CNN

Return to Transcripts main page

DR. DREW

Ferguson Grand Jury Announcement; Officer Wilson Not Indicted

Aired November 24, 2014 - 21:20:00   ET

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

DR. DREW PINSKY, HLN HOST OF "DR. DREW ON CALL": Breaking news tonight, the announcement is about to begin. Let us listen in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT MCCULLOCH, PROSECUTOR, ST. LOUIS COUNTY: We will be happy to answer some questions when we are finished with that. But first and

foremost, I would like to, again, extend my deepest sympathies to the family of Michael Brown.

As I said in the past, I know that regardless of the circumstances here, they lost a loved one to violence, and I know that the pain that

accompanies such a loss knows no bounds.

On August 9th, Michael Brown was shot and killed by police officer Darren Wilson. Within minutes, various accounts of the incident began

appearing on social media. Accounts filled with speculation and little if any solid accurate information.

Almost, immediately, neighbors began gathering and anger began growing because of the various descriptions of what had happened, and because of

the underlying tension between the police department and the significant part of the neighborhood.

The St. Louis county police conducted an extensive investigation at the crime scene. At times under very trying circumstances, interrupted at

least once by random gunfire. Beginning that day and continuing for the next three months, along with -- they along with the agents of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation at the direction of Attorney General Eric Holder, located numerous individuals and gathered additional

evidence and information.

Fully aware of the unfounded but growing concern in some parts of our community that the investigation and review of this tragic death might

not be full and fair. I decided immediately that all of the physical evidence gathered, all people claiming to have witnessed any part or all

of the shooting, and any in all other related matters would be presented to the Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury of 12 members of this community, selected by a judge in May of this year, long before this shooting occurred. I would like to

briefly expand upon the unprecedented cooperation between the local and the federal authorities.

When Attorney General Holder first announced the federal investigation just days after the shooting, he pledged that federal investigators

would be working with local authorities as closely as possible at every step of the way. And, would follow the facts wherever they may take us.

As General Holder and I both pledge, our separate investigations follow that trail of facts with no preconceived notion of where that jury would

take us. Our only goal was that our investigation would be thorough and complete to give the Grand Jury, the department of justice, and

ultimately the public all available evidence to make an informed decision.

All evidence obtained by federal authorities was immediately shared with St. Louis Count investigators. Likewise, all evidence gathered by St.

Louis County police was, immediately, shared with the federal investigators.

Additionally, the justice department conducted its own examination of all the physical evidence and performed its own autopsy. Another

autopsy was performed at the request of the Brown family and all this information was also shared.

Just as importantly, all testimony before the St. Louis County Grand Jury was immediately provided to the Department of Justice. So,

although, the investigations are separate, both the local and the federal government have all of the same information and evidence.

Our investigation and presentation of the evidence to the Grand Jury in St. Louis County has been completed. The most significant challenge

encountered in this investigation has been the 24-hour news cycle and it is insatiable appetite for something, for anything to talk about;

following closely behind with the nonstop rumors on social media.

I recognized, of course, that the lack of accurate detail surrounding the shooting frustrates the media and the general public and helps to

breed suspicion among those already distrustful of the system. Yet these closely guarded details, especially about the physical evidence,

give law enforcement a yardstick for measuring the truthfulness of witnesses.

Eyewitness accounts must always be challenged and compared against the physical evidence. Many witnesses to the shooting of Michael Brown made

statements inconsistent with other statements they made and also conflicting with the physical evidence. Some were completely refuted by

the physical evidence.

As an example, before the results of the private autopsy were released, witnesses on social media, during interviews with the media, and even

during questioning by law enforcement, claimed that they saw Officer Wilson stand over Michael Brown and fire many rounds into his back.

Others claimed that Officer Wilson shot Mr. Brown in the back as Mr. Brown was running away.

However, once the autopsy findings were released showing that Michael Brown had not sustained any wound to the back of his body, no additional

witnesses made such a claim. And, several witnesses adjusted their stories in subsequent statements. Some even admitted that they did not

witness the event at all but nearly repeated what they heard in the neighborhood or others or assumed had happened.

Fortunately for the integrity of our investigation, almost all initial witness interviews, including those of Officer Wilson, were recorded.

The statements and the testimony of most of the witnesses were presented to the Grand Jury before the autopsy results were released by the media

and before several media outlets published information and reports that they received from a D.C. Government Official.

The jurors were therefore, prior to the time that released information going public and what followed in the news cycle, the jurors were able

to have already assessed the credibility of the witnesses, including those witnesses whose statements and testimony remain consistent

throughout every interview, and were consistent with the physical evidence in this case.

My two assistants began presenting to the Grand Jury on August 20th. The evidence was presented in an organized and orderly manner. The

jurors gave us a schedule of when they could meet. All 12 jurors were present for every session, and all 12 jurors heard every word of

testimony and examined every item of evidence.

Beginning August 20th and continuing until today, the Grand Jury worked tirelessly to examined and re-examined all of the testimony of the

witnesses, and all of the physical evidence. They were extremely engaged in the process, asking questions of every witness, requesting

specific witnesses, requesting specific information, and asking for a certain physical evidence.

They met on 25 separate days in the last three months, heard more than 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses, and reviewed hours and

hours of recordings of media and law enforcement interviews by many of the witnesses who testified.

They heard from three medical examiners, and experts on blood, DNA, toxicology, firearms and drug analysis. They examined hundreds of

photographs, some of which they asked to be taken. They examined various pieces of physical evidence. They were instructed on the law

and presented with five indictments ranging from murder in the first degree to involuntary manslaughter.

Their burden was to determine based upon all of the evidence if probable cause exists to believe that a crime was committed and that Darren

Wilson is the person who committed that crime. There is no question, of course, that Darren Wilson caused the death of Michael Brown by shooting

him. But, the inquiry does not end there.

The law authorizes a law enforcement officer to use deadly force in certain situations. The law also allows all people to use deadly force

to defend themselves in certain situations. So, the Grand Jury considered whether Wilson was the initial aggressor in this case or

whether he was -- or whether there was probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson was authorized as a law enforcement officer to use deadly

force in this situation, or if he acted in self-defense.

I detailed this for two reasons. First, so that everyone will know that as promised by me and Attorney General Holder, there was a full

investigation and presentation of all evidence and appropriate instruction of law to the Grand Jury.

Second, as a caution to those in and out of the media, who will pounce on a single sentence or a single witness and decide what should have

happened in this case based on that tiny bit of information.

The duty of the Grand Jury is to separate fact from fiction. After a full and impartial and critical examination of all the evidence and the

law, and decide if that evidence supported the filing of any criminal charges against Darren Wilson. They accepted and completed this

monumental responsibility in a conscientious and expeditious manner.

It is important to note here, and say again that they are the only people, the only people who have heard and examined every witness and

every piece of evidence. They discussed and debated the evidence among themselves before arriving at their collective decision.

After their exhaustive review of the evidence, the Grand Jury deliberated over two days, making their final decision. They determined

that no probable cause exists to file any charge against Officer Wilson and return a no true bill on each of the five indictments.

The physical and scientific evidence examined by the Grand Jury, combined with the witness statements supported and substantiated by that

physical evidence tells the accurate and tragic story of what happened. A very generous analysis of the testimony of the physical evidence

presented to the Grand Jury follows.

Please note that as I have promised the evidence presented to the Grand Jury with some exceptions, and the testimony of the witnesses called to

the Grand Jury will be released at the conclusion of this statement.

At approximately 11:45 A.M. on Saturday, the 9th of August, Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson was dispatched to the North Winds Apartment

Complex for an emergency involving a 2-month-old infant having trouble breathing.

At approximately 11:53, while still at the North Winds call, Wilson heard a radio broadcast for a stealing in progress at a market on West

Florissant. The broadcast also included a brief description of the suspect. A black male in a white T-shirt, who took a box of Swisher

Cigars. Other officers were dispatched to that store.

Officer Wilson remained with the mother and infant until EMS arrived to transport them to the hospital. Officer Wilson then left North Winds

Complex in his Ferguson police vehicle, a Chevy Tahoe SUV and drove West on Canfield towards West Florissant.

An additional description of the stealing suspect was broadcasted about that time, wearing a red hat, yellow socks, Khaki shorts and he was with

another male. As Officer Wilson was attending to his emergency call on North Winds, Michael Brown and a companion were in a local store on West

Florissant.

Michael Brown`s activity in that store was recorded by the store security cameras. The video, often played following its release in

August by the Ferguson Police Department, shows Michael Brown grabbing a handful of cigarillos and heading toward the exit without paying.

As Michael Brown and his companion left the store, someone inside the store called the police. After crossing West Florissant, the two walked

east on Canfield in the middle of the street, Mr. Brown directly behind his companion.

As Officer Wilson continued west on Canfield, he encountered Michael Brown and his companion, still walking in the middle of the street. As

Wilson slowed or stopped, as he reached Mr. Brown, he told them to move to the sidewalk. Words were exchanged and they continued walking down

the middle of the street.

As they passed, Wilson observed that Michael Brown had cigarillos in his hand and was wearing a red hat and yellow socks. At approximately 12:02

P.M., Wilson radioed that he had two individuals on Canfield and needed assistance. Officer Wilson backed his vehicle at an angle blocking

their path and blocking the flow of traffic in both directions.

Several cars approached from both east and west but were unable to pass the police vehicle. An altercation took place at the car with Officer

Wilson seated inside the vehicle and Mr. Brown standing at the driver`s window. During the altercation, two shots were fired by Officer Wilson

while still inside the vehicle.

Mr. Brown ran east on Canfield and Officer Wilson gave chase. Near the corner of Canfield and Copper Creek, Mr. Brown stopped and turned back

towards Officer Wilson. Officer Wilson also stopped. As Michael Brown moved toward officer Wilson, several more shots were fired by the

officer, and Michael Brown was fatally wounded.

Within seconds of the final shot, the assist car arrived. Less than 90 seconds passed between Officer Wilson`s first contact with Michael Brown

and his companion and the arrival of that assist car. During the investigation, many eye witnesses were interviewed by various media

outlets.

Several others chose not to talk to the media but contacted law enforcement directly. Witnesses were interviewed by local and federal

law enforcement. Sometimes together, sometimes separately. But all statements were provided to the other party.

All previous statements of witnesses who testified before the Grand Jury were also presented to the Grand Jury, whether they were media

interviews or whether they were interviews by the FBI or by the county police department. The statements of all witnesses, civilian, law

enforcement, and experts were challenged, of course, by other law enforcement, by the prosecutors, and by the Grand Jury, themselves.

The common and highly effective method of challenging a statement is to compare it to the previous statements of the witness for consistency and

to compare it with the physical evidence. Physical evidence does not change because of public pressure or personal agenda.

Physical evidence does not look away as events unfold. Nor does it block out or add to memory. Physical evidence remains constant and as

such, is a solid foundation upon which cases are built.

When statements changed, witnesses were confronted with the inconsistencies and conflicts between their statements and the physical

evidence. Some witnesses admitted that they did not actually see the shooting or only saw a part of the shooting or only repeating what they

had heard on the street. Some others adjusted parts of their statements to fit the facts.

Others stood by original statements, even though their statements were completely discredited by the physical evidence. Several witnesses

described seeing an altercation in the car between Mr. Brown and Officer Wilson. It was described as tussling, wrestling, a tug of war,

or just some movement.

Several other witnesses described Mr. Brown as punching Officer Wilson, while Mr. Brown was partially inside the vehicle. Many of the

witnesses said they heard a gunshot while Mr. Brown was still partially inside the vehicle. At least one witness said that no part of Mr.

Brown was ever inside the vehicle, and that the shot was fired through an open window while Mr. Brown was standing outside.

The vehicle and Officer Wilson`s clothing and equipment were examined by various technicians and scientists. Mr. Brown`s blood and/or DNA were

located on the outside of the driver`s door. His blood and DNA were also found on the outside of the left rear passenger door of the police

vehicle.

Mr. Brown`s blood or DNA was found on the inside of the driver`s door, the upper left thigh of Officer Wilson`s pant leg, the front collar of

Officer Wilson`s shirt and on Officer Wilson`s weapon. Additionally, a bullet fired from Officer Wilson`s weapon was located inside the

driver`s door. The shot was fired from inside the vehicle, striking the door in a downward angle at the armrest. The second bullet was not

recovered.

Regarding the gunshot wound to Mr. Brown, it should be noted that three separate autopsies were conducted. One by St. Louis County Medical

Examiner`s Office, one by a private pathologist and one by the Department Of Defense Arms Forces Medical Examiner.

The results of all three autopsies are consistent with one another in all significant respects. Mr. Brown has a gunshot graze wound to the

right thumb. The path of that bullet is away from the tip of the hand. Soot consistent with a close range gunshot is present inside that wound.

Officer Wilson also had a medical examination, which indicated some swelling and redness to his face. Almost all witnesses stated that

after they heard the shot fired while Mr. Brown was at the car, he hesitated and then ran east on Canfield.

Most stated that almost immediately, Officer Wilson got out of his vehicle and chased after him. Some witnesses stated Wilson fired at Mr.

Brown as he chased after him, striking him. At least one witness saying he struck -- one of those shots struck Mr. Brown.

Others stated that he did not fire until Mr. Brown turned and came back toward Officer Wilson. At least one witness stated that as Officer

Wilson got out of his vehicle, he shot Mr. Brown multiple times as Mr. Brown stood next to the vehicle.

Yet another witness stated that Officer Wilson stuck his gun out the window and fired at Mr. Brown as Mr. Brown was running. One witness

stated there were actually two police vehicles and four officers present but only one officer fired a weapon.

Most witnesses agreed that near the corner of Canfield and Copper Creek, Mr. Brown stopped and turned around facing Officer Wilson. Some said

Mr. Brown did not move toward Officer Wilson at all, but was shot multiple times as he stood near the corner with his hands raised.

In subsequent interviews with law enforcement or other testimony before the Grand Jury, many of the same witnesses acknowledged that they did

not actually see the shooting. Some were running for cover, some were relating what they heard from others, or as I said, what they assumed

happened in that case.

Several other witnesses maintained their original statement that Mr. Brown had his hands in the air and was not moving towards the officer

when he was shot. Others said that he was shot -- excuse me. Several witnesses stated that Mr. Brown did not raise his hands at all or that

he raised them briefly and then dropped them and turn toward Officer Wilson, who then fired several rounds.

Other witnesses stated that Mr. Brown stopped for a brief period, then moved toward officer Wilson again. One described his movement toward

Officer Wilson as a full charge. According to some witnesses, Officer Wilson stopped firing when Mr. Brown stopped moving toward him and

resumed firing when Mr. Brown started moving toward him again.

These witnesses did not make any statements to the media. The description of how Mr. Brown`s hands -- raised his hands or the

position of his hands is not consistent among the witnesses. Some described his hands as being out to his side. Some said in front of him

with his palms up.

Others said his hands were raised near his head or by his shoulders. Still others said they were in front of his chest or down by his

stomach. Others described his hands as being in a running position or in fists. There are also various witness statements regarding Mr.

Brown`s movement after he stopped and turned back toward Officer Wilson.

Several witnesses said Mr. Brown never moved toward Officer Wilson and was shot where he stood at the corner. Most said that the shots were

fired as he moved toward Wilson. Mr. Brown`s movements were described as, they said walking, moving fast, stumbling or full charge.

I gathered other aspects of this case, the varying descriptions were sometimes provided by the same witnesses in subsequent statements or

testimony. The entire area was processed by the St. Louis County crime scene unit. A total of 12 rounds were fired by officer Wilson. Two

shots at the car. Ten more shots further east on Canfield.

Mr. Brown sustained a graze wound to his thumb while standing next to the vehicle. He sustained six or seven more gunshot wounds, depending

upon whether one of the shots was an entry or re-entry wound. Mr. Brown sustained a second graze -- another graze wound to his right

bicep. He also sustained wounds to his right forearm, upper front right arm, lateral right chest, upper right chest, forehead, and top of the

head.

The top of the head, forehead and perhaps the upper right chest were consistent with his body being bent forward at the waist. Except to the

first and last wounds, the medical examiners are unable to determine the order of the shots.

The graze wound at the thumb sustained at the vehicle was likely the first wound. It was the only close range shot. The shot to the top of

the head was most likely the last. It would have rendered him immediately unconscious and incapacitated.

Mr. Brown`s body was located approximately 153 feet east of Officer Wilson`s car. Mr. Brown`s blood was located approximately 25 feet

farther east past his body. A nearby tenant during a video chat inadvertently captured the final ten shots on tape. There was a string

of several shots, followed by a brief pause, followed by another string of several shots.

As I stated earlier, the evidence and the testimony will be released following this statement. I am ever mindful that this decision will not

be accepted by some and may cause disappointment for others.

But all decisions in the criminal justice system must be determined by the physical and scientific evidence, and the credible testimony

corroborated by that evidence. Not in response to public outcry or for political expediency.

Decisions on a matter as serious as charging an individual with a crime simply cannot be decided on anything less than a complete critical

examination of all available evidence. Anything less is not justice. It is my sworn duty and that of the Grand Jury to seek justice and not

simply obtain an indictment or conviction.

I do want to say during this extremely tense and painful time that we have, the citizens of this community should be and I know are very

mindful of the fact that the whole world is watching and watching how we respond and how we react.

And, I would urge each and every one of them with the loss that was suffered by the Brown family, no young man should ever die. This is a

loss of a life and it is tragic regardless of the circumstances.

But it is opened old wounds and given us an opportunity now to address those wounds as opposed to in the past where they just fade away. For

how many years have we been talking about the issues that lead to incidents like this, and yet after a period of time, it just sort of

fades away.

So, I urged everybody who is engaged in the conversation, who is engaged in the demonstrations, to keep that going, to stay with that. Not to

let that go. And to do it in constructive way, a way that we can profit from this, a way that we can benefit from this, by changing the

structure, by changing some of the issues, by solving some of the issues that lead to these sorts of things.

I join with Michael Brown`s family and with the clergy and with anyone else and everyone else, the NAACP and the urban league and every

government official and every private citizen that you have heard in urging everyone to continue the demonstrations, to continue the

discussion, address the problems, but do so in a constructive way and not a destructive way. I have time for a few questions now. I will

just start over here. Yes, sir? Gentleman in a black sweater.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (1): Can you tell us whether the Grand Jury made this decision unanimously, and can you also tell us whether you

presented any charges, recommended any charges to be brought by this Grand Jury?

MCCULLOCH: To the first question on whether they -- the vote, the Grand Jury by statute is to the allowed nor am I or anyone else allowed to ask

or to discuss the vote or the deliberations, themselves.

The Grand Jury is a very secret process. And, it should be in order to protect that secrecy, to protect the witnesses, so that people can come

out and talk about and speak freely in there.

Jury deliberations in the Grand Jury, or a trial jury, they are not recorded. In the trial, of course, it is anonymous, but by statute, the

Grand Jury is not allowed nor is anyone allowed to ask what the verdict -- or what the vote was, nor are they allowed or anyone allowed to ask

what the discussion was the opinions expressed by the other grand jurors.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Did you present any charges?

MCCULLOCH: I did not present -- no. My two assistants did all of the presentation in the Grand Jury. We prepared as their legal advisers, of

course, as we do in every case potential charges for that and presented in this case we presented five charges -- indictments to them. Yes,

sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (2): I heard you described some very problematic witness statements. Do any rise to the level of you going

after perjury charges?

MCCULLOCH: No. I think there are a number of witnesses in all amnesty that truly believed what they said. And, the ones who were consistent

throughout even in the face of their testimony being in conflict with the physical evidence that was there. I think they truly believe that

is what they saw, but they did not. So, no. Some of the others, yes, were making it up, but they all pretty much acknowledged they saw parted

and made up other things. Yes, ma`am?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER (1): Bob, there have been many that have been critical of this process, calling it a secret trial. Do you regret

taking this to the Grand Jury? Do you wish there had been a coroner`s jury, some other forum for presenting this evidence?

MCCULLOCH: No, not at all. I certainly do not regret taking this. I think there was a good decision to take this to the Grand Jury. We

presented to this Grand Jury, as I detailed in here, all the evidence that there possibly could be, all of which will be available and

available as we finish this tonight.

So, everyone will be able to examine that same evidence and come to their own conclusion. That is the only thing I urge. And, I know

people are not going to go home and read everything that was on there and make a decision based on that. But you need to keep in mind that

these grand jurors poured their hearts and souls into this process.

Their term was scheduled to end in early September. And, they gave up their lives. They put their lives on hold. They put their families on

hold. They put everything on hold, so that they could come in and do their civic duty. And, it was a very emotional process for them.

I met with them before any evidence started to tell them what the process was going to be. And, I met with them today after their

decision, and I can tell you just how emotional and how draining it was for each and every one of them.

So, to suggest -- anyone suggesting that somehow, you know, it is just not a full and fair process is just unfair to these people. They poured

their hearts and souls into this. Yes, ma`am? Go right next to you after that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER (2): Can you tell us anything more about the Grand Jury? We have heard just some very basic demographics, mainly

just race and sex. Can you tell us anymore, the basic ages, and perhaps which way those folks voted?

MCCULLOCH: No, I really cannot. That was the information that the judge released and allowed to be released on the demographics or makeup

of the Grand Jury. What I can tell you and try not speaking too far out of the line is that when the judge, any judge picks a Grand Jury, they

are looking for a cross section of St. Louis County.

And, I will say that almost any demographic category you can come up with is going to be represented on that Grand Jury. Various ages,

income, where they live, how they live, retired, not retired, still working, blue collar, professional. Almost anything you can think of is

going to be on that Grand Jury. And, they tend to be that way across the spectrum. We have three a year. Yes, ma`am?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER (3): Sir, were there any African-American witnesses who testified that Michael Brown was coming towards the

officer when Brown was shot?

MCCULLOCH: Yes. All the -- the ones that I mentioned specifically about -- the ones I mentioned specifically were all African-Americans.

The one that indicated that he came at him at a full charge and that as Officer Wilson fired shots at him, Mr. Brown stopped and Officer Wilson

stopped shooting. And, as Mr. Brown started charging at him again, those are his words, his testimony, Mr. Wilson started shooting again.

So, the others who had consistent stories, not with just each other, they are not just their stories or their testimony throughout, but they

were consistent with the others, several others. They are all African- American. Yes, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (3): I wondered if you could tell us a little bit about Officer Wilson`s testimony and perhaps his status tonight.

MCCULLOCH: Well, I have no idea what his status is. But, his testimony was, again, it is in the packet that will be released. But his

testimony and -- you know, these are questions, a lot, that were asked by the grand jurors as questioning him and challenging him on why he did

not use lesser force, why he did not run away.

And, rather than get into the specifics of it, I will say that, he did testify, of course, that he was sitting in the car and was punched by

Mr. Brown. I think all that information from his version out there or is out there. I specifically did not do that, because in any case, the

target or the suspect is, you know, has the most interest in the case. And, so, we do not put a whole lot of stock, we would love to hear from

them, but we do not put a whole lot of stock or cannot rely solely upon that testimony. Yes, sir? Blue shirt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (4): You mentioned that there is video of the final ten shots. Will that be released with the rest of the evidence

that you are releasing tonight?

MCCULLOCH: I assume that microphone is going somewhere but is not here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (4): You mentioned that there is a video of the final ten shots. Will that be released with the rest of the

evidence that you are releasing tonight?

MCCULLOCH: No. There is not video. There is audio.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (4): Audio.

MCCULLOCH: He was on a video chat in the background. But yes, that should be in the packet. If it is not, we will get the audio out. Yes,

sir. Kevin?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (5): Mr. McCulloch, I want to ask you a question, imaging what the people who are protesting tonight might say,

that say, "Look, this jury had nine whites on it, and three blacks. They would say you have a reputation, right or wrong, being pro police.

What do you say to somebody who might be out there, who thinks it was not justice. How do you boil it down? Why is this justice, this

outcome?

MCCULLOCH: You know, it is hard to boil down everything. As I said, it has to be based upon all the information that is available. You can

certainly take out a witness here, a witness there, and come to a different conclusion. But I think everyone has to look, they will have

the ability to look at every bit of evidence and information that was put on and all the testimony and can do that.

Some, I understand, I understand some people have made up their minds both ways and are not going to change. And, so, there is no whole I can

do. What I would urge them to do is express those feelings, express them in a constructive way, and try to make some changes, so that

nothing like this ever happens again. Yes, ma`am?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER (4): You just explained that we need to work on issues, so that this kind of thing will not ever happen again.

Can you explain what are some of those fixes that need to happen, and are any of them including whether or not police should shoot somebody

whose hands are maybe at their stomach, maybe at their sides or maybe up in the air and they are unarmed?

MCCULLOCH: You know, it is difficult to answer -- in fact, it is impossible to answer questions like that, because there are so many

variables that play into every case. And, so, there is just no real way to answer a question like that. And, so, you have to look at every bit

of information and every case that comes in. The idea, I hope, is to avoid ever being in that situation. Yes, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (5): Mr. McCulloch, you are somebody who has had his record questioned by many members of the community with cases

that have happened in the past, so how do you feel making this -- announcing this decision, and what message do you think it sends to the

community that says that they have had numerous members of their community, young, predominantly, black males killed by police with

impunity. What kind of message do you think this decision says to them?

MCCULLOCH: Well, a much better message that you are sending, young men being killed with impunity. They are not being killed with impunity.

We look at every case that comes through, whether they are young black men or young white men. We have had young white men who, tragically,

have been killed by police officers in situations.

And, we look at each and every one of those and hopefully learn from each and every one of those, how to avoid being in that situation in the

future whether it is a justified shooting. So, I think that is what has to go.

And, I think that, you know, the people in the community, they need to make their voices heard, and they need to address those issues, so that

we get those issues so that we are never in this position again. Yes, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (6): I think people looking at this from around the country are going to be struck by the fact that there is not

a single law in the state of Missouri that protects and values the life of this young man who unquestionably was shot and killed dead. There is

no dispute about that by the police officer.

What do you say to people who wonder, is there something wrong with laws here that allows this to happen, that after this happens, says we just

move on, essentially, and that this is justice. Is this really justice or is this something wrong with the laws in a state that --

MCCULLOCH: You know, the -- it is another question that really I do not have an answer to that question that what is wrong with the law? There

are no laws to protect this. Every law out there is to protect the safety of every individual, regardless of their age and regardless of

their race. And, so, if those laws are not working, then we need to work to change them. And, that is about all that we care -- that is not

all, but that is what we should be doing and that is where this needs to go from here. Yes, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (7): Mr. McCulloch, you have been accused of some bypassing the buck, by simply standing back and putting all this

evidence in front of the Grand Jury rather than taking a stand. Is not that what you are elected to do, should not you have taken a stand in

this case?

MCCULLOCH: Here is what you have to understand, and part of that system, there is not anyone in the system, it is part of the checks and

balances that we have in the system is that no one office, no one individual has the ultimate or absolute authority.

If charges were filed in this case, as they are filed in other cases, the case would still go to a preliminary hearing or to the Grand Jury.

There still has to be a probable cause determination. No one can just file a charge and go directly to a jury trial. That just cannot happen.

And, we have an obligation to present the evidence. I do not know how anyone can say we are passing the buck by gathering all this information

and evidence and meeting with the Grand Jury. It is something we do on a weekly basis. We do it day in and day out, week in and week out. So,

it is certainly not passing the buck. Yes, ma`am, back in the corner there?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER (5): Hi, can you just give us a specific vote breakdown and what is the possibility of federal charges? Are those

still a possibility outstanding?

MCCULLOCH: I cannot give you a vote breakdown, because I do not know that and neither I -- and I cannot ask nor can the grand jurors reveal

that. The federal investigation is still ongoing. They have all the information, all the evidence that we have. They had it, as we got it.

When we finished a day`s worth of Grand Jury testimony, within a day or two that was in the hands of the department of justice. When they did

an interview, within hours that was in the hands of the department of justice. So, they will conduct their interview, their investigation, as

we did. They are looking at different types of laws, obviously, and different violations. But, when they will complete that, I have no

insight into that. Yes, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (7): Did any witnesses refuse to testify, and if so, how was that handled?

MCCULLOCH: I did not hear the last part.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (7): If any witnesses refused to testify, how was that handled?

MCCULLOCH: There were a few witnesses who were not brought in. There were witnesses who, you know, one did not make a statement. There were

a couple who just disappeared. We spent a lot of time searching for them and with the assistance of the FBI, but we were unable to locate a

couple of them.

So, none of the information, though in one case I think we had a statement from the witness. It was not presented to the Grand Jury.

Like I said, I think there were couple of them. Yes, ma`am? I think we have time for a couple more here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER (6): You said Officer Wilson`s description of Brown`s movement towards him as a charge. Was there any other

evidence that might have led the Grand Jury to conclude Wilson had reasonable cause for the use of deadly force?

MCCULLOCH: Well, again, I think you have to have -- I am not privy to the deliberations. And, so, I cannot say what they saw as highly

significant or not. But they had all the information and they were charged with, and they were told here is what the law requires, that you

consider all the evidence and the information.

And, so, it is not just -- in most cases, it is not just one bit of evidence that says, "All right, that is it. That is all we need to

hear." It is everything that is presented, which is why we wanted to make this as complete and thorough as possible. Yes, ma`am?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER (8): What justification are you going to be using to release the Grand Jury evidence? There has been some dispute

whether a court order is going to be needed to present what it is that you are saying you are able to present tonight?

MCCULLOCH: You know, I will not bore you with all the legal details and technicalities of it, but essentially, it is now a closed investigation,

which makes it an open file. It is a lot more complicated and complex than that, but essentially that is how the sunshine law operates.

When it is a closed investigation or it is a closed case, it is an open file. And, so, that is the basis. We are following the Sunshine Law.

Although, there is no specific request for it, I assume there would be request. But, I thought it was important in the first place to release

the information. Yes, ma`am?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER (7): Bob, obviously many are not happy with this decision tonight, especially the family of Michael Brown. If they

are watching, what would you want to say to them this evening?

MCCULLOCH: Well, you know, as I said at the very outset, you know? My heart goes out to them. Regardless of the circumstances, they have lost

a young man. They lost a young life. And, I said many times before that the pain that goes along with that loss is just something that most

people cannot understand. And, so -- but at the same time, everything was presented.

Things do not -- everything was presented, everything was given to the Grand Jury and was all put in front of them. And, these 12 people made

a decision that based upon all that evidence, that as tragic as this is, it was not a -- it was not a crime. It was not one that where charges

should have been filed.

It does not lessen this tragedy by the fact that it was a justifiable use of force or self-defense. There is still a loss of life here. And,

the family is going to have that loss forever. That will be with them for a long time. No police office -- or no young man should ever be

killed by a police officer. And, no police officer should ever be put in that position.

And, so that is why I keep urging people to keep this talk going. So, many times we have seen in the past where the discussion starts and then

it fades away and then we have the same issues and we are back here again.

I do not ever want to be back here. So, we have to keep that discussion going and everybody has to stay engaged in it. This is a horrible

tragedy and we do not want to see any repeat. Thank you.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: All right. We have just heard the Grand Jury has decided no indictment of Officer Darren Wilson. There will be no state charges

against him. I am joined by Samantha Schacher.

SAMANTHA SCHACHER: HLN CO-HOST OF DR. DREW ON CALL: Dr. Drew, we have a statement from the Brown family. I want to read it to you all in

part. It says, quote, "We are profoundly disappointed that the killer of our child will not face the consequence of his actions." That was

just released.

PINSKY: We have the privilege of being joined by Nancy Grace. Nancy, in your opinion, I was writing down a few of notes here, there was a lot

of covert sorts of things the prosecutor was saying I would like to address. But Nancy, was justice served in your opinion?

GRACE: I do not think so. I hear it in my heart, Dr. Drew. People on the outside looking in like us do not know the whole story. The Grand

Jury did, but I never heard an explanation about witnesses that said Michael Brown had his hands up in the air. He said that one witness

reversed on that, I believe is what he said, but it was never explained to me.

PINSKY: Yes.

GRACE: How Michael Brown sustained a shot to the top of his head when he was going down? Why the officer had to shoot him if he was running

away? I mean, it did not fit together with me, and usually, Drew, when it doesn`t fit together, it`s not right.

SAMANTHA SCHACHER, CO-HOST: Yes. Nancy, does the family have a civil case against Officer Wilson and/or the police department?

GRACE: Absolutely. Even though the grand jury did not indict, and I`m very sad about that. A whole civil case is a different animal. It`s a

whole other degree of evidence. It`s a whole other standard of proof. Yes, I think there`s going to be a civil lawsuit, and I expect a

different verdict.

DR. DREW PINSKY, HLN HOST: Nancy, a lot of people on social media are asking us, they`re looking at pictures that are being fed alongside of

us here, what`s going on on the ground. They`re seeing people running.

Apparently, although it`s somewhat of a chaotic scene, it`s relatively peaceful. We`re hearing from our reporters on the ground there, there

is nothing specific to be reported as of yet.

Nancy, you know, I think about people overseas looking at how we conduct our legal system here, how states, themselves, set many of these laws.

The prosecutor kept talking about laws that need to change. Is he talking about laws that pertain to justifiable use of force? Is that

where the problem is here? Is that what all the anger is about?

GRACE: I imagine that he`s referring to that, if people are unhappy with the law, then change the law. But it boils down, to me, right now,

that there is no charge against this officer.

Now, I can`t help but go back to the original statements, and maybe we`re going to learn more, maybe we`re going to learn more about what

the witnesses said and what this district attorney said may make more sense tomorrow morning when we`ve read all the documents and we`ve read

for ourselves if the witnesses back tracked on what they told us to start with.

But this is what I know, Drew. I know that when somebody is running away from you and they turn back and they`re 20, 30 feet away, I don`t

care who you are or if you`re wearing a badge, God help me, you don`t have the right to gun the person down. That`s what I`m screaming.

PINSKY: Nancy, I understand -- yeah, I get what you`re saying. I`m with you on this. I, though, you know, here in Los Angeles, people, you

know, had -- our police department goes to great lengths to use nonlethal force. We have rubber bullets. We have canines.

I mean, there`s a lot -- high-speed chases every day in this town. Ands yet our police department and sheriffs department manages not to use

lethal force most of the time.

Why can`t more police departments adopt this kind of an attitude? Is it too expensive? Is it too dangerous? Why not?

GRACE: I don`t know the answer to that, but I do know this -- if Michael Brown had been in the heat of battle when he was killed, I would

totally be siding with the cop right now. And I don`t care who disagreed or agreed with me because when you are fighting with a cop and

you attack a cop, they have a right to shoot you because you might get their gun and shoot them or somebody else.

But if you`re on the run, that`s a different scenario, Drew.

PINSKY: Yes.

GRACE: And this guy, even by what the D.A. just told us, had been on the run.

PINSKY: Nancy, we`re trying to get reports from on the ground there in Ferguson. Again, I`m looking at the same footage that our viewers are

watching. It looks a little chaotic.

I have Stephanie Elam standing by. OK. We`ll have her in just a second.

Is it OK for me to bring my panel?

OK, let`s bring the panel in. I`ve got Vanessa Barnett, hiphollywood.com, Evy Poumpouras, law enforcement analyst, former Secret

Service special agent, Danine Manette.

Vanessa, I want to go to you. You were emotional about this case. You were actually crying before the verdict. Where are you now?

VANESSA BARNETT, HIPHOLLYWOOD.COM: I`m still very emotional. I`m confused. I`m angry.

PINSKY: Let me stop you a minute. It seems like this is the anger is more than just about justice. What is the anger? It seems like --

BARNETT: No, the anger is very much about justice. Justice was not served here, but it`s this case and it`s every other case that we`ve had

to fight since this one and before, and it -- I just get so upset that I don`t feel -- why are we valued as a people? Why do black people not

matter? Whey is it OK for this officer to gun down this young unarmed man who was 30 feet away and dead in the middle of a street?

And there`s no justice here. There are no charges filed. We`re told to keep on marching, keep on fighting and change laws. It`s such a vague

and insensitive thing to say when you know you`re looking at people that have -- where is our power to change these laws?

You`re saying stuff to us you don`t even think we can do. It`s highly insensitive and it`s infuriating and we as a people, we have a history

of peaceful protests. We have a history of sit-ins. We have a history of when we fought to make changes.

And we were still spit on. We were still hosed down. We were still beaten. Here we are, again, trying to fight and people are mad that

we`re fighting just to be equal.

PINSKY: Vanessa, I have to interrupt you. I don`t know what that sound is. As it pertains to peaceful protest, I want to -- we`re all look at

this footage there live in Ferguson. Stephanie Elam is on the ground.

Stephanie, we are seeing pictures here, they`re hard to make sense of. Can you tell us what`s going on on the ground there?

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We have two different locations, Dr. Drew. You have Ferguson outside of the police station there, then you

have here in Clayton. If you look at the building behind me, that is Justice Center. That is where the presser we watched with Bob McCulloch

wrapped up.

This is where we saw a group of people gather. There were people out here, some want to see what was going on, some bloggers. And also some

people who were witnessing the situation.

They gathered behind the media cameras here for a bit, and then once they heard what the verdict was, one man who threw eggs at the building

over here and he got taken away by the police, but other than that, very quiet. And they left here.

The streets are empty. People have left Clayton because there was rumor that they might be targeted for breaking of windows and pillaging of the

businesses. Nothing is happening like that here. It is just very, very quiet.

Very different from the scene that you`re seeing in Ferguson where there are many more people that are gathered on the street, Dr. Drew.

PINSKY: Thank you, Stephanie.

Nancy, thank you for joining us tonight. We`ll look for your analysis tomorrow.

Before you go, one last question, and perhaps this is unfair. But where do we go from here?

GRACE: You know, from here, where do we go? I think there`s a lot of heartbreak all around the table. And I think the main thing for right

now is healing and to continue to seek justice.

I think this was wrong. Even though I`m on the outside looking in, I think this was wrong. I think it is wrong. And I think change must be

made.

PINSKY: Yes. Thank you, Nancy.

Again, we`ll look for you tomorrow night. I`m going to go to Evy Poumpouras.

Evy, my panelists, I want to apologize to everybody, at any point, apparently President Obama could speaking. Is that right? We`ll have

to interrupt at that point. We`ll go to that live.

But, Evy, where do you come down on all this? You`re in law enforcement. You`ve heard the prosecutor. I want to -- where are you

with this in what do you think?

EVY POUMPOURAS, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: So, with regard to what they`re speaking about, I`ve actually testified before a grand jury to

try to get indictments, and they are secret. And they do present information -- I feel he did come out, he shared everything. They

talked about the length and work they put into these interviews.

And I think the concern was here, the eyewitness testimony and contradiction. And you just get a sense of the amount of interviews and

work they had to put into it and that they presented this information. At the end of the day, this is justice, and the end of the day, it`s

what the criminal justice decided based on the grand jury.

Now, everyone is going to have their opinion and it`s a very emotional topic for people. But from the law enforcement perspective, the officer

should have justice as well -- if he is not -- if there is no probable cause to indict him, if he did work within the confines of the law.

PINSKY: Evy, I want to interrupt you. That is, I think when people around the world look at this, going to be confusing for them. The

confines of the law, why isn`t there -- the fact that each state sets their own standard can be very confusing to world.

SCHACHER: Not only that, there`s a large distrust with certain communities and communities in general and law enforcement mind question

to you, Evy, would be -- what changes do you see that certain communities can adopt or all of us as a nation in order to help build

that trust again?

POUMPOURAS: OK. So, this is one -- I want to say two things. One thing, the issue between Ferguson and the police department existed way

before.

PINSKY: Of course.

POUMPOURAS: I think this was stuff that was surmounting, surmounting and this incident happened and it was just that was it. That`s what

broke everything.

Now, from that law enforcement perspective, you -- you have the right to use deadly force if you feel imminent danger. Now, we can assess, say,

Michael Brown was unarmed, what happened after the fact. But it`s what the officer perceived in the moment.

A lot of talk has been given about the gunshots. Why was the last gunshot fired as he`s going down? Understand when you`re firing those

gunshots, it`s fast.

PINSKY: Oh, Evy, I`ve got to interrupt you. I`ve got President Obama.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: -- the death of Michael Brown issued its decision. It`s an outcome that either way was going to

be subject of intense disagreement, not only in Ferguson but across America. So, I just want to say a few words suggesting how we might

move forward.

First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so, we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury`s to make.

There are Americans who agree with it, and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It`s an understandable reaction.

But I join Michael`s parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully. Let me repeat Michael`s father`s words, "Hurting

others or destroying property is not the answer. No matter what the grand jury decides, I do not want my son`s death to be in vain. I want

it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the St. Louis region better for everyone."

Michael Brown`s parents have lost more than anyone. We should be honoring their wishes.

I also appeal to the law enforcement officials in Ferguson and the region to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protests that may

occur. Understand, our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. They`ve got a tough job to do to maintain public

safety and hold accountable those who break the law.

As they do their jobs in the coming days, they need to work with the community, not against the community, to distinguish the handful of

people who may use the grand jury`s decision as an excuse for violence. Distinguish them from the vast majority who just want their voices heard

around legitimate issues in terms of how communities and law enforcement interact.

Finally, we need to recognize that the situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation. The fact is in too

many parts of this country a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color. Some of this is the result of the

legacy of racial discrimination in this country. And this is tragic because nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with

higher crime rates.

The good news is, we know there are things we can do to help. And I`ve instructed Attorney General Holder to work with cities across the

country to help build better relations between communities and law enforcement. That means working with law enforcement officials to make

sure their ranks are representative of the communities they serve. We know that makes a difference. It means working to train officials so

that law enforcement conducts itself in a way that is fair to everybody. It means enlisting the community actively on what should be everybody`s

goal, and that is to prevent crime.

And there are good people on all sides of this debate as well as in both Republican and Democratic Parties that are interested not only in

lifting up best practices with -- because we know that there are communities who`ve been able to deal with this in an effective way, but

also who are interested in working with this administration and local and state officials to start tackling much-needed criminal justice

reform.

So, those should be the lessons that we draw from these tragic events. We need to recognize that this is not just an issue for Ferguson. This

is an issue for America.

We have made enormous progress in race relations over the course of the past several decades. I`ve witnessed that in my own life, and to deny

that progress I think is to deny America`s capacity for change.

But what is also true is that there are still problems and communities of color aren`t just making these problems up. Separating that from

this particular decision, there are issues in which the law too often feels as if it is being applied in a discriminatory fashion. I don`t

think that`s the norm. I don`t think that`s true for the majority of communities or the vast majority of law enforcement officials.

But these are real issues. And we have to lift them up and not deny them or try to tamp them down. What we need to do is understand them

and figure out how do we make more progress. And that can be done.

That won`t be done by throwing bottles. That won`t be done by smashing car windows. That won`t be done by using this as an excuse to vandalize

property. And it certainly won`t be done by hurting anybody.

So, to those in Ferguson, there are ways of channeling your concerns constructively, and there are ways of channeling your concerns

destructively. Michael Brown`s parents understand what it means to be constructive. The vast majority of peaceful protesters, they understand

it as well. Those of you who are watching tonight understand that there`s never an excuse for violence, particularly when there are a lot

of people in good will out there who are willing to work on these issues.

On the other hand, those who are only interested in focusing on the violence and just want the problem to go away need to recognize that we

do have work to do here and we shouldn`t try to paper it over. Whenever we do that, the anger may momentarily subside, but over time, it builds

up and America isn`t everything that it could be.

And I am confident that if we focus our attention on the problem and we look at what has happened in communities around the country effectively,

then we can make progress not just in Ferguson but in a lot of other cities and communities around the country.

OK?

REPORTER: Mr. President, will you go to Ferguson when things settle down there?

OBAMA: Well, let`s take a look and see how things are going. Eric Holder`s been there. We`ve had a whole team from the Justice Department

there. And I think that they have done some very good work.

As I said, the vast majority of the community has been working very hard to try to make sure that this becomes an opportunity for us to seize the

moment and turn this into -- into a positive situation. But I think that we have to make sure that we focus at least as much attention on

all those positive activities that are taking place, as we do on a handful of folks who end up using this as an excuse to misbehave or to

break the law or to engage in violence.

I think that it`s going to be very important and I think the media`s going to have a responsibility as well to make sure that we focus on

Michael Brown`s parents and the clergy and the community leaders and the civil rights leaders and the activists and law enforcement officials who

have been working very hard to try to find better solutions, long-term solutions to this issue.

There is inevitably going to be some negative reaction, and it will make for good TV. But what we want to do is to make sure that we`re also

focusing on those who can offer the kind of real progress that we know is possible, that the vast majority of people in Ferguson, the St. Louis

region, in Missouri and around the country are looking for. And I want to be partners with those folks, and we need to lift up that kind of

constructive dialogue that`s taking place.

All right? Thank you very much, everybody.

REPORTER: Mr. President --

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: President Obama asking for people`s calmer minds to prevail.

Clearly, though, as we watched this footage, that`s -- we`re all watching together, it`s not really clearly unfolding in that manner.

Things seem it be going from bad to worse.

The St. Louis county police department is tweeting, confirmed shots fired across from Ferguson PD and south of Ferguson PD.

Police are responding to reports of looting on South Florissant, just south of Ferguson Police Department.

Danine -- Sam, do you want to react first?

SCHACHER: It`s frustrating, because, listen, I understand that there`s definitely anger there and hurt, but that`s the exact opposite of what

Mike Brown`s family want. They want peaceful protests. They want understanding. They want police officers to now wear body cameras but

not riots, not looting.

PINSKY: Danine, I haven`t heard from you yet tonight. Where are you in all this?

DANINE MANETTE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR: Dr. Drew, you know I`m not an emotional person. I`m a factual and logical person. My career as an

investigator, I have to evaluate information in an unbiased fashion in order to make a decision.

Given the information that was provided in that press conference, I have no other option at this time but to believe the grand jury came to the

decision that was based upon the facts that those 12 people knew more so than any of us in the media, any of the people in the streets and any of

us on this panel.

With that being said, the Ferguson police set the tone for what they`re experiencing right new in the streets -- by the way, they handled the

investigation from the beginning. By the way, left the boy`s body laying out there for several hours, how closed they were in

disseminating information. And police departments as a whole, this is a moratorium on the way that people feel oppressed by the police

departments that are controlling their communities.

And this is an outcry bigger than Michael Brown. This is more about police brutality and the fact we need to get a handle on it.

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: Let me say, it makes me feel -- I brought already a couple of times, I`m grateful for the communities I live in, Pasadena, LAPD, the

sheriffs department here, because they go to tremendous lengths not to use lethal force.

Is there something within the community of law enforcement, the profession, where those that have this as a priority can set the tone

for the entire nation, or does it just not work like that?

BARNETT: I just believe that there needs to be more education. And so many people are talking about the evidence, the evidence proved this and

that, but what the evidence will not show you and cannot show you is Darren Wilson`s mindset. Did he have a preconceived notion about this

young black man? Did he have a rational fear about this young black man? These are answers --

PINSKY: Vanessa --

BARNETT: Real issues we need to tackle.

PINSKY: Let me ask you miss. There is something prosecutors said. I wonder if it got under your skin.

Do you notice how he talked about, we must never be in this position again. Did this phrase trouble you all?

BARNETT: I think more so his tone throughout the entire thing. We talk about being a collective community, and it seemed as though he was very

blase about it, oh, well, yes, it`s sad hat this man was killed but he didn`t feel -- yes, I`m an emotional person. There was no inflection,

there was no cadence that proved to me that he really saw a problem in his community and wanted it fixed.

He -- what he wanted was this moment to kind of blame the media, blame everyone else for the death of Michael Brown except for blaming Darren

Wilson.

PINSKY: President Obama piled on to that a little bit, too.

And, Danine, let me ask that question of you as well. That comment, "never in this position again" kind of bothered me a little bit. It

kind of implies that, hey, everybody, take care of your kids, make sure they don`t rob things so they`re not in this position where police are

going to shoot them."

Did anybody take it that way?

MANETTE: What I`m hoping he meant by that comment, Dr. Drew, is the Ferguson police department is going to make some changes, that perhaps

they`re going to start wearing body cameras, perhaps they`re going to do community outreach so maybe they can incorporate the community members

into their policing, so that maybe they won`t find themselves on one end of the spectrum while the community is on the other and we have this

huge eruption of emotional violence and anger and outpouring into the streets that we see right now.

I`m hoping that that`s what he meant by that and if so, that`s the type of productive dialogue that we need to use going forward in this

situation and with all police departments.

PINSKY: You groaned when I brought that up. Did it get under your skin, too?

SCHACHER: Yes, it did. I am trying to -- I love where Danine is taking this conversation. I love the narrative. I love the dialogue of how

can we move forward?

But when you said that, Dr. Drew, that was my visceral reaction because guess what? I`m guilty of shop lifting when I was, like, 9, 10, 11, 12

years old.

PINSKY: We`ll get into that later.

SCHACHER: I`m just saying, does that mean I should get shot down going down the street?

PINSKY: That`s the point. Take care of your kids. How much do you blame -- it`s victim blaming.

OK. Listen, I want to get to CNN`s Ed Lavandera. He is live in Ferguson.

Ed, we are watching this footage unfold and it`s disturbing. We can`t figure out what`s going on. Can you help us?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think the tensions have started escalating here. We are about a mile or so away from the

Ferguson Police Department where the initial tensions and the initial kind of altercations we`ve seen unfold.

This is South Florissant Street, just down the street from where Michael Brown was killed. This was the site and the stretch of road where the

worst of the protests and altercations and riots happened back in August. In the last 10, 15 minutes we`ve seen the streets start to fill

up which we had not seen throughout most of the night, especially when Bob McCulloch, the prosecutor here, was giving the press conference.

PINSKY: Ed, I`m going to interrupt you. Ed?

LAVANDERA: Police activity just down the way. We`re trying to make our way to that. Yes, go ahead.

PINSKY: We are watching tear gas canisters being fired and people running in sort of a panicky fashion. Are you anywhere near any of

this? Can you tell us where that is, what that is? We see a seasons greeting banner.

SCHACHER: Right.

PINSKY: Ironically across the street. Is that an area you`re familiar with?

LAVANDERA: So, that is -- absolutely. That is an area about a mile from where I am. There`s a couple of areas where we`re keeping close

eye on. That is the area right in front of the police department here in the city of Ferguson.

Where I`m at is just a little bit away. This is where a lot of the protests were done back in August, but right now, those initial moments

this is where the center of activity is right there in front of the police department where it`s become the most heated.

Although in the last 10 to 15 minutes, that area, as the police officers have been trying to disperse the crowd from that area, we have seen them

in this area start to fill up quite a bit more.

So, a lot of cars driving down the road, honking their horns, cars speeding through the area as well, a decent amount of police activity

just behind me. We`re trying to work our way there here shortly to get a sense of what is going on there.

But you can definitely hear a lot more screaming, a lot more anger here on this stretch of road in the last 10 to 15 minutes.

SCHACHER: Ed, do you know why prosecutor made this anno announcement at 9:00 at night rather than in broad daylight at 10:00 in the morning?

LAVANDERA: You know, that was a question I listened to most of the press conference here just a little while ago. I don`t believe anybody

asked that particular question. You know, a lot of people speculating about why exactly that unfolded that way, a lot of people very critical

of the prosecutor for handling it this way.

I can tell you when I was here in August that there was a great deal of criticism of the police presence because there were a lot of people who

were peacefully marching with families. They bring their kids out. They`d march around here and that sort of thing. But the agitators and

people causing the most problems mixed in with the crowd. So, there were a couple of days when officers and teams and SWAT teams who were

out here took a heavy amount of criticism for launching tear gas and there were kids that were in that area, perhaps, and we haven`t heard

this from the prosecutor`s officer, that perhaps there was some thinking that at this hour, that people with families who might want to come out

here and protest peacefully, that those children might not be in the area.

You know, at this point, we don`t really know if that`s what the thinking was. I do know that, you know, you`re not seeing families out

here at this point.

PINSKY: We are watching --

LAVANDERA: Go ahead.

PINSKY: -- the police vehicle sweep through that area in front of the police department after having put quite a dense fog of tear gas

throughout that street. People seem to be primarily clearing the street. I imagine they`re kind of heading your direction.

The St. Louis Police Department just sent a tweet out that they`re not deploying tear gas, they`re using smoke to break up the unruly crowd.

OK. We`re looking at --

SCHACHER: That`s good.

PINSKY: -- smoke. People seem to be running away as if they believed it was tear gas. That`s good news, as it happens.

My question, though, Ed, is -- does this feel different than last summer? For instance, do you feel as though you`re in any danger in

this area?

LAVANDERA: You know, I was asked that a lot after we were here last time. What I always told people is these situations and the way it

unfolded back in August that it could turn violent and kind of crazy in a matter of seconds. So, everything would seem OK for quite a bit of

time, and then all of a sudden, things would turn dramatically and very quickly.

So, because of that, you know, we`re kind of on our toes because as you mentioned, it doesn`t take much if crowds are moving from one area to

this particular area, these are the areas of flashpoints that we`re keeping a close eye on.

So, you know, what I experienced back here in August is that these situations can turn drastically and very dramatically in a matter of

moments. So, just because things look calm at one particular time, or one particular moment, shouldn`t give you that false sense of security

because, you know, as I mentioned, things turned very quickly last time.

PINSKY: OK, Ed.

LAVANDERA: We`re on our toes as we watch the situation.

PINSKY: Ed, we really appreciate the report from right there in Ferguson.

He is a mile from the footage you`re seeing as we speak right now.

Evy, I want to go to you. It looks as though the police, perhaps, learned something last summer that they`re going -- they`re showing less

force. It looks more orderly and systemic. Is that what you`re seeing or is that just business as usual here?

POUMPOURAS: Yes, no, since last summer they learned their lesson. Last summer they did not handle it well. There was a lot of poor

coordination, poor, you know, policymaking.

I do feel there`s a little bit of that again this time because there`s, you know, differences in the different counties how they want to handle

things. But I can say this, I did speak to some of my sources out there, the officers out there. I do know they`ve been doing a lot of

training. Riot training specifically, because a lot of the departments had none, had none over the summer.

So, what they did is made sure they understood how to deal with public control with rioting. Dealing with the public in these types of

situations is very different than doing regular police work. So, I know for a fact they`ve been working on that.

The other thing I want to point out is in speaking with a lot of these law enforcement officers, there`s a very real fear on their part as far

as these riots. A lot of them are very concerned about safety, about their own safety, about a lot of the buildings have been evacuated. So,

they in turn are very concerned that these riots will get ugly.

Look, Dr. Drew, certain people --

PINSKY: Evy, isn`t that the way to prevent things from -- you know, this is the whole source of what we`re talking about here this evening

is somebody felt unsafe. If this is done in a professional manner, where they properly guard against feeling unsafe and do it systemically,

there`s not going to be an escalation on the part of the police force, not an inadvertent -- do you agree, Evy?

POUMPOURAS: This is where I disagree with you, Dr. Drew. Not everybody listens to police, not everybody complies, not everybody is peaceful.

There are some people that no matter what, no matter what verdict you would have had, they`re going to riot anyway. They`re going to do this

anyway.

So, what we`re doing is we`re kind of hoping that all those good people that want to get a message out like Vanessa, like other people who feel

strongly, like you, like Sam, that would go there and do it the right way. And then there are people, Dr. Drew, no matter what, they`re going

to use violence, they`re going to use hatred, they`re gonging to have anger, they`re going to disrupt the community and do these things

because it`s an excuse to do it.

You have a right to protest, and you should. But committing crimes, using violence and aggression, that`s completely different. They`re not

interlaced.

SCHACHER: Evy, do you think it would have been -- gosh, I don`t know how to phrase this. A smarter idea, without me knowing the different

variables, that they`d announce this verdict in broad daylight, again rather than like 9:00 at night, where it seems like more people who are

not intent to peaceful protest would come out at night?

SCHACHER: You know, I agree with you, Sam, on that, because I was asking that same question. I asked some people I know, is there a

reason why we`re doing this at night?

A lot of them are confused. They`re like, we don`t know. There`s a lot of confusion there. There`s been, I think earlier today they had a

press conference and I think the mayor spoke and the governor spoke and he almost had two completely different stories going on.

The mayor speaking one way saying you know what, we`re going to arrest people who commit crimes, we`re going to do X, Y, and Z, and the

governor having a little bit more of relaxed approach. So, it`s confusing because everyone`s almost got their own way of approaching

this, when everybody should be together, systemic and have, you know, coordinated and one-voice policy. Everybody should have the same voice.

So, there is, I am hearing from some of my sources that there is some rumbling within the law enforcement community that they`re just kind of

-- there is a little bit still of that confusion.

PINSKY: OK. So, again, the more unified, again, the more of a professional standard is maintained throughout the country it seems to

me. All I know about is medicine. We have certain standards. Crosses state lines. As professionalism, we all live up to a certain standard.

Vanessa, I need to go to you. I`m going to move away from Ferguson. I want to move away, perhaps, even from what the prosecutor said this

evening. I`m looking at my Twitter feed and seeing just dozens -- well, maybe now more than dozens of people saying that you have touched a cord

with what you were talking about in the beginning of our conversation this evening that the feelings you are having are resonating and it`s

about more than this case.

So, help us -- help us get our head around that feeling, again, if you can.

BARNETT: I think I come from an emotional place because --

PINSKY: Which is fine. Which is fine. Let the emotions flow. Let`s examine that. That`s what`s behind all that we`re looking at in this

footage here.

BARNETT: Right. To me, Michael Brown -- he could be my cousin. He could be my brother. He could be my family member.

And for so many years, we have collectively as a community said, listen to us. Our men, our young men, are being killed. They`re in jail at a

higher rate than any other race. That is the majority. And we want answers.

We spend days upon days and years and months peaceful protesting. We have so many organizations in the black community that stand up, that

fight every single day and we`re not heard until it`s on a platform like this when we`ve lost another young black man.

PINSKY: Well, here we are. Here we are. What do we do? What do we do, Vanessa?

BARNETT: I feel like this is my -- this is what I think we do.

PINSKY: Tell me.

BARNETT: This right here, it feels a little backwards to me. The community wants to get the riot gear out and they want to get the police

all trained up so we can stop the looters and we can stop the violence after the verdict, or after the indictment doesn`t come.

Why not train the police before we get here? Why not get the mental health professionals like you, Dr. Drew, in these communities and really

tap into why there`s that irrational fear for young black men?

Why is Darren Wilson scared that this man who`s already injured is charging at him? Let`s really get in there and talk about racial

issues. We cannot be scared. And it doesn`t make us racists. It doesn`t make us insensitive. It makes us want to push ahead and grow.

The people that -- Rosa Parks didn`t sit on the bus for no reason. If she didn`t, I wouldn`t be here today. And so, it takes us talking about

the issues, the race issues and saying, no, it`s not fair that you think of this young black man differently than you think about this young

white man.

And we need to be OK in saying that. And we really need to fix the mindset so that the next generation, it`s not even there. And they want

to protect the black man as much as they want to protect the white man.

PINSKY: Danine, does that resonate for you?

MANETTE: You know, I`ve always thought this case was about more than Michael Brown. I`ve said that from the very beginning and I always

thought it should be about more than Michael Brown.

I think that it`s always needed to be about a larger conversation about police brutality and occupying communities. I keep saying that over and

over again. I think it`s more than just this particular situation because like I said, factually in this situation, I`m not having a

problem with the lack of indictment.

However, the larger issue is the historical oppression of people of color by the law enforcement. And that`s just a fact. The fact that

the doors are closed to people of color getting in is easier, easy as law enforcement officers, as people of other races, even though that`s

the community that`s being dominated by the police.

The larger conversation, I think, needs to be had as far as how the police are interacting with community and society as a whole and how we

can all feel safe as they protect and serve. Serve who? Us as the community members.

PINSKY: Vanessa, I want you to get a sense of how the social media is responding to you. This is from Hannah. Hannah Shanney (ph), I guess,

@HannahShanney. There she is, "God bless Vanessa. She knows what she`s saying. Pay attention."

So, you`re striking a chord, my dear.

SCHACHER: And there are a lot of questions in regard to what you have touched upon, Vanessa. I`m so glad you`ve been so forthright and don`t

apologize for being emotional, please?

There`s a tweet from Karen Davis, she says "This like reliving the civil rights movement in the `60s. I thought we as a people moved forward,

not back. What has changed?"

PINSKY: Who`s going to answer that? Vanessa?

BARNETT: Well, for me, I don`t ever want to assume all the work that was done before us didn`t bring us to a point. I do think there is

movement for it. I don`t ever want to seem blind to that fact.

PINSKY: I think, Vanessa, you`re giving us an optimistic appraisal. You want things to move forward. You`re just expressing an emotion

that, you know --

SCHACHER: There`s work to do.

BARNETT: There`s work to do and we have to be very open and honest. We cannot be fearful of talking about race because it doesn`t break down

our relationships. It helps them build. It helps them grow and we can now empathize with each other.

You may not understand what it is like to walk in my shoes or my brother`s shoes when he has a hoodie on or my husband`s shoes day after

day after day. When we have these dialogues, you can sometimes take that beat and say, well, how does the other side see it? And that`s

important.

PINSKY: I wonder if we still have Ed Lavandera on the ground. OK. We`ll have Sunny Hostin in a second. I want to talk to her about what

she has witnessed. I know she had very significant concerns about how grand juries handle police shootings differently than, say, a shooting

out in the community at large.

Danine, do you have a response to that or assessment?

MANETTE: Yes, I really think the Ferguson police should have been proactive in this situation. I think before this verdict came out, they

should have come up with a list of things they were going to do proactively, like about a week ago saying, you know what, regardless of

what the grand jury decides, we`re going to start doing X, X, Y and Z in order to build bridges with the communities. We have to have more

bridges and less bullets, quite frankly.

So, I think they should have taken -- instead of waiting for all the fallout and now doing the smash and smashing on people that are upset

and showing very emotional responses to what happened with the grand jury, they should have been in front of it.

PINSKY: Yes.

Evy, it`s a little uncomfortable looking at a police force that`s 80 percent white with this predominantly African-American community

responding.

POUMPOURAS: Yes. It is. You have to look at that and have to think, why did the police force or the police department think it`s okay to

function this way and then you have an incident like this and it`s like, you know what, it`s not OK? It`s not OK to have that, to have a

predominantly black community and predominantly white police force. That`s not community-oriented policing. That`s what we`re moving

forward to.

The thing is, according to the research and data if you look at it, community-oriented policing is what we`re trying to incorporate in our

law enforcement agencies and departments. However, it has difficulty taking hold in lower socioeconomic communities, hence Ferguson. And

that`s one of the problems they`re having, reaching out to the communities and having the cohesive relationship. That`s where they

have to work.

PINSKY: Yet, although that`s a specific -- a certain population within the African-American community, I want to show you another tweet,

Vanessa, again, there are lots of supporters for you.

From Tony Burton, "Please he let Vanessa know this is the passion that represents our age group of educated African-Americans."

It`s something, the feeling you`re expressing, Vanessa, seems to cut across socioeconomic lines.

BARNETT: I -- I`m humbled by that, first and foremost, but I really do think that it`s important that, like she said -- there is this

generation of young black people that are very educated that want their voices heard and thank God I went to Howard University where I learned

about peaceful protests, where I learned that we`re united and we have power in numbers and that there is still changes to be made, but that we

can still do it.

That`s a big problem, too, to know that we can still make those changes just like the generations before us, and I think sometimes we lose hope

when there`s situations like this and that`s why I don`t want to focus so much on the looting or tipping over of cars. I mean, white frat boys

tip over cars when they celebrate a game.

I know we have to talk about it, but I don`t want to focus so much on that because there are the peaceful protests and there will be something

positive to come from this. I know it in my heart. Michael Brown did not die in vain.

SCHACHER: Absolutely. And also, Vanessa, too, I think just getting the word out that it`s OK to have this dialogue. There are a number of

tweets I read where people are saying, why does this have to be a race issue? When clearly we do not live in a post-racial America, and it is

the right thing to do to have this dialogue, as you said, as you suggested.

And to talk about how we can openly talk about, perhaps, having an assumption of fear of somebody from another race and then tackle it.

And I think, if we`re honest about it, we can at least move forward one foot in front of the other and hopefully evolve into a much more

tolerant and transparent nation.

BARNETT: Absolutely.

PINSKY: Yes, I, again, I`m watching the twitter feed live, and it`s starting to fragment a little bit. People -- you know, it`s so funny

how people have difficulty distinguishing from the decision, from the feelings they`re having about the bigger issue that boiled over as a

result of this decision.

And I think we have to -- Danine, I think you`ve done a good job of separating those two things for us. And I think -- don`t you agree, we

have to keep those two things distinct in our minds?

MANETTE: Absolutely. Yes, of course, it`s a racial issue. That`s what the underlying feeling is which is causing all this anger and outrage

that we`re seeing right now on television and in the streets. I hear the sirens outside. I have to go through downtown Oakland to get home.

I know they`re having a big protest going on out there.

SCHACHER: Oh, wow.

MANETTE: Also, you know, with that being said, I`m probably the only person on this planet that has been arrested for civil disobedience for

protesting in the streets. So, I understand that. I get that. I understand what it`s like.

You have to get out there and have your voice heard. I went to Berkeley. That`s what we did there.

However, you know, as far as what justice is, that`s according to the prism in which you`re looking through. I wanted justice your Caylee

Anthony, I want justice for Trayvon Martin. God knows I did. But it didn`t happen.

So, now that we have that energy, that emotion, we have to do something constructive. That does not involve getting arrested and getting a

felony so we can`t get a job. That doesn`t involve getting shot at by police with rubber bullets or anything else. We got --

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: Rubber that than lead.

But I believe I have a tweet from the St. Louis Police Department. You guys put that up there. I`m going to read it to you in a second.

Police cars have been set on fire there that we`re looking at.

You guys need to put the tweet up there if I`m going to read it. There we are -- near the 400 block of South Florissant. Police car set on

fire, #Ferguson. We`ve been watching that here.

SCHACHER: That does not help.

PINSKY: #stlcopd is the hash tag.

I`ll have Sunny Hostin in a moment. Is she close to ready? I`m anxious to speak to her. I see her preparing. Standby.

I`m anxious to see what her thoughts are. Did you think we`d be sitting here broadcasting live when a town is unraveling?

SCHACHER: It`s really sad to see this tension and this fear.

PINSKY: It`s making me have a shake.

SCHACHER: Absolutely.

PINSKY: Watching that footage.

SCHACHER: No. I think we need to focus on the fact, and I wish these protesters -- of course, I`m sure the majority of them are peaceful

protesters, but the ones who are burning police cars, who are doing this, they need to understand that it`s counterintuitive --

PINSKY: Counterproductive.

SCHACHER: -- counterproductive, absolutely, to Mike Brown. Why can`t we focus on the fact of like Mike Brown`s parents suggested of making

sure that every officer out there has a lapel cam? That helps the police officers just as much as it helps every one of us.

PINSKY: Vanessa?

BARNETT: But I feel like the prosecutor talked so much about the media and how the media tip the story and ran with it. The St. Louis

department has an opportunity to speak to the people that are following them, yet they`re only tweeting about smoke or they`re tweeting about a

car on fire.

Why not tweet to these people and say, you know, the peaceful protesters are on this block, there`s a celebration on this block. Not a

celebration, obviously, but people are really coming together and trying to make a change on this block. Like, don`t push that negativity.

Don`t feed into these people that are breaking windows and setting cars on fire.

Let`s change the narrative if we`re looking to move forward.

PINSKY: All right. To that end, I`ve got CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin. She`s in Ferguson.

Sunny, we`re watching police cars set on fire, watching people run away from smoke canisters. How does -- two questions for you. I`m going to

ask them right now together. One is, where are you? How are things where you are? What are you seeing?

And number two, I heard you on "Anderson Cooper", your concerns about how grand juries handle police shootings, perhaps, differently from

shootings in the community.

I`ll ask you both those questions.

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Sure. As to your first question, I am about a mile away from where the Ferguson Police Department is where you

are really seeing northeast of the protesters. You`re seeing a lot of the violence that`s erupting. I`m not very far from there. In fact,

I`m right near police command.

Behind me we`ve been seeing National Guard trucks roll out. A lot of the businesses here are either closed or they have been boarded up, and

there are a lot of cars going around sort of beeping their horns, yelling. It`s very tense. People certainly are expressing their

displeasure at the fact that Officer Wilson was not indicted.

And as to your second question about the grand jury, you know, it`s just been -- it was such an odd process, quite frankly. You just never see

something like this. You never see a prosecutor throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. You never see a prosecutor just put every

single piece of evidence in front of a grand jury, even evidence that is conflicting, evidence that is confusing, evidence that, you know,

wouldn`t be admissible at trial.

That is just so unusual that it just appeared to me to be a prosecutor not really seeking an indictment, and that`s unusual, and everyone that

I`ve spoken to over the past couple of days that I`ve been here, quite frankly, have expressed to me such distrust with the process and with

the system.

I mean, the minute I landed here, I`ve had people at the airport asking me, what`s going on? Why is it taking so long? Why is it being done

this way?

So, it`s a really tense, stressful situation for just the entire town.

SCHACHER: Right. Clearly there is definitely a large distrust there. But, Sunny, you said you`ve been there for a couple of days. What

action has taken place over the last 48 hours to ensure peaceful protests? If there has been any at all that you witnessed?

HOSTIN: Well, you know, I haven`t really -- the measures that we`ve seen are a lot of the businesses have been self-protecting sort of, have

been boarding up. There are some businesses that are open.

There`s actually a lovely Chinese restaurant right across the street. I asked one of the women there today, wow, you`re not boarding up, you`re

not closing? And she said, no, we`re not closing, people are come in for business, we`re open for business and we`re going to go with the

flow.

And so, you know, we have seen a pretty large police presence, again, we`re right near command center. We`ve seen the National Guard right

behind me roll out many, many trucks. So we`ve seen some residents that are saying, I`m going to try to go on business as usual, but there are a

lot of residents that are voicing their displeasure, quite frankly --

PINSKY: It seems.

HOSTIN: -- and a lot of police presence.

PINSKY: It seems like the law enforcement has been much more systemic, much better trained and as a result we`re seeing, although things are

erupting, they`re settling down pretty readily.

Let me, Sunny, ask you -- I don`t want to get bogged down in a legal conversation, but it seems like all this -- everything that you`re

describing there on the ground in Ferguson since you`ve arrived, what the prosecutor was talking about, what I imagine people from other

countries as they look at this case and try to scratch their head and wonder how this happened, it seems like fundamentally, the conversation

is about changing the laws. Is it not?

Is there something about Missouri law we need to understand that really makes this kind of thing possible?

HOSTIN: No, I don`t think it`s any -- I don`t think it has to do with changing the law. I think it has to do with how this process was

conducted.

You know, it was less than transparent. You had a prosecutor, I think, that rather than charge Officer Wilson, which a prosecutor can, we saw

that with the Zimmerman case, right, where there was no grand jury. Angela Corey as a special prosecutor decided to charge George Zimmerman.

Rather than do that, this prosecutor decided to put everything in front of a grand jury and let them decide. And it`s just, with that, not a

lot of guidance it sounds like. It`s unusual. It`s not about the law. The laws on the books if they are enforced I think are -- they work.

They`ve been around for a very long time. We`re talking about murder and manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Those laws are on the

books. It`s how you enforce the law.

And one of the things that has troubled me is that this prosecutor has never done this before, put all this evidence in front of a grand jury.

And he did this because it was an officer-involved shooting.

Well, all the grand jury proceedings should demand the same process. If you`re going to do that, just when officers are involved, why wouldn`t

you do that when anyone is involved? So there`s a problem with the process.

PINSKY: Yes, I`ve heard you raise that issue a number of times.

Evy, do you have a comment or question for Sunny?

POUMPOURAS: Yes, Sunny, I have a couple of questions for you. One, do you think it`s possible that he put all that information out there,

because initially they talked about the lack of transparency in this case and he`s just trying to kind of respond to that?

And the other thing I want to say is, in addition to just, it`s also the federal government has been involved in extensively the president sent

out Eric Holder, the FBI has gotten involved. So that doesn`t extra layer there -- I mean, it seems very difficult to me to see that

everything`s kind of hidden or pushed under the rug, when you have all these other entities coming in and doing their interviews. The FBI is

the ones who did those witness interviews because they had all these inconsistencies. Eric Holder has been present, overseeing what`s going

on.

Don`t you think that those things show that there`s an effort on all sides to try to do the right thing?

HOSTIN: Well, I certainly think that it`s helpful that the federal government has been conducting this parallel investigation, because this

is important. It`s not only about this particular incident. If you listen to the attorney general, it`s about, perhaps, monitoring this

police department, overhauling this police department, and the tensions that are occurring within communities of color and policing all over our

country, as our president said today, this is not just an issue that communities of color are making up.

This is a real issue, when it comes to the relationship between law enforcement -- I can see we have people behind me -- law enforcement and

communities of color and that distrust and that problem.

So, I think, certainly, it`s important that we have the federal government involved. But in terms of the way the process was conducted

by the state, by Missouri, I do not agree that this was a transparent process because, remember, the grand jury proceedings are secret.

We won`t know what the vote was. We won`t know who the grand jurors were. We can`t interview those grand jurors. And while he says, the

prosecutor, he`s going to release all of the transcripts, those proceedings weren`t -- you know, you don`t have a defense attorney. You

don`t have a judge. You just have a prosecutor presenting evidence.

And, so, a lot of that testimony wasn`t cross-examined, it wasn`t tested. So, even if we get the chance to see the information, and I`m

not sure that we`re really going to be able to see all of the grand jury proceedings, because, again, that would be really unusual. It doesn`t

make the process -- it doesn`t make the process transparent. It doesn`t make people believe in the process.

PINSKY: It doesn`t create confidence.

And, Sunny, I wonder to that same end, how is this going to be received by young black men?

HOSTIN: You know, I think that is really an important question. I mean, as you just heard, just a group of people just drove by yelling,

you know, "hands up, don`t shoot." Those I have spoken to since I`ve been here have this fundamental distrust in the system. They`re very

disappointed.

I spoke to Ben Crump, the family`s attorney, the Brown family attorney, and he says that Lesley McSpadden is just inconsolable. He says that

she believed, up until the announcement was made that there would be an indictment, and now, they certainly don`t believe in the system and in

the process.

And what is the message that it sends to young men of color? What is the message that it sends to communities of color? Do their lives

matter? And that certainly is a question on everyone`s minds here.

PINSKY: Thank you, Sunny, for joining us. I appreciate it.

I don`t know if you can see this, if we can put up this tweet from our own Anahita Sedaghatfar. She says, "Please present the other viewpoint.

Why do some of us believe, attorneys, I think she`s representing, justice was served?

OK. Well, that`s the other point of view we`re trying to present all points here.

SCHACHER: Right, and I like the narrative that we`re pushing and how do we go -- where do we go from here?

And, Dr. Drew, coming from your -- from a clinician`s standpoint, how do we tackle that residual fear and pain and allow people to -- I don`t

want to sound insensitive, I don`t want to say "get past it," but heal from it so that we can move forward and not be divided?

PINSKY: There`s two different issues, which is, how do we heal from this particular experience, and how do we correct what`s underlying?

And I`ve always been. Danine, help me with this. I`ve always been troubled with the way -- and not to say it`s not unjustified, but if I

was raised to fear that police were going to kill me every time I had an interaction with them and not to trust them. If somebody told me that

over and over again, I would --

MANETTE: It becomes your reality.

PINSKY: I would freak out with every interaction with police. I would think I was in "Mortal Kombat" and I would reach in the car and grab the

gun away, too.

MANETTE: Yes, I mean, what you are raised to believe and the messages that you`re fed in home is exactly what you carry with you and it`s the

armor you put on when you go out into the streets.

And what Sam was just saying, one of my absolute favorite quotes from my favorite book, "Their Eyes are Watching God" by Zora Neale Hurston is,

no moment is ever eternity, but it has its right to weep.

Now, we know this isn`t going to last forever and it shouldn`t last forever, but tonight at this moment, this raw emotion is out there. And

it`s going to have to be dealt with one way or another. Tomorrow, we may able to be able to start to turn the page, but tonight, I think this

is just a mess.

PINSKY: And tonight, Vanessa, you are a representative of that feeling. I saw you take a big sigh when she read -- give us that quote.

BARNETT: Yes, because I think too often, too many times, and I`ve heard it myself, we need to not talk about the past so much, or we need to get

over it or get passed it. And I think it`s really important that we are allowed to feel these feelings. Of course you don`t want the violence,

but we need to feel these feelings and be validated in feeling these feelings and not told to get over it.

PINSKY: I agree with you.

And, Evy, you want to comment?

POUMPOURAS: You know what I want to say, Dr. Drew? I`m watching all this footage. I`m watching these cars being set on fire.

PINSKY: I think we`re seeing looting.

POUMPOURAS: Attack on police officers, looting. But there`s all these things going on.

What I wanted see is y`all have been talking about what change needs to happen, what change needs to happen? You know what? These young men,

this community, the next day they should go and apply to be in the police department.

You want change? Change it from within. Don`t burn, don`t loot, don`t do these things. Be part of the solution. Become part of the police

department that you want to change.

PINSKY: That`s an interesting idea.

SCHACHER: I think that`s a great idea, absolutely.

PINSKY: I think part of the frustration is a lack of good jobs and these are things that --

SCHACHER: But that would be a great solution, considering the fact that right now in Ferguson, as we discussed earlier, the majority, the large

majority of the police officers are white. I think there`s only three African-American police officers. So you can have -- and you want

people from your community.

PINSKY: Engagement.

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: Engagement, that`s what you`re talking about.

SCHACHER: Engagement and involvement in people that grew up in the community.

PINSKY: Not just engagement in a political process, but I see your waving your hand and I`ll get to you, but engagement in terms of

participating in employ, participating in law enforcement, participating in the government.

Go ahead, Janine.

MANETTE: Unfortunately, it`s just not that easy, though, Dr. Drew, when you are raised in a certain community. Like, if you grow up in the

housing department, a lot of time when the police department do your background check, they feel you`re too connected with the project you

grew up and your loyalty will be to your childhood friends as opposed to the police department.

So, it`s a little bit more sometimes.

PINSKY: Evy is doing a jumping jack in response to your comment.

So, go ahead, Evy. Go ahead.

POUMPOURAS: Danine, what I want to say is I`m the daughter of immigrants and I actually grew up in New York City housing projects. So

I grew up in a very poor community and I grew up in that same institution and environment with the people around me were committing

crimes and not doing the right thing.

And I joined the police department and then I joined the U.S. Secret Service, because I didn`t follow that crowd. So I think that comes down

to the individual and the choices they make.

MANETTE: Well, I disagree.

PINSKY: Hold on, guys.

Evy, had you been in that crowd, would that have been enough to keep you out of the force?

POUMPOURAS: No, because I`ll tell you, I was part of hiring process or the assessment process for the U.S. Secret Service and I would give

polygraphs and do the assessments on individuals. And you would look at their character.

So, I don`t agree with what Danine is saying as far as the interactions you have with people. There are some people that we would hire who had

individuals or family members that were arrested.

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: Guys -- we`re running out of time.

Danine, I want to give you the last --

MANETTE: I can name five people right now that I know that just grew up in a certain neighborhood and when they asked -- when the background

officers went and talked to the people in that community, those people didn`t get hired. And they didn`t understand why.

They came out later and it was because of the fact that they lived next door. Not because of they affiliated with or --

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: Respond in about 15 seconds or less.

MANETTE: I`m telling you what happens.

POUMPOURAS: This is the thing, Janine, typically, there`s information that those people shared directly correlated to the actions on those

people.

Not hiring somebody simply because of the environment they grew up in, that`s unethical and illegal. You can`t do that. You could sue the

police department.

PINSKY: We`ll have to leave it there. Sam, do you want to --

SCHACHER: I want to know your final thought? I`m just watching it right now and I feel --

PINSKY: All of us need to say a prayer and keep a positive thought for the people of Ferguson and that we should all mind the president`s words

this evening and stay focused on the positive change that we can all participate in.

I think we`ve had a great conversation. I want to thank my panelists. I want to thank the reporters in the field. And keep all this

information moving forward.

A reminder that coverage will continue on "MORNING EXPRESS" tomorrow morning at 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time.

As I said, this information is stuff we want to keep alive, keep top of mind, and keep a good thoughts for the people of Ferguson. I think

calmer minds will prevail.

"FORENSIC FILES" actually begins now.

END