only empowers complete strangers to inject themselves into the most private decisions made by a woman, it actually incentivizes them to do so, with the prospect of $10,000 If they win their case, I'm just not doing his whole statement. Obviously, some parts Um, I'm directing that the council in the office of the White House counsel to launch a whole of government effort to respond to this decision, um, looking specifically Department Health and Human Services Department of Justice to see what steps the federal government can take to ensure that women in Texas had access to safe and legal abortions as protected by row. And what legal tools we have to insulate women and providers from the impact of Texas is bizarre scheme. Of outsourced enforcement to private parties. So we'll ask Glenn about all that. What? You know America. Garland obviously tweeted about it, Um more run Ellie Pistols idea by him, Nancy Pelosi obviously has said When they come back from recess, they will bring up legislation that would codify Roe versus Wade. Judy Chu. We know we've had on the show many times in March with her and gay pride. He's fantastic. She's been putting this forward for years. And this is the kind of thing about Democrats gotta get stopped getting late to the party. We should have done this a long time ago. This is the problem is nobody took this seriously. Everybody's like, oh, tailoring, Trump say those people right and over. We wait is never going to get overturned and blah, blah, blah. Even well, Even the media. You know, this really snuck up on Oh, yeah, because they were too busy, Yes, beating Biden up for getting us out of America's longest war with the most success successful evacuation in history. I'm sorry. You poke the nerve. I'm sorry. Okay, That's all right there. There, she said upon our return those Chris and I talked to each other exclusively an old p s. A. You do believe? Let me get btg. Okay? Like most siblings, we know how to annoy each other more than very much in the world Loser Townie guy. You probably have the media. Loser Townie guy and yes, And it has Chris probably has H media media. Alright, well, it's hard to spell okay, It is hard to spell, Pelosi said. Upon our return, the house will bring up Congresswoman Judy Choose Women's Health and Protection Act enshrined into law. Reproductive health care for all women across America. But you know, here we are Chris the same story. This will pass the house. It will die in the Senate. If we don't I mean, now this filibuster thing, it's only about everything. It's only about democracy in America. Voting rights, women's rights It is, I don't know what to say. Joe Biden or what's his name? Joe Manchin. Uh oh, God, I can't. I can't I I think I'm gonna vote. Did someone call it performative Centrism?.
"barry friedman" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"And feel the pressure of policing in one of the things we hear out of those communities is that they are being hit with fines and fees all the time, which then you know, they may be keep. Folks can't afford it. So then they end up with warrants out on them. Then they get arrested, and there's the spiral that we did actually ends up costing us a tremendous amount of money is society. Does not really solve problems. And so again, it would be better if we pleased, smarter, whether that's using the police or whether that's using private resources than the way that we currently do. Howard. I want to ask you about black and brown communities because a lot of times there is at least in our sort of public discourse about it. There's this idea that maybe there's a generational divide that there's a class divide that there are some black folks who really want more policing and others who want to defund or abolish. How would you sort of reflect on what those divides look like and how they complicate this story? You know, the reality is there is a black white divide. The most recent polls show us that blacks still have the most negative view of the police. He would know that number is not as low as it used to be. There's still a divide there. You also see a class dimension and Reality is there is a different experience in this country with American policing based upon race and class, and we have not done a very good job of addressing that issue, and that divide So here's one big thing I keep hearing from former police officers, and that is that the culture of the policing itself is a challenge that what happens in that sort of behind that blue line? Wouldn't be funding potentially actually make that problem worse or at least not address it. Right. If there's a toxic police culture, it could be better or or less well resourced. But should we care about and try to address police culture? I think that's the broader issue and thank you for raising that question. We have several examples of police departments that have defunded or reallocating resource is and address the direct culture, and they've been proud of successful so far, even though we did a little more time. Understand the longstanding effect of de funding a reallocation of services, but I think a lot of what we're talking about here is a matter of perception. It's a matter tradition, and many officers are not used to that from a policing that society's now requesting and expecting. Maybe I want to give you the last one on this. And what I heard from Howard is sometimes we need a little more time. What should be the measures that we're using to determine whether or not any of the reforms that we seek to implement are in fact being successful, making us safer. Yeah, I hate to say it. But that's the million dollar question which is for a long time policing drove on measures like how many folks got arrested. What were the number of stops that the police conducted and we've I think all become dissatisfied with that, but we don't have good measures to replace that folks wanna look at the crime rate. You know, you will find that some folks are eager to take credit when the crime rate goes down, but not eager to accept the responsibility with the crime rate goes up, and I think policing, you know, over the run of history doesn't affect that crime rate that much, So we have to look at what of the things we want out of policing. Like, Howard says. Do we want to know whether the community feel safe? Do we want to know whether the community feels comfortable calling 911? That's a really important measure. Does the community have satisfaction with its policing agency and those air At least some of the questions we can ask, But the truth is, this is a real unknown and something we need to work on. Howard Henderson is the founding director of the Center for Justice Research, and Barry Friedman is the founding director of the Policing project and why you School of law? Thank you.
"barry friedman" Discussed on The Takeaway
"One year ago this week officer. Derek chauvin murdered. George floyd in broad daylight while dozens of witnesses watched filmed and pleaded with him to stop now three other police officers face charges of aiding and abetting second degree murder because they failed to intervene. Callous cruelty of these officers undeterred. By knowing they were being watched and recorded convinced many americans. The policing reform is insufficient. This time organizers demanded full. Abolition or significant defunding of police initially please abolitionists enjoyed some modest victories by securing promises to shift municipal budget priorities in nearly two dozen cities for example seattle. Cut three million from its policing department and used a process of community participatory budgeting to reallocate the funds and in the city where police killed. George floyd minneapolis city council president. Linda bender made this promise last summer and our city is toxic relationship with the minneapolis. Police departments do an's policing as we know it and to recreate stems up public back -cially. He now works later. The movement to defend or abolish believes has prude complicated and holding as earlier reform movements opponents of defunding have blamed these leaner policing budgets for post quarantine uptick in crime and police. Unions have remained largely intractable poco. Budget processes are far more opaque than some may have anticipated if the conventional imperative to follow. The money is accurate. Just where do we arrive when we follow the dollars. Spent an cut from american police budgets. During this turbulent year. I'm melissa harris. Perry in for tenzin avia and discussing how police funding has or hasn't changed is where we start today on the takeaway for more on this. We're joined now by barry. Friedman professor and founding director of the policing project at new york university school of law and along with berry is howard henderson professor of texas southern university and the founding director of the center for justice research howard and berry. Welcome i me. So i wanna just start with this question. Do police make us safe. And it's a really hard question and the information on it is the data on. It is really very very mixed and when you say safe i just wanna make the point. Melissa that safe means both addressing of crime but it also means being safe from the police and too often when we think about public safety we think about one of those two things and not the other but if you want an accurate vision of whether we're being safer because of policing you have to look at both of them when you do. It's a mixed bag. There's some studies that suggest some policing tactics are successful in some ways. But the numbers are much lower than you might think. And we really as in too much round. Policing we lack of knowledge base howard. You want to jump in on this as well. We'll jumping on. And on. And i think barry's absolutely writing in the fact that there's a mixed bag but i will also say that. The the critics of the police movement assert that we need more funding in policing with armed police across the country but there's insufficient data to support the position either direction the fact the researchers found that the police don't have any totally facing track record of solving violent crime and say before the the research does show wasn't that seventy percent robberies in six percent rates forty seven percent of aggravated assaults and thirty eight percent murders go unsolved each year so the data again provides us position where. We're not sure exactly how the police are not. That lies the problem so for me. That is kind of this underlying set of assumptions. If we believe the police make safe then of course we want to give more resources to whatever it is that would keep us safe right whether it is a lock on our front door or whether it is a new police precinct but if those aren't the things that keep us safe then how might we wanna reallocate budgets so that we are safer. Do we have any data that suggests in fact we become safer socially as well as maybe safer from the police. We do know that funding alternatives to policing have been affected. We know that forcing police to focus on a more community. Health approach using mental health. Services alternative saves time saves money to save lives. We understand the alternatives are affected. The problem is we are forced with trying to change. The minds of americans who have been focused on policing and social control is no mechanism. I just wanna go to precisely that point. There's a political question here right. There's there's a question of what that word defunding means. What it prompts. And whether or not it's actually attached to these practices of making us safer right so one thing we might need to do is think about what safety even means and i think that is exactly what many of the communities that are raising issues about. Defunding are asking. Safety means freedom from third party violence. I think we can all agree about that but it also means you know adequate food and housing and jobs and opportunities so one of the things we know for example is the money that is put into job programs actually brings down crying and make society more productive and so what we need to do is think about whether their resources in society that we can devote to underlying problems and actually solve them. You know one of the things that happens. Is people call nine one. They don't call the police by the way they call nine one one and we send the police and the police come. But it's rare that the police can actually solve that problem and so very often police might stabilize things. Perhaps with some harm but the question is have we tackle the underlying problem that brought them there in the first place. How are helping to understand why police budgets are as large as they are right now in the first place Let's let's use this in the. Us we spend an estimated one hundred billion dollars policing every year most of that is based upon the perception of fear. We have been talked and trained that the police are necessary in society at the level that they currently are while we need to begin to invest in education healthcare housing in other critical program. We'd just been trained in culture to believe that policing needs to be as bloated as it is now berry right now in part because of that training that we have this belief as we're seeing an uptick in some forms of property crime some forms of violent crime in some cities kind of as the quarantine Lifting and more people are heading back out into interaction with each other. You're seeing. I'm certainly seeing op. Eds popping up across the country saying this is a result of defunding..
"barry friedman" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"To Parker's original question, which is If protecting people on the streets. He's so damn hard Tonto make legally binding because it's not their job. Then what is their job? Ah, now you come to the fundamental problem. So this is Professor Barry Friedman, Well professor at New York University School of Law, and I'm the faculty director of the Policing Project there. Is there anywhere in the country that has like Really clear laws for what the local or state police is supposed to be doing or what they're not supposed to be doing. No. His remarkable I was interested in policing for years and years, and this is the light ball that went off in my head. Finally, and then I started to see it everywhere that I looked. What you get is you know you might get a drone statute in one state and you'll get a statute about chokeholds in another state, and you'll get a statute about you. No license plate readers in another state, but it's all totally like pin prick. And what you will never, ever ever find is a comprehensive code of police conduct doesn't exist. That's so strange and like, not even in like, I don't know State constitutions or something. Maybe that's a far cry you're listening to is making me so happy because you know you're listening in the veil is coming off of your eyes and I and it happened to me, but But, no. You know, this is a question that we oddly don't ask much about the police but ask in most other areas of government. So if you think about it, you know, there's whether it's the FDA or Your local zoning board. We don't usually think of government getting to do things without some sort of formal permission, Statute or a constitutional authorization. Wait, So we're just like, collectively as a society being like. Hey, you're a cop, and they're like. Oh, okay. What does that mean? I don't know. Just do what you gotta do, like, all right, And then that's it. No. This is Jack and the president. To be fair. We called up a bunch of active duty officers. Hello, hello from all over the country from South Carolina for the city of Charleston, Police Department. One police officer in the state of Connecticut, Illinois, Florida police officer with the Lincoln Police Department in Nebraska. Them like what do they think Their job is? They said well, to protect people who certainly that's part of it. Intervening and protecting gin and again, they said, Yeah, helping people is kind of cliches that sound our job is to protect and serve. We want to protect people stuff. We want to protect people against burglaries trying to protect women from from abuser. We have a natural duty to protect. What most police officers want to be doing is standing between the general public and violence want do your best to help other people and keep them out of harm's way. That's why we're doing this and in talking to them about where that idea actually comes from. So when, when you talk about duties like Where is it written down kind of gets into the code of ethics for policing or models? It's ethics guidelines. It is models like protect and serve its city charters that created police forces in those cities. Charters that say things like Protect the peace, maintain order, enforce the law correctly getting this and this is something that came up in. Sarkar is conversation with Barry Friedman that the actual mandates for what police? They're supposed to be doing our kind of internal to the police department's themselves, And the problem is, there's a lack of democratic control. We don't use the ordinary ways that we do everything else in government with regard to the police. We don't pass statutes. We don't Um, passed regulations. We don't then because we have those statutes do sufficient auditing to make sure that they're being followed. And the reason it's hard to hold people responsible today is because we're missing clear rules on the front to tell them what we expect them to do. And I guess in that void it sort of it seems like what happens is it leaves the courts to kind of debate over what those rules are and how to draw lines, I guess. Yes, And they're terrible at it. I mean, if you again if you think about it, the Constitution is kind of a weird way to run anything in government. I mean, it's it's a framework for government. But all it is is the framework and then the framework gets filled in with statutes. We have environmental protection statutes, and we have workplace safety statutes. Um, but we don't have Policing statutes. And so basically, the courts are left to try to hold people accountable or not. Under the vague assed of Terms. That's why it's hard to hold people accountable and why people get frustrated, And the odd thing is, they keep doubling down on that by creating more mechanisms on the back end to try to hold people responsible. And don't notice that the whole problem is the vacuum as you described it on the front end. I mean, you've puzzled through it, Sarah and a very logical way and everywhere you turn looking for logic, you find a twist, and that's that's problematic. What bothers me about the moment we're in there many vases of some things about the moment we're in, but people are walking around very much with a bad apples. View of The problems. When the truth of the matter is that the orchard justice regulated Well, let me ask you a bigger question when asked us to Parker if it's not legally the police's job to protect us. Then whose job is it? I don't know. You know, this is so sad. It is, But there's this one part of the story. I haven't told you yet. That gives me a little hope. Like If.
"barry friedman" Discussed on KQED Radio
"You would definitely result in harm to your face and you're back in your hands and then four, Joe would have then had to say. Great. I will now relax myself and act differently in the knowledge that you will help me. That is insane. That's insane, And I guess it it kind of brings me back to Parker's original question, which is If protecting people on the streets. He's so damn hard Tonto make legally binding because it's not their job. Then what is their job? Ah, now you come to the fundamental problem. So this is Professor Barry Friedman, Well professor at New York University School of Law, and I'm the faculty director of the Policing project there. Is there anywhere in the country that has like a really clear laws for what the local or state police is supposed to be doing, or Well what they're not supposed to be doing. No. Really is remarkable. I was interested in policing for years and years, and this is the light ball that went off in my head. Finally, and then I started to see it everywhere that I looked. What you get is you know you might get a drone statute in one state and you'll get a statute about chokeholds in another state, and you'll get a statute about you. No license plate readers in another state, but it's all totally like pin prick. And which you will never, ever ever find is a comprehensive code of police conduct doesn't exist. That's so strange and like, not even in like, I don't know State constitutions or something. Maybe that's a far cry you're listening to is making me so happy because you know you were listening in the veil is coming off of your eyes and I and it happened to me, but But, no. You know, this is a question that we oddly don't ask much about the police but ask in most other areas of government. So if you think about it, you know, there's whether it's the FDA or Your local zoning board. We don't usually think of government getting to do things without some sort of formal permission, Statute or a constitutional authorization. Wait. So we've just like, collectively as a society being like. Hey, you're a cop, and they're like, OK? What does that mean? I don't know. Just do what you gotta do, like, all right, And then that's it. No Mrs. Jabbing the president to be fair way called up a bunch of active duty officers. Hello, hello from all over the country, from South Carolina Recruiter for the city of Charleston, Police Department. One police officer in the state of Connecticut, Illinois, Florida police officer with the Lincoln Police Department in Nebraska. We asked him like what do they think Their job is? They said well, to protect people who was certainly that's part of it. Intervening and protecting getting again. They said. Yeah, helping people is kind of cliches that sounds our job is to protect and serve. We wanna protect people stuff. We want to protect people against burglaries trying to protect women from from abuser. We have a natural duty to protect. What most police officers want to be doing is standing between the general public and violence. You want to do your best to help other people and keep them out of harm's way. That's why we're doing this and in talking to them about where that idea actually comes from. So when, when you talk about duties like Where is it written down kind of gets into the code of ethics for policing or models? It's ethics guidelines. It is Mona's, like, protect and serve its city charters that created police forces in those cities. Charters that say things like Protect the peace. Maintain order. Enforce the law. You're correct, And this is something that came up in. Sarkar is conversation with Barry Friedman that the actual mandates for what police are supposed to be doing our kind of internal to the police department's themselves, And the problem is, there's a lack of democratic control. We don't use the ordinary ways that we do everything else in government with regard to the police. We don't pass statutes. We don't Um, passed regulations. We don't then because we have those statutes do sufficient auditing to make sure that they're being followed. And the reason it's hard to hold people responsible today is because we're missing clear rules on the front to tell them what we expect them to do. And I guess in that void it sort of it seems like what happens is it leaves the courts to kind of debate over what those rules are and how to draw lines, I guess. Yes, And they're terrible at it. I mean, if you again if you think about it, the Constitution is kind of a weird way to run anything in government. I mean, it's it's a framework for government. But all it is, is the framework and then the framework. It's filled in with statutes. We have environmental protection statutes, and we have workplace safety statutes, but we don't have Policing statutes. And so basically, the courts are left to try to hold people accountable or not. Under the vague assed of Terms. That's why it's hard to hold people accountable and why people get frustrated, And the odd thing is, they keep doubling down on that by creating more mechanisms on the back end to try to hold people responsible. And don't notice that the whole problem is the vacuum as you described it on the front end. I mean, you've puzzled through it, Sarah and a very logical way and everywhere you Her looking for logic, You find a twist, and that's that's problematic. And what bothers me about the moment we're in there Many vases of some things about the moment we're in. But people are walking around very much with a bad apples. View of.
"barry friedman" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"One police officer in the state of Connecticut, Illinois, Florida police officer with the Lincoln Police Department in Nebraska asked them like what do they think their job is? They said well, to protect people who certainly that's part of it. Intervening and protecting gin and again, they said, Yeah, helping people is kind of cliches that sounds our job is to protect and serve. We want to protect people stuff. We want to protect people against burglaries trying to protect women from from abuser. We have a natural duty to protect. What most police officers want to be doing is standing between the general public and violence want do your best to help other people and keep them out of harm's way. Why we're doing this and in talking to them about where that idea actually comes from. So when, when you talk about duties like Where is it written down kind of gets into the code of ethics for policing or models. It's ethics guidelines. It is models like protect and serve its city charters that created police forces in those cities. Charters that say things like Protect the peace, maintain order, enforce the law correctly getting this and this is something that came up in. Sarkar is conversation with Barry Friedman that the actual mandates for what police are supposed to be doing our kind of internal to the police department's themselves, And the problem is, there's a lack of democratic control. We don't use the ordinary ways that we do everything else in government with regard to the police. We don't pass statutes. We don't Um, passed regulations. We don't then because we have those statutes do sufficient auditing to make sure that they're being followed. And the reason it's hard to hold people responsible today is because we're missing clear rules on the front to tell them what we expect them to do. And I guess in that void, it's sort of it seems like what happens is it leaves the courts to kind of debate over what those rules are and how to draw lines, I guess. Yes, And they're terrible at it. I mean, if you again if you think about it, the Constitution is kind of a weird way to run anything in government. I mean, it's it's a framework for government. It. All it is, is the framework and then the framework. It's filled in with statutes. We have environmental protection statutes, and we have workplace safety statutes. Um, but we don't have Policing statutes, and so Basically, the courts are left toe, try to hold people accountable or not under the vague assed of Terms. That's why it's hard to hold people accountable and why people get frustrated, And the odd thing is, they keep doubling down on that by creating more mechanisms on the back end to try to hold people responsible. And don't notice that the whole problem is the vacuum as you described it on the front end. I mean, you've puzzled through it, Sarah and I'm very logical way and everywhere you Her looking for logic, You find a twist, and that's that's problematic. And what bothers me about the moment we're in there Many bosses of some things about the moment we're in. But people are walking around very much with a bad apples. View of The problems. When the truth of the matter is that the orchard justice regulated Well, let me ask you a bigger question. I asked us to Parker if it's not legally the police's job to protect us. Then whose job is it? I don't know. You know, this is so sad. It is, But there's this one part of the story. I haven't told you yet. That gives me a little hope..
"barry friedman" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"It comes down to the very same criteria that Jola Zito was being held to. All right. So the rule in New York and it's sort of like this four point test, the first of which is that There has to be direct contact between the person and the police. So someone goes to the police and says You gotta help me. The second thing is the police than have to respond to you and say Okay, we're on it. So some kind of promise to this individual. I will protect you and then number three. You need knowledge on the part of the officers that not acting could lead to harm. The police also have to be aware that if they don't do anything that the person Will suffer. That seems like getting in the head of the police. Yeah. How could you know that kind of thing? That's what now you're seeing why this test is so hard to meet, and then you need. In addition, the fourth thing is kind of the most mind boggling. Which is the person asking for protection. They believe, justifiably that the police will protect them. They have to prove That they relied on the police is protection. They've acted differently. Exactly. They change their behavior because they were like, Oh, fuse. Now I know I'm safe so I can go out. You know where, but I wouldn't have gone out. Otherwise the way the course. Look at these four criteria is like all four of them have to be checked off. Now we've got the right kind of special relationship. And in Jola Zito's case, he just didn't check those boxes. Well, very, very few people do. Wow. God, what have minefield, So if you think about it in order for Jola Zito to have checked those boxes. He would have had to one walk up to the police and say Police. I need your help. I'm about to get stabbed and then to the police would have needed to say yes. We will help you because three. We know that to not help. You would definitely result in harm to your face and you're back in your hands and then four, Joe would have then had to say. Great. I will now relax myself and act differently in the knowledge that you will help me. That is insane. That's insane. And I guess it kind of brings me back to Parker's original question, which is If protecting people on the streets. Is so damn hard Tonto make legally binding because it's not their job. Then what is their job? Ah, now you come to the fundamental problem. So this is Professor Barry Friedman, Well professor at New York University School of Law, and I'm the faculty director of the Policing Project there..
"barry friedman" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"New York at six oh four good morning I'm Kerry Nolan governor Cuomo is warning bars and restaurants in Manhattan and the Hamptons about violating New York state's re opening guidelines he says state inspectors are out and we'll pull liquor licenses for businesses that are not enforcing social distancing guidelines or requiring face masks you violate the law you can lose your license and you will we're not kidding around about this woman says the state is received twenty five thousand complaints about bars and restaurants violating health guidelines bars and restaurants in New York City you're still limited to take out and delivery outdoor dining is allowed on Long Island with table six feet apart and a maximum of ten people at each table New York state Attorney General Leticia James will hold a public hearing by video this Wednesday on the NYPD's tactics during the recent protests any member of the public wishing to testify must submit written testimony to the state AG's website by Tuesday at five PM last month governor Cuomo directed the attorney general's office to investigate how the NYPD is handling the protests following incidents of police violence against demonstrators James named former U. S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and professor Barry Friedman of NYU's policing project as advisors and they'll attend the hearings early voting is underway for New York residents the board of elections is requiring anyone inside a polling site to wear a mask and maintain social distancing poll workers are behind acrylic shields at all the sign in tables and each voter gets their own pen to mark their ballot with all the safety precautions Astoria resident Lisa bianco finds early voting more accessible early voting gives you many days an option to go vote they're open.
"barry friedman" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"Eight twenty NPR news and the New York conversation welcome back to the take away we're continuing our conversation with Barry Friedman the faculty director of the policing project at NYU school of law and author of unwarranted policing without permission Barry in the policing project help the Camden County police department in Camden New Jersey establish the department's focus on community engagement in de escalation and so far crime in the city has gone down since those reforms were instituted in Barry told me why community based policing helps lower crime more efficiently than aggressive and combative policing police will tell you all the time that they are troubled neighborhoods and there is gun violence and there are homicides and nobody will help to police what can be a shock when nobody will help the police they don't trust the police because of many years of very aggressive policing that led to over incarceration and a lot of other ills in so the theory of doing this the right way is if you have mutual respect on both sides if the community the police are working together then you're gonna get the help to fight violence and so you can either make communities safe by all working together or you can try to make communities safe by sending an aggressive policing and tactical squads but it's that latter thing that has proven just not to work so we keep doing it I'll read some numbers here from the Camden police department they say into their data that homicides went from a sixty seven homicides in twenty twelve to twenty five homicides in twenty nineteen and the department says there's been a ninety five percent decrease in excessive force complaints since twenty fourteen given those numbers one would say this is a successful implementation but bear you've been working on this type of policing reform for couple years what do you see that's not working I mean what I see that's not working is the refusal in some places to understand that the success to making communities safe is working with the community and this fall back all too often too there's an uptick in violence and so what we're gonna do is we're gonna send in jump out squads we're gonna start stopping and frisking people this study this with up to Stanford computational policy lab in Nashville we found no relationship whatsoever between those stops in fighting crime and violence and so I think we have to let go of this notion that we're going to enforce ourself to safety and start to say what is safety and what does it mean to the community and how we can work with the community to get there and that's for example what I think you know I hear coming out of the Minneapolis city council I hope is the direction that they're looking for how much appetite do you think police departments have right now to change are they getting it I will purport to know what eighteen thousand agencies thank and in addition you know I think we should be fair to the police in this way take any given department there's a range of officers with a range of different views there are officers that are diverse in many ways they have different ways of thinking about things the question and you raise this is what are we gonna systemically and structurally do and yes we're hearing calls for this from a variety of places I think people are listening I that's the hopeful side of me though the let's hope full sided me worries that we've been here before and not made a lot of progress but on the hopeful side the people are listening the problem is that you know we eat is two fold one is just culture like you've done things for so long in a certain way it's very hard to differentiate each and the other is a more fundamental problem that I was alluding to earlier that we just we haven't fit the job description to the police are we have a raft of social issues that we throw at them and we train them to exercise force a lot so it should not surprise us that what we get in a lot of situations or for some law or at least not solutions to the problems that after all frankly it's unfair to ask the police to solve but we've thrown at them like mental illness and substance abuse.
"barry friedman" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"With w h radio in Boston. So does facial recognition kind of freak you out? Well earlier this week, the San Francisco board of supervisors voted to ban the use of facial recognition technology by local government agencies is the first major city in the US to do so in the band comes at a time when technology driven policing is on the rise. And while San Francisco's police department does not currently use the technology it has tested in the past, and the city's board of supervisors cited concerns about privacy and civil rights in the language of the ban. Opponents of facial recognition technology also argued that it disproportionately affects communities of color right now. I've got Barry Friedman, here, professor at New York University school of law, and director of the policing project. Very thank you for being with us again. Consider it good to see San Francisco bands of facial recognition technology is a big deal. I think it's a huge deal and it's probably an indication of what's to come. This is a real serious problem. We have to get a top of it and San Francisco has done that. So let's talk about the problem. We mentioned at the top that their privacy concerns, civil rights concerns, racism, concerns, can you break some of those down for us. Sure, facial recognition has the possibility of being the greatest civil liberties threat that we've seen in our generation it enables, the government to know where anybody is at any time simply by looking at your face which you can't very well cover up. And then if you think about all of that data being stored the data from cameras everywhere, pervasively, there's a risk that the government can know where you were at any given moment, something that, even the supreme court recently said is real concern. So what do we know about how the technology has been deployed across the country because I know there are some police departments that are using it. I think I when I came through recently after an international flight, I had there was asked to have a photo of my face scan which kind of freaked me out. So what is the sort of scope of it right now? Nobody has a very good picture. I have to give hats off to our friends at the center for privacy and technology Georgetown, which just released a couple of reports today. Indicate that it's sort of sweeping the country in ways that we don't expect the NYPD's when they can't identify a suspect from a picture, they find a celebrity who looks like them and then run that picture through and see what they come up with turns out, Detroit, and Chicago have systems that they have not been using, but have emplaced a lot of smaller departments can just purchase it happy, you know, Amazon has one and then take any database they want. And for very little money at all start doing it. So it's kind of a creeping concern. And there's no rhyme nor reason to how it's being used or how it's being regulated. I wanna talk about some of the concerns, but I also wanna talk about whether or not they've been some successful examples of how the technology has been used. Do you have any, you know, it's complicated in the sense that when you ask about success with technology? We have to ask, could we have done this and other way do we need to do this. So there may be instances in which people have been recognized according to their face. My iphone recognizes me countless times today Cording to my face. But the question is, is there another way that we can do this without putting? His technology government hands without any regulations regulations critical here, and it was the capital gazette shooter, I believe was was caught after facial recognition technology. Is that right? He was identified fire so it so that's important to focus on. Right. Because, you know, this is what always happens around law enforcement use of technology, which is the people expressed concern. And they say, well, but there's this amazing thing that we did. But very often if you sort of pick underneath that it turns out, it wasn't so amazing and you could have done it. Another way without threatening civil liberties, and racial Justice. And so they didn't identify him find him that way. It's just that once they had him, he wasn't willing to speak up. And so they identified him with facial recognition, but we have fingerprints people eventually get identified. It's it may take a little bit more time, but it's not the end of the world, very I've talked to police departments across the country over the past couple years, who are implementing the technology. And I think different types of technology and my sense, is that we hear about these big headline stories. But when you really get down to smaller police departments across the country. There is a sort of a sense of, we're not really sure what we're doing here. So that's you know, that's some level the most important point here the policing project works with police departments all over the country. And one of the things that they'll tell us that frequently they're drowning technology. There's somebody trying to sell them in new technology every minute, and they don't know what technologies to buy which ones they need. One of our initiatives, sort of helping them use cost benefit analysis to figure out what's the really useful technology. What's just another shiny thing on the shelf, that that's going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money? And, and so, I think you're right to point to the fact that, you know, you could tell the story as a civil libertarians wanna stop this in the police all gung, ho, I think the police are befuddled at some level to be doing talk a little bit about the people who are selling this technology is we just did a few months ago, we interviewed, Brian bracketing, who's the CEO of a company named Hirose and they actually developed facial recognition technology, Brian told us that he does not sell his technology to law enforcement. Let's hear why allow these are trained, primarily on white male. Subjects and because of that they have a hard time finding women have a hard time finding or helping African Americans are you name it. They're also more likely to false, positively identify someone with darker skin tones or a woman versus a man. So therefore, an governments scenario, you'd be more likely to be charged with a crime because of their skin tone, because your ethnicity or gender. Obviously. That's an appropriate. Barry are these things that can be fixed, are these tweaks that can be made to the technology, so over some period of time, it is likely that we will fix a great deal of this. It's foolhardy to think that they won't always be false positives, and false negatives that we won't be identified the wrong person sometimes failing to identify somebody want to at the moment. The technology is very much flawed because it does as he was saying, identify white men at a better rate than it does anyone else, and that, that causes problems in both directions. We're talking obviously about San Francisco ordinance, which only. The use of facial recognition technology by the city government want to expand this. We're coming up on the end of the segment. But I want to talk a little bit about the federal agencies and San Francisco ice customs and border protection. And even the federal government are we? Are they still able to use facial recognition technology? Yes. Absolutely. And this is why there's a desperate need for us to have regulation, I think, at the federal level and maybe at the local level, I don't think any of these technologies should be used without public approval and the default in this country has been to use them, and then see if somebody stops you but that can't possibly be the right answer around questions like this sort of our article, faith at the policing project is you get public approval on the front end. And then you decide whether it be forward. Where do you think this is headed across the country because there are similar bans? I think being proposed in other cities. So there are a lot of cities that are looking at this than are looking at please technologies, generally, but I'm would be surprised within the next six months, if we don't see a number of bills in congress to do. Something facial.
"barry friedman" Discussed on The Fifth Column
"Sorry about all of that. Usages is climate. It's still a huge glum European Union to it's been flat for the last eighteen months in both places. So like, if we take the utility approach or more of utility approach towards them and saying that we need create these rules under which they can. Navigate these three billion people, whoever whatever is the global number of it. I fear that they don't go away because I want them to go away. Eventually, but I disagree with that. In fact, I actually think I would be incredibly reluctant to ask the government to create rules to defend freedom of speech on social media, primarily because I didn't trust the government as far as I could throw it when it comes to freedom of speech. Yeah. And in fat one of the things one of the discrim is I've I've had with with libertarians recently is the I I sometimes think that the. That desire to kind of insulate individual rights from the majority from the democratic process is often driven in my view by kind of defensiveness all even cowardice or fit that they are incapable of convincing the public how important the charged right? So I I so I do think so I I actually why we about first amendment activism, sometimes I kind of envy the first amendment because we don't have it in the United Kingdom. But I also worry that it becomes a very simplistic way to strike down censorship in a constitutional fashion without needing to convince people and win people other. I try to make this fisted argument. It's just not popular. It's no puffing. But it can it's great. It's great point of view like yours somebody who is sympathetic and kind of like you said envious of of the having first amend protections. But seeing the flaws I think in the overall application, I quick insertion Barry Friedman wrote a book ten years ago. So it was names escape me. But he a. Ause it that that you can only have a lag between supreme court, opinion and public opinion for so much. The supreme court's not going to get that far out right now the supreme court in the the US has a huge strong free speech protection. Meanwhile, the public is going in the opposite direction will of the people. This is alternately untenable. I'm happy about the supreme court thing. But I'm not happy about the public thing. And that's why we try to make these arguments. But yes, exactly, right. Because the will of the people can be changed to engagement and discussion and so on, but Matt I think you're absolutely right by the culture of freedom of speech. And I'm I'm sure I've used that phrase, son. I'm going to steal from me because I really agree with that. I I would I would not like the government to st- into Facebook's offices and force them to stop banning people that would be an undesirable situation. Jeffrey Rosen the national constitutional center in Philadelphia. I did it discuss with him recently. A few years ago on censorship on social media. And he was making the point. Well, do you want these American corporations to force countries like Saudi Arabia will Pakistan or wherever else to to to allow people to say things that those countries sing they shouldn't say, and that's a really button. Holing question because on the one hand you want to say yet. Let people in Saudi Arabia, say whatever they want and then people in Pakistan, say whatever they want. But then you are also implicitly calling on American corporate power to override national sovereignty..
"barry friedman" Discussed on Art of Failure
"Is you? They are. Michael. Traveling through the cable. Yes. I apologize lost to and we lost each other. I don't know if found is to get I'm a little late up. My youngest daughter from. Swimming. I just we're going to end it here. I just wanted to just do some sort of mini conclusion. And I think that what I've learned from you today in addition to being moved by these stranger in the woods is you said that your career was like an hourglass your your careers shaped like an hourglass. And if I think about that and it gets pinched in the middle. What happens is that? You know, the sand runs out. This is after the shame of the failure gets pinched in the middle of the San runs out. And then what do we do we turn it over? We literally turned hourglass over and we start again that came to me because you talked about hourglass, and I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for a the book and be being so candid with us here on failure. It's just a tremendous tremendous gift to be able to have somebody like you on really. Thank you. My. I feel like I was rambling on a little bit. But you know, you have such a I don't know such in fighting way of integrating some of that. I just felt like I was you weren't in France. But I did feel like I had a glass of Rosa, and we just sitting there in your living room to shooting the ball in but more than that sort of halfway between therapy session and a wine drinking, such that's where flies. That's awesome. Well, go pick up your daughter. Thank you for doing this again, and godspeed on all the rest of your stuff. Thank you so much. Thank you for having me on what a pleasure. I appreciate. Okay. All right. Thanks. Bye. Bye. Bye. Hey, thanks so much for listening to art of failure. I hope you'll join us again special. Thanks to cale fuss. -ment Sally Sanborn Noah Samborn Friedman Musi Friedman my agents at. Anita Billie Dunn and Sam John MaGee and Miranda, Schaefer, Joanna Pinto. My mom sunny sisters March Michelle who witnessed many early failures. Thanks, Barry Friedman, so much for our music and special. Thanks to everyone out there who has experienced failure at keeps moving forward. That's what we need to do. Let's remember that Winston Churchill defines success as the ability to move from failure to failure without losing into Seattle. Stay in to keep moving and I'll see next time. Thanks for listening..
"barry friedman" Discussed on Radio Atlantic
"Was dominated really blunt talk from president this is exactly yeah this is exactly where i'm going with this is that the that stylistically of course obama saying that to you and trump saying in front of secretary general jens stoltenberg you all are delinquent russia owns the germans is this how much though is this merely a rhetorical difference and how much of this actually makes a difference as far as policy is concerned the funhouse mirror version of what obama said obama said something that people have said on both sides of the aisle in american politics which is like hey nato chip in your rich now when the alliance was created europe was on its back and so the united states represented half the world economy and you know dow germany is different than it was right after the war obviously so it's a difference in tone but it's also a difference in kind never question no american president until this current president has questioned the efficacy value the importance not only the defense importance but the i idealistic importance of of nato so trump is found the achilles heel on the issue right he he american taxpayers can understand intuitively hey stop ripping us off right but his critique is not limited to budgetary considerations his critique seems to be of the nature his critique is of the western alliance itself which is i'm not saying he's consciously doing vladimir putin's bidding but he's doing putin's bidding whether or not they're coordinated is a is a separate question but but he's actually aiding russia in its long standing feud with nato by weakening the aligns two years ago our colleague barry friedman kind of made this real he he had an interview with a british general i'm richard sheriff who was one of the highest ranking military officials in nato and asked him about this one scenario what if russia invaded the baltics while donald trump was president in july of two thousand sixteen or e asked this question what would happen if the baltic nations were invaded by russia and i'm i guess that's that is i mean this is a very basic question right and and and prisoner bama who was no fan of extraneous wars what he thought it was during his words and this is a critique from the mccain camp and even from part of the hillary camp visavis ukraine ukraine was not a nato and there is i was never an indication for barack obama that he would go to war on behalf of ukraine against russia but statutorily or bye bye by treaty he was obligated to go to war on behalf of the baltic states that had been brought into nato and i have no doubt that had russia invaded estonia lithuania latvia the united states would have gone us military action of defend them under obama under obama now this is where i mean this is this is this is a reminder it's an interesting moment to remind us that all of the crises and international affairs that we've had over the past however many months it is that trump has been president eighteen twenty months are self created right i mean we all there's all this drama going on but you on drama just wait until putin decides that now's the moment to start sneaking in his little green men into stony a or lithuania latvia the way he did and ukraine the nato headquarters and much of the american foreign policy defense elite including the defense secretary mattis we'll say well russia's gone to war against our friends we are obligated to defend them and this is going to be a kind of interesting moment to see what the president is does does he does he uphold america's stark obligation to members of the nato alliance or does he not but it's a question that was never open it was it was not it's not it was not a question that would have been bothered to have been asked but so if you're gonna have to leave us in a second important editor in chief stuff yes but i've gotta ask president trump is.
"barry friedman" Discussed on Slate's Political Gabfest
"Really really goes to the right but in a way that puts it at odds not only with the american public but eventually with congress and the presidency and then you get to a scenario that's like nineteen thirty seven barry friedman of nyu law professor who wrote a book all about the court and public opinion has been prophesying this the idea of like the fbi at the fdr court packing scheme which was bad for for him as a president bad for the court the court back down right so it's a crisis it's a constitutional crisis even but it gets resolved through the political system door number three is like an aslo erosion of rights especially voting rights and like fair and assessable elections in a way that while the court is frustrating popular will the public loses its way to elect democrats effectively like the court is really entrenching republican partisan power and that's scary like i don't know where that ends i was talking to mark tush net another really interesting on lap fester about this the other day and he was like well that's the nineteen sixties but you could also argue that that's the eighteen fifties so anyway so the court packing thing confuses me though because it was the court knocking down fdr fdr other legislation or administrative actions that caused him to want to pack the court so he could stop getting his hit the things he wanted to do undone were you referring to the court that was undoing all the stuff he wanted to do or or okay yeah so like imagine that the damn you know people i'm just i don't know acting like a world in which there's a democratic congress and president and they pass medicare for all and the court says that's unconstitutional that's you know goes too far in terms of congressional authority there's no power in the commerce clause to do this that's that's what i mean john i want to ask you a question about a subject the very near and dear to your heart which is the ability of people to change their mind one of the big cavenaugh issues is his view on executive power in his you in particular on whether president should be distracted or paralysed by a investigation of possible wrongdoing by the president and he of course bros to prominence cavenaugh as part of ken starr's team of prosecutors investigators who did a quite a lot to waylay and undermine the clinton presidency with an investigation of president clinton's sexual misbehavior and and potential perjury as then he moved onto the white house where he worked on president george w bush's staff through nine eleven and through the brise of the comment security concerns in the war in iraq and afghanistan and he he says he went underwent a change of heart and his change of heart leads him to believe that the president should should we should be very leery of allowing prosecutors to investigate the president for criminal or civil wrongdoing in office first of all do you think this this is an important issue that we really need to get to the bottom of in terms of who is going to be a justice or is it sort of a sideshow and to do you think it's a credible change of heart well it's interesting i i think they're related because key lamar in his case that he makes for cavenaugh i couldn't tell in reading the new york times piece by akilah mar whether he was slightly concerned trolling or whether he managed all one hundred percent straight up as he wrote it because basically he says well is change of heart about how he carried out the his duties for star and what he thinks now represent just exactly what you want in judges which is their ability to change their mind and have adaptive thinking as the as the as they mature and as they're as they're faced with different kinds of facts i think a lot of liberals think just he just changed his views based on where he was sitting i mean he just you know so when it was in his interest to go after a democratic president he held one view and then when he was protecting the executive power of another of a republican president he changed his mind so i don't know i'm not in his heart and obviously matters to those people who think that he was picked and i don't know that there's any evidence for this but that he was picked because the president thinks one day his his issues might peer before the court and.
"barry friedman" Discussed on The Takeaway
"Gps tracker inside detection can give him time to call benham we find the government jumps pete i into these widescale surveillance programs or passport passport photos photos mugshots you name it they don't think through the protections before doing this pitcher off something like social media or even a camera on the street and use that to find someone law enforcement today rely on more than a gun and a flashlight to do their jobs increasingly cops are using new technologies to police it's a conversation i started this fall with andrew ferguson author of the rise of big data policing new forms of predictive analytics new forms of surveillance monitoring that's changing the way police police changing who they police is changing where they go on patrol is changing when they police and in many cases of changing how they police and we picked up the conversation last month with dr barry friedman a professor at nyu school of law and director of the school's policing project you know there's some people that say all in on technology and some people that are say absolutely not police technology and i think that's the wrong question the question is huckabee used these technologies responsibly in ways that help us fight crime and violence but also of the downsides that you can have so this week we want to better understand what those technologies and techniques are including everything from cell phone tracking devices and dna collection technology to the use of gang databases also will be exploring the trade off between civil liberties and security which is something many of you are weighing in on dover ohio i'm not really worried about policing as long as it does not interfere with my personal life i have nothing to hide from the government from nashville and i think the less privacy we have left control we have linking privacy and safety together is a huge sham and it's designed to trick the public and sharing their private matters out of fear on margaret from centerville bill utah how much privacy am i willing to give up in the name of safety if i'm not doing or saying anything suspicious why do i care i'm crash call from the lucky amount of privacy i'm willing to give away in the name of safety none have plenty.
"barry friedman" Discussed on The Fifth Column
"And people don't recoil enroll their eyes and trying to kick us out of polite that's because they haven't read your text message god i think i'd be on this show so real quick i gotta jump in with a couple of clarifications before we go vod for view he's been lean back in the cut but now for for matt the barry friedman book was called the will of the people how public opinion has influenced the supreme court and shape the meaning of the constitution see yeah thank you okay frank kennedy was an astronomer for the us army's army map service and was fired in nineteen fifty seven for his homosexuality yeah thank you and i think frank was the name of the guy that was leading this gooky march frank something or other because gone by a number of different the tank is can i just my big fear with this country if you didn't have the number the level of protection that you have now with the first amendment it's not so much like federal laws it's more at the state and local level i think you know so it in under hosts it would be you know tea party and all dried and sort of would be directly indirectly intimidated and yeah and in the in the south it would be black lives matters would be you know those kind of and then you know things would start to seriously fray in in this country you know laws would be weaponized in in your culture war it would be it would if you think things are ugly now i think that would be really out there and you see that you see that in year so in germany you they've enacted a law which obliges social media companies to remove hate speech within twenty four hours or risk of fifty million euro fine in say.
"barry friedman" Discussed on We The People
"That's the text we're going to talk about the history of that clause we're gonna talk about the caselaw and we'll talk about efforts to translated but before we do any of that i just a quick boat but remember i'm not asking you whether you think that that cell phone surveillance has a good or bad idea the question is do you think that the seizure of my cell cellphone records over the period of a month is an unreasonable search or seizure of my persons houses papers and effects who thinks that it is and who thinks that it is not unreasonable searches that is great this is a good next vote and there i saw a slight majority yes but i know that that was purely a constitutional voted did not reflect your political views in any way and i want you now to open your minds and be open to the possibility of changing your vote after we've done a little bit of learning together all right that's the tax now we have to go to the history what was the paradigm cases that animated the framers of the fourth amendment when they wrote those beautiful words well let's go to the interactive constitution to find out in this amazing common essay by barry friedman an or incurred two of the leading liberal and conservative scholars of the fourth amendment nominated by the federal a society and the american constitution society we're reminded that the primary concern of the generation that ratified the fourth amendment were general warrants and risk the ritz of assistance leading to the famous decisions and wilkes and would an antitank and carrington what we're general warrants an writs of assistance you can read about them on on the screen behind me but i will recall broadly that vis were instruments of tyranny that allow the king's agents to break into the homes of people suspected of not paying the hated boston tea taxes without particularise suspicion and to indict them for violating the tea taxes.