Guests: Juan Hernandez, Hilda Solis, Yale Galanter, Pam Bondi, James, James Coleman, Geoffrey Fieger, Kirk Reynolds, Kimberly Harris
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, GUEST HOST: Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. I‘m Michael Smerconish in for Joe tonight. We‘ve got a packed show.
The Duke DNA results are in, but this case is far from closed. Also, a 911 call for help ignored—a young mother dead. And I want to know why is that operator still on the job?
Plus, he made a sexy video that sent the P.C. police through the roof.
He‘s here tonight with a story that‘s true, but it should be fiction.
But first anger over immigration reform pours into the streets, gridlocking Congress, leading to real gridlock in dozens of cities today. Hundreds of thousands of people across the country on the march, most of them here illegally, and now they‘re demanding what they‘re calling immigration justice. But are these massive protests helping or hurting their cause? And should police be moving in to arrest the illegal immigrants in the streets?
Let me go straight to our own Tucker Carlson who was at the massive protest in Washington today. Hey Tucker, I‘ll bet it didn‘t look like all those Grateful Dead shows you used to travel and watch.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, THE SITUATION: No, it didn‘t at all. And in fact, you know, I have to say I‘m violently opposed—or strongly opposed to illegal immigration. We talk about it almost every night on my show. However, it was something sort of heartening about the seeing the people there. I mean, you‘ve got to concede, no matter where you are in the issue, these are people who work hard. You know, a lot of them showed up in work clothes.
I, at one point at the march, walked off to the Smithsonian Institution and passed a guy begging on the street. It was not an illegal immigrant, it was an American. It‘s hard to imagine one of these people begging. So they were nice people, I guess, is the bottom line, and I would be dishonest if I didn‘t say that.
SMERCONICH: You know, Tucker, you and I are a couple of political junkies. I took note, at least in the television footage, of the fact that the Mexican flags didn‘t seem to be in great number today. A lot of American flags. And it seems like they understand the politics of the United States.
CARLSON: They absolutely do. There were, in fact, a lot of Mexican flags. They were not being flown. They were mostly being worn. There were a lot of Honduran and Guatemalan and Costa Rican and Salvadoran flags too. But the striking thing for me was, virtually all of the speeches were in Spanish. This was a group—and we tried to interview a lot of different people—who by and large didn‘t speak English, or at least not very well. In many cases, when I tried to talk to people, not at all, which was telling.
I was also struck by the ideas behind this. There was a real sense of entitlement. And every person I spoke to, and admittedly most of the people we did speak to were legal, were citizens, naturalized Americans.
SMERCONISH: I‘m glad at the outset that you didn‘t describe them as undocumented, because I feel no need to be P.C. here tonight.
CARLSON: Of course not.
SMERCONISH: These folks, regardless of what we do, they‘re here illegally. But here‘s my question: Why is there zero discussion of the notion, that well, OK, hundreds of thousands of illegals here—maybe law enforcement ought to step in. All I keep hearing is how would we ever find them? Well you can find them today, but nobody wants to talk about gathering them up.
CARLSON: Well I think that—personally my feeling is the more central question is, why not build a wall? I mean, why not end this easy access point along our southern border. All of us can then relax and make rational decisions about immigration.
But you can‘t at this point, because we have no control over our borders. This is the point I brought up time and again to people we were interviewing this afternoon. And we got the same series of answers. One, you know, why should we abide by the border? This is, you know, I have a right to work anywhere I want. Two, I am coming here because of the money the United States spent in the ‘80s in Central America fostering all these civil wars. Therefore, it‘s America‘s fault that I‘ve come to your country illegally. That is a very common view, at least of the people I‘ve spoken to recently.
SMERCONISH: But Tucker, if you had a couple hundred thousand, you know, pot smokers—people who wanted decriminalization...
SMERCONISH: ... of marijuana getting together. Or, OK, let‘s make it less criminally invasive—let‘s say scoff laws, you know, people with parking tickets getting together across the country. I‘ve got to believe that law enforcement would say, hey, there they are. Let‘s step in and do something about it.
CARLSON: Well, I‘ve been to a couple, you know, normal or drug—you know, anti-drug war protests like this. And everyone‘s getting high and nobody‘s doing anything about it, to be honest. However, I mean, you make a good point. I think an even deeper point there though is, why would Congress take seriously—take really seriously, anyway—the pleas of people who aren‘t even citizens. Right?
I mean, if you‘re not a citizen, it doesn‘t mean we‘re going to hurt you. But it does mean you can‘t participate in our democracy, by definition. So why would illegal immigrants, illegal aliens, be able to exert political pressure? It actually doesn‘t make sense if you think about it for a second.
SMERCONISH: Tucker Carlson coming up in just a little while. Thanks for being here...
CARLSON: Thanks Michael.
SMERCONISH: ... I appreciate it. And by the way, that‘s live footage that you‘re watching of a protest still underway out in Los Angeles, California.
Juan Hernandez is a former advisor to Mexican president Vicente Fox. He‘s also the author of the New American Pioneers: Why Are We Afraid of Mexican Immigrants. And he joins us from Winston Salem, North Carolina, where he was keynote speaker earlier today. Mr. Hernandez, welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
JUAN HERNANDEZ, AUTHOR, NEW AMERICAN PIONEERS: Thank you for inviting me to your show.
SMERCONISH: I want to share with you, sir, some of the language of the Mexican constitution. I learned this from Frank Gaffney, who‘s a former deputy defense secretary here in the United States in the Reagan administration. And I was shocked. The Mexican constitution says, among other things, foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country. This ban applies, among other things, to participation in protests about domestic politics.
In other words, sir, this type of a rally, or these types of rallies, could never have taken place in Mexico. And it leaves many of us saying, maybe we, the Americans, need to take a page out of the Mexican book in terms of how they deal with illegal immigration.
HERNANDEZ: Well, we also have laws in this country that say that, for example, foreigners can‘t donate money to campaigns and that kind of thing. But the issue here really is that—and what the people here were saying in Winston Salem—is we are already good citizens—in quotation marks maybe—of this great nation.
We have been here for years. We‘ve been paying taxes. We‘ve been working. We‘ve been creating jobs, not taking jobs from anyone. We‘ve been paying social security. And so we already are good citizens. Don‘t criminalize us. On the contrary, give us the paper so that we can be here legally.
SMERCONISH: Right. But you say don‘t criminalize us as if we, those on the side of law enforcement, are the bad actors in this case. The reality is we‘re talking about people who...
SMERCONISH: Hey, wait a minute now—who may be hard working. But they‘re here illegally. And listen, I‘ve got a 100-year-old grandmother. I want to preserve the American dream. But when she came into this country in 1926, she did it lawfully through Ellis Island. These are folks who chose a different path.
HERNANDEZ: But my friend, we‘ve also been speaking from both sides of our mouth. I think you must agree. We‘ve been saying don‘t come, don‘t come. But if you can make it, there is a reward. In 1986, Reagan did the right thing for an amnesty. We‘re not seeking an amnesty today. But, in 1986, ‘87, we had an amnesty. But Reagan did not create a new program. What we need is a program that‘s realistic for the 21st century, which is great for the United States of America—not good for Mexico and other countries—that‘s great for the United States.
And let me just tell you, most U.S. Americans in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, my friend, most U.S. Americans only want five points, very quickly to pass, so that all will be legalized. Number one, that there be no criminals in the group, and there aren‘t any. Number two, that they pay taxes and social security, and I think that‘s fair. Number three, that they work on their English, and I think that that‘s fine also. Number four, some would like for them to pay a fine for maybe having come into this country. And then number five, others would like a variety of other issues...
SMERCONISH: Mr. Hernandez, I don‘t think, I...
HERNANDEZ: ... But most, from 56 to 76, favor legalizing the undocumented.
SMERCONISH: No. Respectfully sir, I don‘t think that that‘s an accurate representation of the way that middle America feels on this issue. And let me just offer you mine.
HERNANDEZ: Oh yes it is, my friend.
SMERCONISH: No, I think you‘re wrong. But let me just voice this, and then you can respond. I think that most of us are here saying, there‘s an illegal situation in the country, and it‘s gotten out of hand. And now, here comes the government. And you know what the solution is? We‘ll declare it all to be legal. I mean, my goodness, why don‘t we do that with carjacking? We have a carjacking problem, we‘ll just declare carjacking to be a legal issue.
HERNANDEZ: No, this is totally different, my friend. You‘re comparing them to criminals. These are not criminals. These are people who came here. And I saw a little poster of a child today—it was so beautiful—saying my dad is not a criminal. And he spoke today, we gave him the microphone. He said my dad came here to try to give me a better way of life. No, these are not criminals. And we are trying—some people are trying to pass some laws so that it becomes a misdemeanor, so it becomes a crime. But today, they are not criminals in this country.
SMERCONISH: Mr. Hernandez, hold your thought. I want to bring in Congresswoman, Hilda Solis, live from the National Day of Action rally in Downtown Los Angeles. And we‘re watching that footage right now on SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. Congresswoman Solis, welcome. We‘re glad to have you tonight.
HILDA SOLIS, CONGRESSWOMAN (D) CALIFORNIA: Thank you for inviting me.
SMERCONISH: It‘s my view...
SOLIS: And welcome to Los Angeles!
SMERCONISH: Congresswoman, it‘s my view that we should first fix the poorest borders and then decide what to do with the 11 million or 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. What‘s your reaction?
SOLIS: Well, I agree we have to beef up the border. But what are you going to do with 11 million to 15 million people who are here? I think we really have to do more to help provide for these folks to come from out of the shadows. And there was a bill introduced by Senator McCain and Kennedy that actually helped to address that, to set up a legalization process that would actually make people pay a fine of $2,000, have their fingerprints taken. They would have to go through a process of earned legalization and have no criminal background, and learn the English language.
SMERCONISH: But Congresswoman Solis, I am not comfortable trusting that Washington can appropriately close the borders. And my fear is that, if we pass this legislation, there will be another 10 million or 12 million who will be here illegally, and then we‘ll have to give them amnesty as well.
SOLIS: Well, we know that right now, that there are many people who are not coming over because they know of the tremendous pressure being placed on the borders because of what happened after 9/11. So it‘s become more difficult for people to just come walking over the border. In fact, we know that because of past protection measures, that many people are no longer coming from the areas that we‘re seeing beforehand.
You have people actually now, not even crossing the desert because it‘s so dangerous. Four hundred to 500 undocumented have already lost their lives crossing the desert in Arizona.
SMERCONISH: You mention...
SOLIS: So I don‘t think there‘s a—that big magnet for them to cross over knowing that they might just die not even making it over.
SMERCONISH: Congresswoman, you mentioned the events of September 11, but frankly, what‘s driving this bus right now are the economics. They‘re not security concerns. I mean, if we were so worried about security in shorter than five years, we would have addressed this issue. Isn‘t this all about the impact on the American economy? And finally, now, the Congress is motivated? Somebody has lit a fire under everybody‘s butt to do something about it?
SOLIS: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and also the restaurant and hotel retail industry are strongly behind this program that Kennedy and McCain have introduced. And to be sure, there are many people that are here that have lived here for 20 and 30 years, that may not be documented, but they have businesses, they own property, and their children are U.S. citizens. So, what are you going to say to them? Just get them up and deport them?
SMERCONISH: What I‘m...
SOLIS: I don‘t think we can do that, you know, easily. I don‘t think any government could.
SMERCONISH: What I think we‘re going to say to them is there‘s a lawful means of getting this done. And they chose not to go on that path. You get the final word, but we only have 15 seconds.
SOLIS: I don‘t think that‘s necessarily true. I don‘t think it‘s true, because there‘s lot of people who came here with circumstances out of their control—young children that came over with their parents but know no other language than English and have gone to public school. And you‘re telling me that we‘re going to deport them? I don‘t think so.
SMERCONISH: Well, I‘m tired of giving driver‘s licenses to folks who are here illegally. That‘s not sending the right message. Listen, thank you very much...
SOLIS: There‘s a lot of people who overstay their visas as well, though, so keep that in mind, from other countries.
SMERCONISH: I agree. The answer is...
SOLIS: Especially Asian and European countries. We had a Scottish priest...
SMERCONISH: I hear you.
SOLIS: ... speak to us earlier and that told us he was illegal...
SMERCONISH: Congresswoman, thank you.
SOLIS: ... So, will you deport him?
SMERCONISH: Thank you.
SOLIS: Thank you.
SMERCONISH: Fix the border problem. Then we can talk about the 11 million or 12 million. That‘s what middle America wants done. Thank you very, very much Congresswoman Hilda Solis and Juan Hernandez.
Next, the DNA test results are in at Duke. And it‘s a bombshell. But will it force the D.A. to rethink his investigation? The latest live.
911 AUDIO: 911, what‘s the problem?
My mom had passed out.
SMERCONISH: Unbelievable—a little boy tries to get help for his mom. His call is ignored. Tonight, the deadly mistake sparking outrage across the country.
SMERCONISH: A bombshell tonight in the case of gang rape allegations at Duke. The DNA results are in. And according to defense attorneys, it‘s good news for the accused lacrosse players.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WADE SMITH, ATTORNEY FOR DUKE LACROSSE PLAYERS: No DNA material from any young man tested was present on the body of this complaining woman—not present within her body, not present on the surface of her body, and not present on any of her belongings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Joining me now with the latest from Durham, North Carolina, NBC‘s Michelle Hofland. Michelle, you have new information just in? What is it?
MICHELLE HOFLAND, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, we‘re trying to get this information that we heard in regards to this case, that some detectives may have found out. We‘re trying to actually verify that information and we hope to get it to you soon.
But this is what we know so far. The reaction of this DNA evidence, the attorneys and their players still say that it is not time right now for a celebration. They say that they know that the district attorney here still has not closed this case, Michael.
And what is their reaction? Well, they say that they are pleased, that they know that—they knew that this result was going to be coming down. But the problem is, is that they want to make sure that this DNA evidence convinces this community here, convinces the country, that they did not rape or beat this woman.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it is a false accusation that has been made for some reason against these boys. And I think that it has been used to hurt their lives forever and to tear this community apart.
HOFLAND: Well, there‘s more information that the attorneys—the defense attorneys—say that helps prove that their lacrosse players at Duke University did not touch this woman and did not beat her. There are photographs that NBC News has verified.
These photographs—two different sets of them—the first set is time-stamped at the beginning of the party when the woman was dancing. The photograph shows a set of bruises and cuts, open cuts and raw cuts on the woman‘s legs, on her arms, one of her fingernails—at least one—is ripped off of her hand. This is at the beginning of the party. And what attorneys say is that this shows that she was already bruised or beaten up before she arrived at the party.
The second photo that NBC News has verified, that one shows, according to the time stamp at the end of the party, at the same time that this woman told police that she‘s running for her life out of the party. What we—what was seen in this photograph, according to the attorneys, is that she‘s standing there looking down into her purse. You can clearly see her cell phone and she is smiling.
What the defense attorneys say is that this picture shows that she was not running anywhere, that if she needed help, she could have used her cell phone. And that also her garments were not torn. So it shows that the men and no one in that house had torn her garments off.
So, where does this case stand now? The district attorney—he has not decided to close this case or has decided—has not told us exactly what he‘s going to be doing in this. What we know is he has a number of different options. He could just close this case, or he could decide to continue on and investigate for awhile.
But there‘s one other thing, Michael.
SMERCONISH: Tell me.
HOFLAND: On Monday, the grand jury here in Durham, he had—that convenes on Monday. So, the district attorney can take his evidence into the grand jury, and the grand jury here in Durham almost always has—issues a true bill in their cases. Back to you.
SMERCONISH: Great report. Thanks Michelle Hofland at Duke.
I want to bring in prosecutor Pam Bondi and criminal defense attorney Yale Galanter. Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
YALE GALANTER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hi, Michael.
SMERCONISH: Pam, let me start with you. I want to play for you Mike Nifong, the D.A. from down in those parts with Dan Abrams a couple of weeks ago. Please listen to the clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE NIFONG, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA: I am convinced that there was a rape, yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And why are you so convinced of that?
NIFONG: The circumstances of the case are not suggestive of the alternate explanation that has been suggested by some of the members of the situation. There is evidence of trauma in the victim‘s vaginal area that was noted when she was examined by a nurse at the hospital. And her general demeanor was suggested—suggestive of the fact that she had been through a traumatic situation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Pam, I remember in the Reagan administration, a guy named Ray Donovan was secretary of labor. And the guy was really put through the mill by prosecutors. And then at the end when no charges were brought, famous quote, “Where do I go to get my reputation back?” Are we ready for a Ray Donovan moment in the Duke case?
PAM BONDI, PROSECUTOR: Not yet. Not yet. Now, I‘ll tell you, the DNA—the lack of DNA is a tremendous blow to the prosecution. But lack of DNA does not exonerate. And here‘s what we still know. We know we had a young woman who was very emotional, running out of the house, leaving her cell phone, leaving her money, leaving her purse behind. We know we have medical evidence that is suggestive of trauma to her vaginal area, to her body, marks around her neck that weren‘t depicted in those photographs. It is a tremendous blow.
But I don‘t think we‘re there yet, because the D.A.—he may know plenty of things that we still don‘t know. And prosecutors are under a very different burden. They can‘t talk a whole lot about their case.
SMERCONISH: Well, wait a minute. See, this is my beef in this case.
This guy, I think, spoke out of turn.
Yale Galanter, I remember when he—when that interview was done with Dan Abrams, and I was sitting home in Philly, and I said, I cannot believe this guy is so far down the road in terms of the prosecution and reaching judgments in this case. And I imagine you probably agree with my sentiments?
GALANTER: Oh, I totally agree. Not only were his comments out of line premature, they were unethical. It was a rush to judgment. What he should have said was we‘re doing tests, we‘re continuing our investigation. We will give a statement when we are ready to make a charging decision.
Michael, look at what‘s happened in this case. A coach has resigned. The lacrosse team, their entire schedule has been cancelled based on the credibility of a woman who the prosecutor didn‘t know about her prior record, certainly didn‘t know about the photographs. Her father didn‘t know that she was an exotic dancer.
SMERCONISH: Well wait. Yale, Yale.
GALANTER: There is no way that a pro...
SMERCONISH: There‘s more to it.
GALANTER: There‘s no way that a prosecutor would ever bring this case to trial.
SMERCONISH: Wait, I want to tell you something. From a distance, I have followed this case as closely as possible. And there was a story that broke on Friday from WRAL down there in Raleigh. I‘ve seen it nowhere else, with all the trashing that has taken place with these lacrosse players. I thought this was a significant story.
And the story is about how the alleged victim in this case, on a prior occasion reportedly, allegedly, yada, yada, yada, with all the qualifiers, gave a lap dance to a taxi driver, and then stole his cab. And then law enforcement attempts to come to the scene, and she tries to run the guy over.
Now, Pam Bondi, I know that doesn‘t mean she wasn‘t raped in this case, but she‘s clearly got some character issues.
BONDI: Oh, that‘s certainly very damaging to the prosecution. And I‘ll tell you, I agree with you that the prosecutors in the case should not have spoken and come out like they did in the beginning. And that should be a lesson to prosecutors. And that‘s why you keep an investigation close to your vest until you are ready to make a charging decision, unless you have strategic reasons for revealing certain aspects. Unless they felt some of the suspects may be scared and run to the D.A.‘s office and want to cooperate.
But I do agree with you that you should not reveal details of a pending investigation.
SMERCONISH: And Yale, wasn‘t a large part of this—because I blame the media for this. They were so anxious to rush in and to trash all these white, privileged kids—that‘s the way they were spun—and come to the defense of a minority in this case who was claiming that she was the victim. I mean, you‘d have to agree that race was a huge dynamic in the way this thing has gotten fueled? Agreed?
GALANTER: It‘s not only race. And I do agree with you. Race played a lot—had a lot to do with it. But it‘s also politics. This D.A. is running for re-election. And that‘s why he probably shot his mouth off and rushed to judgment before all of the facts and all of the evidence were in. And that is why a lot of people are hurting and their careers are hurting today.
SMERCONISH: The DNA bombshell comes as Duke does its own investigation into the lacrosse team. An internal committee is looking into reports of disorderly conduct going back five years. Now, the university‘s president wrote this about the team in an open letter.
There have been reports of persistent problems involving the men‘s lacrosse team, including racist language and a pattern of alcohol abuse and disorderly behavior. These are quite separate from the criminal allegations, and these we will address at once.
Joining me now is Duke law professor James Coleman. He‘s on the committee doing the investigation. And Professor Coleman, I‘m cognizant of what the president said in that statement. But still I have to ask you, do we need your investigation if in fact this criminal case implodes?
JAMES COLEMAN, JR., LAW PROFESSOR, DUKE UNIVERSITY: Well, yes, the investigation that we‘re doing has nothing to do with the criminal allegations. The university is concerned about the behavior that has taken place with the lacrosse team. And we‘re going to review that, and would do that whether these allegations—the criminal allegations had been made or not.
SMERCONISH: But respectfully, sir, there was no university investigation until the rape allegations were made? I mean, clearly one has followed the other.
COLEMAN: Well, that‘s correct. I mean, that‘s how it came to light. As a result of the publicity surrounding the rape allegations, it came to light what the team had done that night in terms of the misbehavior unrelated to the criminal allegations.
SMERCONISH: And what specifically are you talking about? Because it can‘t be the beer drinking and hiring of strippers. That‘s been going on for as long as there‘s been a Duke. I mean, I‘m not going to defend or attempt to defend the racist language that allegedly was used by these fellas, because that‘s absolutely indefensible. Is that what you are talking about?
COLEMAN: Listen, what we‘re going to do is to conduct a review of the conduct of the lacrosse players over the last five years to determine whether they have engaged in serious misbehavior, to determine whether the university was aware of it, to determine whether the university responded adequately to it, and if not, to take actions to make sure that we monitor that kind of behavior. And I think that that‘s the focus of this committee. And that‘s the—that‘s what we‘re doing.
SMERCONISH: All right, Professor. Let me ask Pam and Yale, over-under question, 10 days—Is the prosecution wrapping up it‘s 10, under 10 days or over 10 days?
SMERCONISH: Over 10. What do you say, Yale?
GALANTER: This case is over in the next two or three days. It‘s gone. They‘ve got no shot.
SMERCONISH: Under is the correct answer.
GALANTER: I know.
SMERCONISH: Thank you Professor James Coleman, Pam Bondi and Yale Galanter.
Coming up. He was doing the right thing when trouble happens. He dialed 911. But when this six-year-old boy called to get help for his mom, he was rejected not once, but twice. The heartbreaking story and why he and his family are now demanding answers.
And it was a P.R. nightmare that rocked San Francisco and the rest of the country. Now, the man at the center of an NFL training tape controversy is baring all tonight about his life then and now.
SMERCONISH: This is unbelievable, a 6-year-old boy tries to save his mother‘s life by calling 911 after she goes unconscious. What happens next is nothing short of shocking and outrageous. But first, here‘s the latest news from MSNBC world headquarters.
SMERCONISH: He was at the center of a highly controversial training tapes for the San Francisco 69ers and now I‘m going to talk live to Kirk Reynolds about the tapes seen around the world and how his life has changed.
Two men, a boat, and rough waters equal trouble. But it‘s the U.S.
Coast Guard to the rescue and dramatic pictures.
Welcome back to “Scarborough Country.” I‘m Michael Smerconish in for the big guy tonight. Though stories in a minute.
But first outrage after a 911 call from a 5-year-old call is ignored. Robert Turner did everything right when he found his mom passed out in their Detroit apartment. He called 911, tried to get paramedics to the scene. And let‘s listen to the 911 cal that he made that night.
Turns out that the dispatcher never sent the police. She thought it was a prank cal. But Robert knew that something was seriously wrong with his mom. He called back a second time, three hours later. Listen to that tape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DISPATCHER: Emergency 911, where‘s the problem?
ROBERT TURNER: My mom has passed out.
DISPATCHER: Where‘s Ms. Turner at?
TURNER: Right here.
DISPATCHER: Let me speak to her.
TURNER: She‘s not going to talk.
DISPATCHER: OK, well, I‘m going to send the police to your house to find out what‘s going on with you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMIRCONISH: It turned out the dispatcher never sent the police. She thought it was a prank call.
Robert thought there was something seriously wrong with his mom. So he called back a second time, three hours later. Now, listen to that tape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DISPATCHER: Emergency 911, where is the problem?
TURNER: My mom has passed out.
DISPATCHER: Where‘s the grown up at?
TURNER: In her room.
DISPATCHER: Let me talk to her. Let me speak to her before I send the police over there.
TURNER: She‘s not going to talk.
TURNER: She‘s not going to talk.
DIPATCHER: Yeah, you know what? She‘s going to talk to the police.
Ok? She‘s going to talk to the police because I‘m sending them over there.
TURNER: Well, I don‘t want the police.
DISPATCHER: Well, you I don‘t care. You shouldn‘t be playing on the phone. Now put her on the phone before I send the police over there and you are going to be in trouble.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: By the time help arrived, it was too late. Cheryl Turner was dead. Today, Cheryl‘s family announced a lawsuit named against two unnamed 911 dispatchers.
Joining me now is attorney Geoffrey Fieger. He‘s representing the family.
Hey, Geoffrey. Welcome to “Scarborough Country”.
GEOFFREY FIEGER, ATTORNEY: Thanks, mike.
SMERCONISH: It‘s hard for me to play devil‘s advocate in a case like this. The best I can say, in Detroit, it was reported that 25 percent of all calls coming into the 911 system are crank calls.
FIEGER: Yeah. But again, I think that‘s probably true in any large metropolitan area that you are respond to go every call. Here in this case, immediately two 911 operators dismissive of Robert. They were pejorative, they were threatening, they were intimidating, and as a result, he lost of life of his mother. That little boy did everything he possibly could. He was only 5-years-old, just as you said, he did everything.
SMERCONISH: Jeffery as a legal mater, am I correct to say that your burden in the wrongful death case that you have to show but for the surly women who answered the phone mom would have lived.
FIEGER: That‘s correct. There‘s every indication that that‘s true. Autopsy showed virtually no problem. there was a conjecture of a cardiomyopathy and irregular heartbeat. But in fact we knew from Robert today, he said for the first time that his mother asked him to call the first time as she was losing consciousness. She said something is wrong with me. Call 911. So, we know that he had critical time available. And we‘re doing a second autopsy, Michael, and that will confirm what I am saying. There was time.
SMERCONISH: Jeffery, we plan to have on the president of the local union that represents the 911 operators. Surprise, surprise, the boss decided not to do anymore interviews.
Kimberly Harris was on the “Abrams Report” earlier. Listen to this.
And then I want you to respond.
KIMBERLY HARRIS, DISPATCHER: Not only one, but two operators clearly felt that it was a prank caller. Now, two previous phone calls were had from kids calling from the same street, Spruce Street. And they were playing. It was prank calls. And the third call she received, I guess she looked at the street and assumed that that was a continuation of the two previous prank calls.
SMERCONISH: Now, when I was growing up outside of Philadelphia, we used to call the drug store and say, do you have prince Albert in the can. Better let him out or you will suffocate. And that is distressing that a quarter of all of the calls coming in are prank calls.
FRIEGER. Yes, but believe me—first al, of all, let me say, I don‘t believe there were any other calls from Spruce Street and they knew what the address of the address comes up, name comes up and there was no attempt on behalf of the operators to discern anything. You can‘t make the determination when a little boy calls and says, help me.
SMERCONISH: They were just plain nasty. Man.
FIEGER: From the get go yeah.
SMERCONISH: Well, two different operators came to the same conclusion. I‘m listening to this; two different operators were damn nasty to this poor little boy.
FIEGER: From the very beginning. They didn‘t come to any conclusion at all. They started nasty and ended nasty. You are absolutely right. There was no determination there.
SMERCONISH: So, here‘s Kimberly Harris with more excuse on the “Abrams report”.
HARRIS: Everybody that calls, some people are intoxicated, some people are in pain. And we have to decipher through that. And I pride the operators because we do a god job.
SMERCONISH: But she new it was a child.
HARRIS: Clearly it was understood.
ABRAMS: So, intoxication was not an issue.
HARRIS: No, that‘s not. I‘m telling you the different things that we do have to go through.
FIEGER: There was no deciphering here! There was nothing that they had to go through except for helping little Robert, assist them, if they needed more information, which they apparently didn‘t because they were going to dismiss him immediately.
SMERCONISH: A person calls up. And they say, mom has passed out. Period, paragraph, end story. Send the wagon. It‘s not for these women to make the judgment. I say women, men, whoever the hell answered the phone. Just send the paramedics out there and that‘s your job.
FIEGER: And remember, we have somebody in authority saying it‘s ok for them to do. We have the authorities telling us, too, when children need help, call up and we‘ll be there. What‘s the mixed message? That the children should call out for help? Or they shouldn‘t now? What is it?
SMERCONISH: Jeffery just so you now, people watching “Scarborough Country” saying this are an aberration and it‘s just one time. Well, we‘ve been to the dance, and the terrible case of Edie Pollack where the 911 calls were logged and it was ignored. Another woman a couple of years ago diverted a call to a private ambulance service, a guy died waiting for the ambulance that never showed up.
FIEGER: Today, I played the tape of Lorraine Hayes, my client who was shot in the back of the head by her husband, as she laid there becoming paralyzed, she begged 911, we played the tape, begged them to come help her after three calls over an hour. She now sits in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. And this happened in Detroit only three months ago.
SMERCONISH: I got to roll. Thank you, Geoffrey Fieger, appreciate it very much.
I‘m joined by Tucker Carlson, host of “The Situation with Tucker Carlson”.
Tucker, what‘s the situation tonight?
CARLSON: Michael, there‘s so much and first and foremost one of the leaders of the protest here in Washington, any way. More than 100,000 people on the mall demanding their rights and many not even citizens. We‘ll ask how can people who can‘t vote demand rights from congress. Very, very interesting question. Then, we‘re going to have the author of the book: “I‘ve always been a Yankee‘s Fan.” And it‘s about Hillary Clinton, what a phony.
SMERCONISH: Thank you, Tucker.
Be sure to tune in to “The Situation.” It‘s next at 11:00.
Up next on “Scarborough Country,” It was an in-house video supposed to train football players how to deal with the media.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everything you do and say is being covered by the media.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Instead the video is filed with lesbian soft porn and topless blondes and hoopla. It was played everywhere. We‘ll talk to the man who made the video.
Up next. Speaking of steamy scenes, a little boy tunes into a public access channel to watch children‘s programming only to get an eyeful of porn. Details in flyover Country.
SMERCONISH: Welcome back to “Scarborough Country.” I‘m Michael Smerconish in for Joe tonight. You may have seen me with Joe last week when he interviewed me about my recently released book called “Muzzled” and I tell about two dozen stories that should have been fiction. And this political correctness is like a cancer that now has metastasized into the war on terror.
Tonight on “Scarborough Country” I want to share another of the stories of my book, “Muzzled.”
Do you remember Kirk Reynolds? He‘s the public relations specialist from the San Francisco 49er‘s who lost his job when the video tape he made for the players was shown instead in the politically correct streets of San Francisco and it got lots of play on national TV. Maybe you remember this particular seen Reynolds himself was shown coming out of the shower when a top wills woman topless woman went into the shower.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KIRK REYNOLDS: Oh. oh.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my gosh.
REYNOLDS: Hey, guys. This brings up an important point. There are women in the locker room. Women in the locker room. Grab a towel. Put it on. Cover up. You want to be composed with the women in the locker room. There‘s a special courtesy involved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: All right. Joining us now, a very soapy Kirk Reynolds.
Kirk, welcome to “Scarborough Country”.
REYNOLDS: How are you?
SMERCONISH: What was the serious message that you were trying to convey in the shower scene?
REYNOLDS: It was to make sure that the players act in a professional manner in dealing with the media, particularly, female reporters. Mine, there‘s female reporters in every locker room and they deserve to be in the locker room and more importantly, they deserve to be treated professionally. Unfortunately, that‘s not always happened throughout the world of sports. And we wanted to be sure that it happened.
SMERCONISH: In other words, Kirk, in each one of these vignette, you have a serious message to impart to the players and the video was shown to them at summer camp?
REYNOLDS: Right. Absolutely. That was the goal. I took it as a task that you know, we had messages that were very important. Unfortunately, not all players conduct themselves in a professional manner throughout the league or in professional sports.
SMERCONISH: Why did you find it necessary to put it together in a video as opposed to a flyer as the other NFL players do it?
REYNOLDS: Well, tried to do it straight one year and it was a disaster for me. I got nothing across to the guys. And they walked out of there with no knowledge whatsoever. So, we did it because, for one, I had a problem speaking in public. So, we put it on tape. It was a hit one year. And the guys paid attention and it kind of blossomed from there.
SMERCONISH: How many guys complained when the video was made public and they went on the TV and newspaper and said I was outraged about Kirk Reynolds.
REYNOLDS: None. After the video, stayed in the locker room to interact with the guys and find out if anybody was off fen had. I encouraged them to say so. Nobody did. In fact, the support was overwhelming.
SMERCONISH: In fact, here‘s another clip that got you in hot water. It was portrayed as an African American homeless man. Take a look at this clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REYNOLDS: Well, next stop.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey. Hey, man, could I get some change?
REYNOLDS: Ok. Why don‘t you get a job?
UNIDENTFIED MALE: I try to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Who are you making fun of in this scene? Are you taking shots at African American homeless man, his sign said, will tackle for food.
REYNOLDS: Absolutely not. That was a shot of Julian Peterson, who was star linebacker at the time who was just offered the largest job in the history of NFL, including $15.5 million sign out. It was a holdout and he came to me prior to that, and said, I want to be part of the video. And we put him in it. And (inaudible) they see Julian for first time and saying I‘ll tackle for cash. Which again, he turned down $15 million and every guy in the locker room fell out of their chairs laughing.
SMERCONISH: So, it‘s being reviewed in a politically correct streets of San Francisco.
REYNOLDS: The whole video was built around inside jokes and things that were related to the team and players. I mean, we took little pokes at Tim and Garrison and Jeremy and Julian and Ray. I mean there were guys throughout it of I. And if you take it out of the locker room, people don‘t get it.
SMERCONISH: I have just a minute left. You know what came to mind and the reason I wrote about you in muzzled,” the Minnesota Vikings dirty bomb themselves in trouble over the sex pleasure cruise. And it occurs to me, it‘s a shame the Vikings didn‘t watch the video that you made for the 49ers.
REYNOLDS: Well, unfortunately, there were issues that played ought all year. Player named mayor for a day Hines Ward. So, I mean, everything in the video played out. Knock on wood with the exception of female reporters being harassed in the locker room.
SMERCONISH: Kirk Reynolds, a victim of the P.C. Police. Glad you landed on your feet, big guy.
REYNOLDS: Everything is going great. n.b.x..com. You talk about politically incorrect.
SMERCONISH: He‘s a capitalist.
Coming up, when you call for emergency help, the last thing you worry about is getting charged. Not in one city but find out in flyover. And a heart-stopping rescue on the high seas, two men fighting for their lives after their boat gets caught in a 10-fot wave. The dramatic rescue is just ahead.
SMERCONISH: It‘s time for another fly over. First stop, Cincinnati, Ohio, where a child‘s Saturday afternoon TV watching turned into porn.
Her parents complained. But the cable company said they couldn‘t control
the programming. Took 25 minutes to get the porno off the TV. It turns
out the tape, which featured go cart racing had 25 minutes of porn. They
said they screen tapes for the allotted time. In California, a police officer watched an 82-year-old woman trying to get across a busy street.
He didn‘t offer to help; he watched, waited and gave her a ticket for
walking to slowly. He said the $114 ticket was for obstructing the flow
of traffic. She is fighting the ticket. Good luck to her. And
Hartford, Connecticut, if you live in that city, you might find
yourself with a bill. They plan to start billing for emergency
services for handling people out of cars. Emergency services will remain free. The city plans to bill up to $750. The city council has signed on to the plan but critics say people pay for the services with their tax dollars.
We‘ll be right back. And don‘t forget the “The Situation with Tucker Carlson” is just minutes away.
SMERCONISH: Take “Scarborough Country” on the road.
Two Florida men are thanking their lucky stars after a terrifying day
on the high seas. It‘s our must see SC tonight. A helicopter and diver
rescued Tony Lee and his friend Sunday, of the coast of Naples. Their
boat was swamped by a boat in rough seas. The men spent five hours in the
water. One of the coast guard ships had to turn around because of rough
waves and the helicopter had a hard time seeing the boat. But we are
happy to report they are safe and sound tonight. That‘s all the time we have for tonight. I will be back here tomorrow night.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.