IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

All In With Chris Hayes, Thursday, July 11, 2013

Read the transcript from the Thursday show

July 11, 2013
Guests: Donna Edwards, Steve Ellis, Lisa Green, Radley Balko, Jack Carter,
Don Flannary

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.

Tonight on ALL IN:

Closing arguments begin in Sanford, Florida. And the prosecution paints a
picture of George Zimmerman as a wannabe cop whose wrongful assumptions
resulted in death of Trayvon Martin. That is coming up.

Also, a 19-year-old makes a really bad joke on Facebook and spends four
horrific months in a Texas jail charged with making terroristic threats.
Tonight, Justin Carter is out of jail. And his father will be here to talk
about what`s next.

Plus, "The Rise of the Warrior Cop". Author Radley Balko is here to talk
about how American police departments are looking more and more like
American military.

But we begin tonight with an absolute eruption of shock and fury on the
floor of the House of Representatives, as Republicans jettisoned 47 million
hungry Americans so that they can get on with the business of shoveling
more money into the hands of big agricultural and special interests.

Since 1973, the farm bill has been crafted to yoke together the fates of
the working poor, largely clustered in urban areas who depend on food
stamps to avoid malnutrition with farmers and agricultural industry in
America`s hinterlands. It`s a strange but oddly means of stitching
together the two Americas.

But today, Republicans in the House sawed them apart, stripping the food
stamp program from the farm bill entirely, a movement set off a monumental
outburst of indignation from Democrats.


REP. G.K. BUTTERFIELD (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Mr. Speaker, I have finally
received a copy of the bill. It appears to have no nutrition title at all.
Is this a printing error?

REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D), RHODE ISLAND: After an embarrassing chaotic
defeat of their last proposal, they`ve decided to make a bad situation even

REP. GWEN MOORE (D), WISCONSIN: I can`t wrap my mind around the shameful
nature of this moment.

REP. DAVID SCOTT (D), GEORGIA: You tell me how in the world we can have a
farm bill and separate food and nutrition out from it.

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D), TEXAS: In decades, you have never separated
the supplemental nutrition program.

REP. LOUISE SLAUGHTER (D), NEW YORK: I really am embarrassed to say today
that to feed people could be the reason why they would stop the farm bill.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: The audacity to split off the
nutrition parts of this bill is so stunning. It would be shocking except,
this is a house of shocks. I would say it`s one of the worst things you`ve
done, but there`s such stiff competition for that honor that I can`t really
fully say that.

REP. STENY HOYER (D), MARYLAND: It was turned from a bipartisan bill into
a partisan bill.

REP. JACKSON LEE: All the folk want is a piece of a sound bite at home to
say they believe in deficit reduction.

BUTTERFIELD: They made a clear choice to protect generous subsidies for
agricultural corporations at the expense of the hungry and working poor.

REP. EMANUEL CLEAVER (D), MISSOURI: This is not some little club. We are
the Congress of the United States of America, the most powerful nation on
this planet. And we can take care of all of people.

SLAUGHTER: This is the lowest of the low. When we can`t pass this, you
know, ladies and gentlemen, they can`t run the House.

JACKSON LEE: The only thing that this house will do when it votes today is
defeat starving children.

PELOSI: You are taking food out of the mouths of your own poor

MOORE: HR-2642 is a deadbeat majority`s proposal.

SLAUGHTER: Enough already.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Enough is enough.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Time has expired.

JACKSON LEE: Vote no. Vote no. Vote no. It is ridiculous what you`re
doing to our children.


HAYES: Every single Democrat in the House did vote no today. Along with
12 Republicans, but that was not enough to stop the Republicans` stripped
down farm bill. It passed by an eight-vote margin, 216-208. The last
version of this bill went down to surprising and embarrassing defeat last
month because the hard right of the Republican Caucus was not satisfied
with the $20 billion in cuts to the food stamp program.

And so, this time around, the leadership went along with folks like Louie
Gohmert and Michele Bachmann who are pushing the bright idea of separating
the food stamp cuts from the farm bill so they could focus solely on the
farm stuff and really embrace not caring about the poor.

But here`s the best part. This is really begs for belief. Once Eric
Cantor laughed off those pesky provisions to feed hungry Americans, the
House very quietly stuffed more pork, more spending and more subsidies into
what was left into the farm portion of the bill. What Republicans passed
today will cost more than $195 billion over 10 years.

The conservative Heritage Foundation eviscerated today`s bill on those very
grounds, saying Republicans, quote, "wasted the golden opportunity that
separation of the farm programs from food stamps could have provided to
spend more money than Obama on the largest farm program."

Remember that line the next time any one of those 216 House Republicans
talks about how much they hate government spending.

Joining me now is Congresswoman Donna Edwards, Democrat from Maryland.

And, Congresswoman, we just played the tape of your colleagues on the House
floor. You deal with a lot from the House Republicans. What was it about
today that seemed to create this breaking point?

REP. DONNA EDWARDS (D), MARYLAND: Well, I think that what happened today
is that we saw in living color, House Republicans standing on the side of
increased subsidies, more deficit spending, and just sending hungry
families straight up under the bus. I mean, it really was outrageous, and
I think that Democrats today reached a tipping point.

I mean, I am so proud of Democrats. Every single Democrat who stood
shoulder to shoulder with poor and working families in this country, who
just want a meal.

And Republicans really deep-sixed them today.

HAYES: You had a question during today`s floor debate, a parliamentary
question about an amendment that had been proposed. This is one of my
favorite amendments. That would stop members of Congress from receiving
payments through the farm subsidy program.

What ended up happening to that amendment?

EDWARDS: Well, what I wanted is for the Republicans actually to operate
with transparency and with accountability and actually prohibit members of
Congress who get farm subsidies, who get taxpayer subsidies, who are
financed by taxpayers from voting on legislation that would financially
benefit them.

HAYES: There are several members of Congress, yes?

EDWARDS: There are a number of members of Congress who receive taxpayer
subsidies and they voted on the bill that would benefit them today. It was

HAYES: Do you think what we are seeing here is the logical conclusion of a
House Republican caucus that really has cemented in its mind the Mitt
Romney 47 percent makers and takers framework who really do see the 45
million folks that are struggling to get by, that are beneficiaries of SNAP
as essentially lay-abouts, as lazy, as unworthy, as people that need to be
punished, or they`re going to lay in the hammock of the social safety net?

EDWARDS: I think we heard it from their own mouths today. I mean, the
Representative Sessions actually described those hardworking Americans as
extraneous. And I did a hashtag, #extraneous to the farm bill as though
somehow you really could separate farm from food for hungry people.

And so, they said it out of their own words. We didn`t have to make it up
today. They said it on the floor of the House of Representatives. They
said to 47 million Americans across the country, we`re not going to feed
you, even though we know you`re hungry, and yet we`re going to subsidize
both ourselves and big corporate farming interests across this country.

HAYES: What, then, happens to these folks? I mean, today was an outrage.
It was precedent breaking.

What is next? I mean, there are so many people in this country that are
dependent upon this program. What is the next move here?

EDWARDS: Well, and, you know, oddly enough, many of those people who are
dependent on these programs are from the congressional districts of members
who voted for this outreach today. And so, I think that, you know, those
families who are receiving food stamps, school nutrition programs, Meals on
Wheels, all across this country, our seniors, are disabled, need to stand
up in those congressional districts because I`m going to tell you
something. It`s not really the people in my congressional district who
benefit the most from these programs --

HAYES: Right.

EDWARDS: -- it`s the people in those congressional districts from Kentucky
and Missouri and Alabama, and all across this country. And they need to
stand up to their legislators who voted today to say to 47 million
families, hardworking -- I mean, most of the families who are actually
receiving these benefits go to work every day, Chris. They contribute
every day. They are part of the fabric of this country.


HAYES: And they are not a part of the fabric as far as the House
Republican caucus was concerned today.

EDWARDS: That`s right.

HAYES: Congresswoman Donna Edwards, thank you so much.

Joining me now is Steve Ellis from Taxpayers for Common Sense, a federal
budget watchdog group.

Steve, you followed this bill more closely than anyone I know and have been
e-mailing me for a week, tearing your hair out, saying I cannot tell you
how terrible this is. It`s worse than you could have imagined. Why is it
so bad? What did the House Republicans do with this bill?

STEVE ELLIS, TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE: Well, first off, Chris, I mean,
one thing is we have not been -- we actually do think separating the two is
not necessarily a bad idea because I think the log rolling that`s gone on
has inhibited reform in both areas. But that doesn`t mean we`re saying we
shouldn`t go ahead with SNAP, and maybe gone ahead with SNAP first.

But as far as the ag portion, where we do a lot of focusing, we`ve taken,
you know, you`ve mentioned the hammock of the safety net -- well, the ag
safety net is really a hammock for farmers. We just had the worst drought
in a generation and we had one of the best farm income years in history.

And so, you realize that this is really not a safety net. It`s really
propping them up. We`re guaranteeing farmers up to 80 percent of revenue
today. This bill would actually add in these new shallow loss programs
that would provide insurance up to 90 percent of revenue. I mean, what
American wouldn`t have wanted a deal like that? We`re bringing back
countercyclical policies where we`re setting target prices, where we`re
going to make sure that the commodities don`t go below that.

HAYES: Here`s what I`m hearing from you.


HAYES: The way the programs work is, look, we all as Americans face risks.
People lose their jobs in the service sector all the time.

The way this farm program works is the government pays for insurance,
essentially, to make sure you don`t lose more than 10 percent of your
income in a given year.

ELLIS: Exactly. There`s a little bit that comes from the farmers, but
more than 60 percent of the crop insurance comes from us. And so, yes,
there`s almost -- we`ve removed risk from agriculture. It is a purely
profit-making going right now.

HAYES: And I`m sure I`ll just say this, e are millions of service workers
in this country making minimum wage, $8, $9, $10, folks we were talking
about yesterday in D.C. who are maybe going to work at those Walmart
stores. I`m sure everyone would love a federal subsidized insurance on
their income to make sure that from year to year, if there was a
disruption, they would not lose too much.

ELLIS: Absolutely. Then what made this bill, the one they rolled out at
8:00 p.m. last night --

HAYES: Six hundred-page bill they rolled out at 8:00 p.m. and voted on
today. Let me be clear about this. A 600-page bill they rolled out at
8:00 p.m. yesterday and voted on today. Yes.

ELLIS: Absolutely. They told all of their conference it`s exactly the
same as what was amended at the end that failed last month. But when we
looked at the bill, because we actually do read the bills, and we found in
there that they essentially made this permanent law -- all the bill before
it was expiring in 2018. Actually this is going to be the law of the land
in perpetuity.

HAYES: Wait a second. You`re telling me a month ago they had those
provisions that were going to sunset. Voted on today, told their own
caucus there were no changes but in fact lied about it and change things
that were going to sunset permanent in perpetuity.

ELLIS: Exactly. Exactly.

They repealed what used to be the cudgel that make the farm bill go was
that they would say, oh, no, we`d have to revert to depression era
permanently, in `49, and the `30s. So they repealed that, but then they
made this bill permanent. So, instead of having a not so great thing of
having the thread of the `48, `49 law --

HAYES: These subsidies are locked in forever.

ELLIS: Exactly. 2013 becomes this permanent fiscal nightmare for

HAYES: Steve Ellis from Taxpayers for Common Sense, thank you so much.

ELLIS: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: All right.

Coming up, second-degree murder or manslaughter? The jury is given a new
option in the trial of George Zimmerman.


HAYES: Quick update on a story we covered yesterday: the intra-family
fight over solar power among conservatives. Last night I told you about
the leaders of the Atlanta Tea Party who want to expand solar energy in
Georgia. They see this as a free market issue. And the Koch brothers
heavily invested in fossil fuels who predictably want utility regulators to
reject a new solar plant.


DEBBIE DOOLEY, ATLANTA TEA PARTY: We want to give consumers a choice.
This solar plan will not have to be subsidized and we believe that this
giant utility monopoly deserves some competition, and consumers deserve a

HAYES: You know, I --

DOOLEY: It`s just that simple.

HAYES: This is music to my years. I think this is where you and I can
agree about monopolies.


HAYES: Well, today, Georgia`s Public Service Commission voted 4-1 to
require that Georgia power adds more solar power to its network, a victory
for Debbie Dooley who you saw there and for Georgians, and the planet.

We also learned today that Barry Goldwater, Jr., the son of Barry
Goldwater, aka Mr. Conservative, is also pro-solar and has been fighting
the largest electrical company over solar power in Arizona.

So, fight on, pro-solar conservatives. I will be cheering for you.

We`ll be right back.



BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, PROSECUTOR: A teenager is dead. He is dead through
no fault of his own. He is dead because another manmade assumptions.
Unfortunately, because his assumptions were wrong, Trayvon Benjamin Martin
no longer walks on this earth.


HAYES: That`s House closing arguments began in the trial of George
Zimmerman who is charged with second-degree murder in the killing of
Trayvon Martin.

Mr. Zimmerman pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense. Prosecutor Bernie
de la Rionda spent the better part of his two and a half hour presentation,
focusing on the discrepancies in Mr. Zimmerman of the night in question.


DE LA RIONDA: Decides to go back to his car. When this man came out of
the bushes, you will see that he changes that and catches himself.

He didn`t realize originally that he had shot the victim. Well, if he`s in
such fear and he doesn`t realize he`s shot him, what the heck is he doing
holstering his gun?

He originally told the police over and over before and even after this
interview he didn`t know the name of the street. And then, when they just
kind of let him talk, he gives the name right there. I mean, it`s common
sense. There`s only three streets and he`s lived there four years.


HAYES: Possibly, the most important thing that happened today was the
prosecution`s successfully getting a lesser charge included for the jury`s
consideration. So, the jury can now convict George Zimmerman of second
degree murder or it can convict him of the lesser charge of manslaughter in
the first-degree. Or the jury can acquit him.

Closing arguments for the defense begin tomorrow.

Joining me now is Lisa Green, attorney and legal analyst.

Lisa, great to have you here.

My first question to you is how significant was getting the lesser included
charge? What`s the difference, the burden of proof between getting to the
manslaughter charge and getting to the second-degree murder charge?

LISA GREEN, ATTORNEY: It was a significant aid to the prosecution, Chris.
And the big difference is malice. What was going on in George Zimmerman`s
mind when he shot Trayvon martin? Did he have something close to a
malicious intent to kill him? Much higher burden. Under the manslaughter
charge, simple negligence can do.

So, that`s obviously an aid to the prosecution. No matter what pundits say
about how this is some capitulation by the prosecution to include a weaker
charge. There`s no question, they want a conviction. And this is a better

HAYES: Under the context of the burden of proof being what it is, beyond a
reasonable doubt, you don`t want to create a forced choice, if you`re the
prosecution between letting him walk entirely and the second-degree murder
charge, which requires them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a state of
mind that seems to me as an amateur viewer of this trial a difficult thing
to establish.

GREEN: Right. Take note of the defense`s decision to want of sort of roll
the dice there and say we`ll go for either second degree or nothing. A
dramatic move, but it indicates a sort of confidence they have that they`ve
got what it takes to acquit George Zimmerman.

HAYES: There were two main themes in the defense closing -- of the
prosecution`s closing today, I`m sorry. The first were the discrepancies
that we saw de la Rionda talking about there. How effective did you find
that? I found it effective.

But what I kept thinking was, this seems inverted to me. This sounds like
a defense case, because the defense that I`ve been accustom to questioning
credibility to stir doubts because they only have to create doubts, they
don`t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

What did you think of it?

GREEN: I think a road to conviction in is case by necessity goes to George
Zimmerman`s narrative. And remember, he`s told his story several times.
The jury has heard all sorts of different versions of George Zimmerman on
audiotape, on videotape.

What do they have left to challenge the discrepancies? Because at the end
of the day, to use a tired cliche, the jury is left with those narratives.
Where was the affirmative narrative the prosecution could put on in this
case when Trayvon Martin is not here to tell that story?

HAYES: That`s exactly what`s so frustrating about watching this entire
thing. You have two people -- the only two people who are there, one
survived and one is dead. And so, you have that one person`s account. I
thought the discrepancies they did point out, though, lead one to view
George Zimmerman in unkind light, and at worst to think this is someone who
knew he did something wrong who immediately started fabricating a story to
make sure that he could get off.

Is that basically the theory of the prosecution here?

GREEN: Well, the prosecution actually has to meet, as you know, certain
technical standards of evidence. But what it really does, Chris, is sets
up a very interesting day tomorrow, because what the defense will do in my
opinion is telescope the story. The prosecution led us through a fairly
long narrative: Zimmerman`s understanding of self-defense law, his thoughts
going into e fatal moments. I think the defense is going to want to focus
those jurors on the moments before Trayvon Martin --

HAYES: Right, because there are all these actions George Zimmerman takes
beforehand. The fact what he says to the nonemergency call line. The fact
he ignores repeated requests to not follow. The fact he does follow
Trayvon Martin. The fact he follows him and seems to change his story
about whether or not he followed him, that he knows where the streets are
or not.

GREEN: He knows about self-defense law.

HAYES: That he knows about self-defense law.

GREEN: To sort of construct his own narrative after the fact, the
prosecution would say, to absolve himself of liability.

HAYES: That he gets out of the car, perhaps stalks this young kid who`s
done nothing wrong. All of those are included today. We got the full
timeline, and the idea is to create an idea of a notion of someone who does
have this malice.

Here, let me play the closing in which they use some of the -- invoke some
of the language that George Zimmerman used on that night and the following
day. Take a look.


DE LA RIONDA: They always come around at nighttime. They being, pardon my
language, the (EXPLETIVE DELETED), or the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) punks that
are committing these burglaries. Again, going back to that assumption that
he made originally when he profiled a 17-year-old boy.


HAYES: So I find that incredibly damning, as in terms of my moral judgment
of who this person is, that he would say these things, that he had these
assumptions. Is it legally damning?

GREEN: It`s meaningful if you need to prove some sort of intent, that he
sort of had an idea in his mind as he met Trayvon Martin on that fateful
night that this was someone who was going to do wrong and it`s critical for
the prosecution for jurors to really understand Zimmerman`s mindset that
way. I would think no matter which charge they consider.

HAYES: So tomorrow what you think we`re going to see is shrinking the
timeline and focus on the 40 seconds, which is what has been invoked in
testimony of the struggle that happens.

GREEN: Well, there`s that and witnesses we didn`t hear about today --
significantly, that particular neighbor who testified and, remember, knew
neither of the parties involved and testified he thought George Zimmerman
was under attack. And I think you`re going to see the defense reminding
jurors of his testimony because it was so, almost central cast incredible.

HAYES: Quickly, what`s the standard here for self-defense? I mean, it
cannot be the case because you have some paranoid delusion that someone is
going to kill you, you can kill them and walk. What is the standard?

GREEN: Here`s a good way to look at it. Put yourself in mind of the juror
sitting in the jury box. If you were in George Zimmerman`s position, what
would you have done?

HAYES: Right.

Attorney Lisa Green, thank you very much. Really appreciate it.

All right. Imagine serving jail time for something you posted on Facebook.
It happened to one 19-year-old in Texas. I`m going to talk to his father,


HAYES: Imagine spending four months in jail, some of it in solitary
confinement, for posting a stupid comment on Facebook. For 19-year-old
Justin Carter, writing something offensive and awful online has led to very
real life consequences, being indicted for making a terroristic threat and
facing up to 10 years in prison.

Back in February, Carter, who lives in San Antonio, Texas, got into a trash
talking argument over the online video game "League of Legends". According
to his father, Carter was told that he was, quote, "Messed up in the head",
to which Carter shot back, "I`m F`d up in the head, all right, I`m going to
shoot up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and
eat the beating heart of one of them."

Now, it`s obvious to anyone that that is a horrible, horrible thing to
write. And right after the deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, you
could imagine why it might be taken seriously.

Carter`s father Jack said they were made in jest, those comments. And his
son followed them with a message, LOL, for laugh out loud, and JK for just

Someone, though, took the comments very seriously, and tipped off law
enforcement. In a detailed write up, ALL IN`s reporter Nick Resnikoff
writes that a Canadian national took a screen shot of Carter`s post and
sent it to the Canadian Crime Stoppers Association. That information made
its way to the Austin Police Department.

And believing Carter to be an Austin resident living within half a mile of
an elementary school, the department issued an arrest warrant. The arrest
took place two months to the day after Sandy Hook.

According to the "Austin Chronicle," police searched Carter`s home, found
no weapons or letters of intent. And regardless of this fact, bail was set
at half a million dollars, higher than bonds set for murders and rapists
and other clients represented by Carter`s attorney, more than Justin
Carter`s family could possibly afford.

After months in jail, where Carter, according to his dad, suffered terrible
assaults, concussions, black eyes and was moved four times for his own
protection, the story began to gain national attention. And just a few
hours ago, an anonymous supporter paid the $500,000 bond. And, tonight,
Justin Carter is home.

Joining me now is Jack Carter, Justin`s father, and Don Flannary, Justin`s

Jack, let me begin with you. I just want to hear how Justin is doing.

well considering the situation. He`s just -- he was very surprised. He
wasn`t expecting it. And so we got to surprise him this morning. And we
got a good meal in him and he`s in a nice, safe place with a good bed and
he`s just really happy to be out and be with his parents and be able to
enjoy sunshine and a nice bed.

HAYES: So I`ve got to ask both you and Don, you as well, I -- it seems
crazy to me that you could face 10 years for writing something on Facebook.
At the same time when I go back to covering Sandy Hook, when I think about
the weeks and months after that, and when I think about if someone had
perpetrated a horrible crime such as that and there had been a Facebook
posting beforehand, I think everyone would be pointing to it screaming, why
didn`t you do something? Weren`t the authorities right to step in here?

enforcement needs to be vigilant. Particularly in these times and
particularly when we hear comments that were made. The problem is that
once they realized that this is just some kid saying something stupid,
making a sarcastic comment, that`s when it should have ended and it`s
atrocious that he had to spend five months in jail because his bond is at

Because he`s poor and he can`t get out of jail. That`s the problem that we
have with what has happened to Justin.

HAYES: So the -- is the problem the law here or the way the law`s being
handled by local prosecutors?

FLANNARY: In my opinion, it`s the way that the law is being applied. We
need to have tough laws that protect the community. We need to have law
enforcement that are vigilant and that look at these threats very
seriously. But thinking that Justin is a terrorist or a criminal or the
things he said were criminal is just plain wrong. He has a First Amendment
right to express himself on the Internet. He did not threaten anyone. He
made a stupid comment.

And the problem is, lots of people all over this country, young and old,
make --

CARTER: Make stupid comments.

FLANNARY: -- stupid comments. And are we going to prosecute all of those?
Are we going to investigate all of those?

HAYES: Jack --

FLANNARY: This is just --

HAYES: Jack, my understanding here is that a plea deal has been offered of
eight years and he`s still facing 10 years. I mean, how do get your head
around what Justin`s facing now even now that he`s out of jail?

CARTER: You can`t wrap your head around it. It`s been the most surreal
thing that`s happened to our family or anyone that I know. We literally to
this day I still can`t believe that it`s happening and the whole thing just
seems ridiculous to me.

HAYES: Having, being thrown into jail at 19 years old, into general
population, I can`t imagine that was an easy experience for Justin. What
were those four months in jail like for him?

CARTER: They were absolute hell. He was tormented. All of his stuff was
stolen. He was beaten, jumped. They moved him around. They put him in
isolation naked for a couple of days on end because he was depressed.

It had to have been extremely scarring to him and, you know, now that he`s
out, I just want to get working on, you know, fixing it and getting it
going, you know, getting him better.

HAYES: He now still faces these charges. What is the statute that he is
being charged under, Don?

FLANNARY: He`s being charged with terroristic threats. There`s -- it`s a
felony. It`s a serious felony. It`s akin to making a bomb threat. He`s
being charged with putting a substantial part of the public in fear of
violence. And that`s not what he did. He answered in an argument from
someone else and this is being taken way out of proportion.

HAYES: Yes, and no one would have seen this if it weren`t screen grabbed
and sent to the authorities. It`s not like he --


HAYES: -- made a call into the local basketball stadium and said there`s a
bomb there, right? I mean, this is something that was not being broadly
displayed. It was essentially between two people.

FLANNARY: That`s right. It wasn`t even meant for public consumption.

HAYES: Right.

FLANNARY: It was between arguing individuals. No different than if we
were standing in line and you and I were arguing and someone overheard us.
It`s not meant to go out to the public. It`s meant to be sarcastic to
another person. It`s not a -- it`s not a public threat. And he`s now
finally we`ve released him, we got him out, but he spent five months of his
life in jail over this.

HAYES: Jack Carter, Justin Carter`s father, and Don Flannary, the attorney
who is representing him. I wish both of you, gentlemen, good luck.

CARTER: Thank you.

FLANNARY: Thank you so much, Chris.

HAYES: We`ll be right back with "Click3."


HAYES: We are beginning to see stories coming out of the Miami, Florida,
police department that are eerily reminiscent of the LAPD of the 1990s. A
shocking new report coming up.

And Radley Balko, author of "The Rise of the Warrior Cop", is coming up,

But first I want to show you the three awesomest things on the Internet
today beginning with a reminder to always double check your work.

Joan Didion is an American literary icon. Her essays, novels and her
memoirs have earned her both critical acclaim and legions of fans. So it
was disappointing to read this tweet earlier, sent from the account
@Joandidion. "My last full day on Twitter." Several postscripts soon
followed, "I`m quitting Twitter because there`s no way to communicate
meaningfully without context. I`m quitting Twitter because I don`t
understand how Twitter helps anyone do anything."

Might have a point there.

"The Wall Street Journal" for long was deeply troubled by these
developments so much so that a column was properly written lamenting Didion
exit. Except a one-second fact-check will bring you to @joandidion`s
profile page where you`ll find out two things. The account is not verified
and in a short bio Joan`s tweet inspired by Joan. She dislikes microblogs
and edited by a chill dude who writes and work from advertising at Eric
Stinson. A chill dude named Eric.

Not the 78-year-old author. "Wall Street Journal" issued a correction, but
the damage had been done, prompting this follow-up from @joandidion, I`m
quitting Twitter because of misinformation.

The second awesomest thing on the Internet today, the latest thing to shake
up the art world. You may recall a few months back, actress Tilda Swinton
took a nap in a glass box MoMa called it art. Yesterday visitors to the
gallery in Manhattan were treated to something decidedly more interactive.
This is Jay-Z rapping with gallery goers, face-to-face and one-by- one for
six hours.

And much of it was captured on vine, six seconds at a time. It`s all for a
documusic video featuring the track "Picasso Baby." So it was only fitting
that Pablo Picasso`s hand showed up along with scores of other (INAUDIBLE).
Jay-Z`s foray to high art was modeled after Marina Abramovic`s "The Artist
is Present" in which the legendary performance artist sat face to face with
different museum goers for hours.

And in a super cool twist Abramovic was present yesterday. Here she is
face to face with Jay-Z. It does not get any more meta than that.

And the third awesomest thing on the Internet today requires very little
set-up. This is 2-year-old Titus Ashby. His basketball prowess has made
him an Internet start. Titus was having a pretty good morning knocking
down jumpers on the set of "FOX & Friends" that is until Brian Kilmeade
showed up.


BRIAN KILMEADE, "FOX & FRIENDS" CO-HOST: You`re a machine. You`re a
machine. How do you stop this? Whoa. I`m sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s how we stop it, bro.

KILMEADE: Sorry. Oh, my god.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: See that? That`s (INAUDIBLE) rules right there.
That`s what happens. He`s going to face that when he plays ball.

KILMEADE: I don`t believe it. I don`t believe it. All right. We`ll be
right back. We`ll see how Titus is. Sorry. Sorry, dad.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Brian, you`re fired.

KILMEADE: All right. We`ll check in with Titus again. We`ll give it
another shot. I still think we`re friends.

Straight ahead, he confessed orchestrating the September 11th attacks. So
why is KSM allowed to put a vacuum cleaner together?


HAYES: The tease was the best part.

Quick public service announcement, I play catch with my daughter, Ryan, a
lot, but I don`t chuck the ball at her face because she`s only 19 months
old. And that`s "The More You Know."

You can find all the links for tonight`s "#click3" on our Web site, We`ll be right back.


HAYES: In a span of eight months from 2010 to 2011 the Miami Police
Department shot and killed seven young black men. Two who were completely
unarmed. Between 2008 and 2011, Miami Police Department officers
intentionally shot at people 33 different times.

Those numbers come from a damning Department of Justice report released
this week. It paints a picture of a police department that is completely
off the leash. A department that from 2008 to 2011, quote, "engaged in a
pattern or practice of excessive use of force through officer-involved

The DOJ found a number of troubling practices including deficient tactics
and supervision, significant delays and substantive deficiencies in deadly
force investigations." In fact, the report found that Miami PD has at this
very moment still not fully investigated the 33 shooting incidents.
Investigations that had they been carried out quickly could very well have
saved lives.

The report found that a combination of seven officers participated in over
a third of the 33 officer-involved shootings. Of those 33 shootings,
killed of them 27-year-old Travis McNeil. He was shot and killed by Miami
PD Officer Reynaldo Goyos on a routine traffic stop on February 11th, 2011.
He was holding nothing but a cell phone. His mother, Sheila, who fought to
hold the department accountable for her son`s death, hopes this week`s
reports give her a bit of closure.


SHEILA MCNEIL, SON KILLED BY POLICE: I say thanks to the federal
government for finally seeing things our way. It`s like it happened
yesterday, to me, you know? I miss my son very much. And I`m just glad
this is, you know, is coming to some type of conclusion, you know? Maybe I
can get some type of closure.


HAYES: The Department of Justice`s report pulled back the veil on a
particularly rotten Miami Police Department. The department that regularly
uses an excess of force.

The use of excess force by police against the very citizens they`re sworn
to protect is by no means limited to Miami. In an amazing new book titled
"Rise of the Warrior Cop," Radley Balko argues the paramilitarization of
police departments across the country is leading to a police force that
increasingly sees itself at war with the American people.

And joining me now is the author of "Rise of the Warrior Cop," Radley
Balko, who`s also a senior writing for the "Huffington Post."

Great to have you here.


HAYES: It`s a fantastic book, it`s really remarkable reporting.

BALKO: Thanks.

HAYES: I really suggest folks check it out.

What did you make of this Miami -- this report from the DOJ on Miami? How
atypical? Where is this department on this spectrum?

BALKO: Well, it`s interesting you said it was reminiscent of the -- of
LAPD in the `90s. It`s actually reminiscent of the Miami Police Department
in the `90s as well as the early 2000s.

This is not the first DOJ investigation in Miami. In 2003, there were
several officers who were indicted for planting guns at shootings.


BALKO: For wiping fingerprints off of guns at shootings. In 1996, Miami -
- a squad of Miami cops shot Richard Brown, who`s also unarmed, 123 times
while his daughter hid in the bathroom.

You know, this is sort of part of the theme in the book is that, you know,
you can have rogue officers, you know, you can have bad police officers.
You keep getting bad police officers over and over and over again, at some
point you have to start looking at policy and you have to start looking at
incentives, and try to understand why you`re producing --


HAYES: What about the system is doing it? So you -- what is broadly the
argument of the "Rise of the Warrior Cop? What`s new? What has risen?
What do we have now that we didn`t before?

BALKO: I think we have -- there are two things going on. One is you have
the rise of SWAT teams which has been dramatic over the last 30 years.
We`ve seen about a 1500 percent in the use of SWAT teams since the early

HAYES: Fifteen hundred percent?

BALKO: That`s right. So there are about 3,000 SWAT raids per year in the
early `80s. About 2005 there were about 50,000 SWAT per year. The vast
majority of those are, you know, for consensual drug crimes.

But what I also argue in the book, though, is that this militarization,
it`s a mindset, right? It`s not just the SWAT teams. It bleeds over into
patrol officers who are, you know, also told every day that they`re
fighting a war and are also sort of dressed like soldiers and encouraged to
take on a soldier`s mentality.

And this is, you know, the military and the police have two different
functions. It`s pretty dangerous to conflate them. But I think that`s
what we started to do -- that`s what we have done.

HAYES: I want to play this clip. This got a lot of attention back in
2010. This is video of a SWAT raid in Columbia, Missouri. And you don`t
often see footage of this kind of thing. Take a look.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Police department. Don`t move. Police department.
Don`t move. Police department. Don`t move.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Police department. Don`t move.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don`t move. You got it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I need one, I need one, I need one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Need one. Need one. Need one.





UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Move. Move past him. Move past.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, guys. You`re fine. You`re fine.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don`t move. You understand? Put your hands behind
your back. Do it now.


HAYES: In that raid, police believe the suspect, Jonathan Woodworth, was a
major distributor of marijuana. They found just very small amounts for
recreational use.

How atypical is that kind of scene?

BALKO: Well, that`s the thing about this video is I mean there was outrage
when this was posted on the Internet.

HAYES: Those dogs were killed, by the way.

BALKO: One was killed, they intended to kill one. They accidentally shot
the other one. So, you know, there are stray bullets going around.
There`s a little boy in the house. But the thing about it, I mean, that
raid is typical. There is -- these are not rogue cops. I mean, this is
policy. This is what happens 100 to 150 times a day in this country.

In fact, the only thing that`s really unusual about this raid is the fact
that it was video recorded and released and made it on to the Internet.

HAYES: So I am a police officer who has to put my life on the line.

BALKO: Sure.

HAYES: And there`s a call about a suspect in a house. Do you want to just
go in unarmed? I mean, there`s a reason, right, that they`re -- that
they`re coming at these doors with the kind of force and the kind of
tactics and the kind of intensity they are which is that they are -- they
are at risk when they`re serving these warrants.

BALKO: Look, I`m not opposed to SWAT teams. I mean I think there are
situations where it`s appropriate, but those are situations like hostage
takings or bank robberies or escaped fugitive where you`re using -- you`re
using violence to defuse an already violent situation.

The vast majority of the raids including one we just watched, the police
are creating violence. Right? They`re creating confrontation. They`re
creating volatility. I mean, these people are suspected of nonviolent
consensual crimes and you`re bringing violence to their door. That`s
really where the problem is.

HAYES: I want you to walk us through a little bit of how this started.
The role that Richard Nixon plays in the "Rise of the Warrior Cop," the
role of post-9/11 plays, and the amount of money that is going at the local
police departments. It`s one of the most eye-opening parts of your book
right after we take this break.

BALKO: Sure.


BALKO: Quick update on a story we covered on Tuesday. The southern
avenger, aka Jack Hunter, the guy who thought John Wilkes Booth`s heart was
in the right place when he shot Abraham Lincoln, who also happens to work
for Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, was defended by his boss today. In the
"Huffington Post" Senator Paul said that while he opposed Hunter`s views,
many of which Hunters say he no longer believes, he called them, quote, "a
youthful -- a form of youthful political showmanship," and said that if he
was a really a white supremacist, as some are calling him, he would have
fired him immediately.

It`s nice to know Senator Paul`s heart is in the right place. We`ll be
right back.



RICHARD NIXON, U.S. PRESIDENT: America`s public enemy number one in the
United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it
is necessary to wage a new all-out offensive. As far as the new money is
concerned, incidentally, I have made it clear to the leaders that if this
is not enough, if more can be used, if Dr. Jaffey after studying this
problem finds that we can use more, more will be provided.


HAYES: That of course was Richard Nixon officially launching the U.S. war
on drugs in 1971.

I`m here with Radley Balko. We`re talking about his new book "Rise of the
Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America`s Police Forces."

What role does the war on drugs have on this trend that you identified?

BALKO: It`s been fueling it. I mean, without the war on drug, I don`t
think we would have the proliferation of SWAT teams and the general
militarization that we do.

HAYES: A lot of these SWAT teams are going after drugs, it`s drug raids
largely they`re doing. What I think -- one other thing I found so
fascinating in your book is just the amount of money that is being spent on
vehicles and armor and all these kind of toys for lack of a better word.


HAYES: It reminds me of a consistent theme in American politics which is
that once you label something security, it no longer counts as spending.


HAYES: Like we don`t want -- like we have to tighten our belts. But if
something`s security, I love this portion of your book. This is "Blessed
are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of god. That
Sheriff Leon Lott of Richland County, South Carolina, quoting Matthew 5: 9
in a press release, announcing his acquisition of a truck-propelled armored
personnel carrier with a belt-fed rotating machine gun capable of firing
.50 caliber rounds of ammunition."


HAYES: There are police departments across country in really small
localities that have massive firepower. Where`s the money come from?

BALKO: Well, there are several different sources. For about 25 years now,
the Pentagon has been giving surplus military equipment over to these
police departments across the country, literally millions of pieces of
equipment have been transferred this way. And we`re talking, you know,
tanks, helicopters, armored personnel carriers. My favorite, bayonets for
some reason, police departments seem to love the bayonets.

So you`ve got that. Then you`ve got the federal anti-drug grants. And
these are grants the federal government gives to this police department
solely for drug policing. So if your SWAT team goes out and arrests a
suspected murderer, there`s no federal money attached to that.


BALKO: They go out and arrest the suspected pot dealer. You get a lot of
money coming from the federal money for that.

HAYES: So you`re creating an incentive system to do these raids because
the raids create the possibility of acquiring the money to buy the

BALKO: Your SWAT team can then become a revenue enhancer rather than an
expensive sort of toy that you have on the side. And since September 11th,
now we have DHS writing grants to police departments across the country to
buy yet more equipment in the name of fighting the war on terror. And, you
know, they`re going to places like Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin, and Tuscaloosa,

HAYES: So one of the things we saw during the Boston -- the aftermath of
Boston bombing was this total lockdown of Boston. And we saw -- I think we
have a little bit of video of what that looked like in terms of the amount
of firepower that was brought to bear. I mean, we just saw huge police
military, you know, quasi-military vehicles rolling through the streets.
People in tactical gear.

And my thinking at the time was while I`m glad they have all this stuff
because this is terrifying and there is these -- you know, these terrorists
who are on the loose who have pulled off this bombing. And when you look
at that, I mean, that is the justification for this. What`s your response
to that?

BALKO: Well, I mean, how did they find Tsarnaev? A guy went out, saw
something suspicious in his backyard, called the police. They responded
with a SWAT team. I mean, it was not -- the sort of saturation patrols
were not what actually found him. And, again, I`m not opposed o SWAT
teams. Bringing a SWAT team out to apprehend him in that situation is
perfectly legitimate.

HAYES: It`s the routine use in the kind of growth of their use.

Radley Balko, author of the "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of
America`s Police Forces." Thanks. Incredible read.

That is ALL IN for this evening. The "RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right

Good evening, Rachel.


Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>