A Burden For The Times
A Burden For The Times
Sonya Massey: Legal and Ethical Quandaries in Police Shootings
Join us as we unravel the heartbreaking story of Sonia Massey, a 36-year-old from Springfield, Illinois, whose fatal interaction with deputies on July 6, 2024, raises profound questions about police protocols and the ethical dimensions of their actions. Through detailed analysis, we reflect on the events that led to this distressing outcome and the broader implications for handling mental health emergencies more compassionately.
The conversation also touches on the importance of understanding officers' split-second decision-making and the moral complexities they face. Through contrasting viewpoints and heartfelt dialogue, we call for a balanced approach that respects the lives of both officers and civilians, recognizing the multifaceted challenges and ethical dilemmas that define their interactions.
Thanks for Listening! Follow us on Facebook and Instagram!
Hey and welcome to another episode of the podcast. Thank you so much for all those who join us, and you might have already read the title, and so I already come with my voice being a little bit more somber of what is taking place, because many of you have probably heard in the news the name, sonia Massey. You know, when I first was introduced to this story and even saw the video that many of you probably have already seen, it is very uncommon for me to automatically have such an emotional response that I said typically we do not do news stories that are current in the podcast. Typically we will wait for a while and then we kind of look at the analysis and the cultural implications.
Speaker 1:But because of this one specifically, I went to my brothers and I said you know, this is something that I do believe deserves its own time, whether it's just another voice in the airwaves to be able to say that something needs to be done, or whatever the voice says. I just want to give this time, this story the attention that I believe needs to be given so that, therefore, radical change can be made in certain specific areas. So, no question today, no white thing or anything before we get started. So we're going to jump into this and, as we do, we're going to review the events for those who are not very familiar with the story in just a moment. But first off, I'll start with you, aaron. When you heard about this event, tell us about it, what your thoughts were, and then, before we get into these questions, and what took place on that night.
Speaker 2:I'm going to say, for the reality of someone's life is lost. I think the first thought is well, this is a tragedy, that's super sad and I want to go find more information. Secondarily, my first thought was are we going to relive 2020? If you want my straight thoughts, that's what my straight thoughts were.
Speaker 1:Interesting, interesting, anton. What about you, your thoughts as soon as you heard about this taking place, and whether you watched the video or didn't watch the video. I'm just curious.
Speaker 3:I've watched it. At this point my initial thought actually was that it was another event that had happened. There was another situation and I thought they were just releasing the body cam footage. And then I had to go back because that situation happened a while in the past and they had released body cam footage. So I thought that was the case that people were referring to. But then, as I found out, I again, as her name, permeated the media, I had to go back, rewatch and read more about the particular situation itself.
Speaker 1:Well, so for those who don't know and again, it's sad that we've come to this position here already where there are so many stories where body cam footage has been released that we almost lose track of which tragedy is taking place. And so give me a moment. I'm going to read exactly, almost like a police report file, of what took place on that day. So I'll try to go this as clearly and as quickly as I can. But Sonia Massey was born on February 12, 1988 in San Diego, california. At some point she moved to Springfield, illinois, where she worked for a gaming company for a while. According to a family member, sonia had schizophrenia with paranoid delusions. Sonia lived in a 1,000-square-foot three-bedroom house at, and it gives the address. On July 6, 2024, at 12.50 am, 36-year-old Sonia Massey called 911 and reported hearing noises outside her home. She refused to answer any questions and disconnected the call. Two deputies from the county sheriff's office responded, arriving at 1.08 am. One of these deputies was named Sean Grayson. The other deputy has not been identified and will be referred to as Deputy no 2. Sean did not turn on his body cam as required by department policy, but deputy two's camera was activated when the deputies first arrived. They checked the area for any signs of a prowler. Deputy two walked around Sonia's property with a flashlight, looked in a shed in the backyard and inspected the front yard of a few houses before noticing a black SUV in the driveway next to Sonia's house. This vehicle had a broken driver's side window and a small window toward the back of the rear's driver's side door was also broken window. There also was no sign of a prowler. Sean had been searching the area as well using his flashlight. At 1.12 am, deputy 2 knocked on Sonia's front door. Sean joined Deputy 2 and they both started knocking but received no answer. The deputies contacted dispatch and asked them to call Sonia. They could hear the phone ringing inside the house, but Sonia would not come to the door. Eventually she yelled hold on. At 1.16 am, sonia finally answered the front door. She talked to the deputies about God and said she didn't know who owned the black SUV. To her house next to her house. Sonia wasn't speaking clearly and appeared to be suffering from mental health symptoms. After a brief conversation at the front door the deputies were preparing to leave Deputy 2 walked away from the front door and called in the license plate of the SUV While he was a few feet away doing this, something transpired between Sean and Sonia that led Sean to enter into her house. Deputy two followed us. Just seconds later, sonia sat down on a couch and everyone appeared to be calm. Sean asked Sonia to provide her name and, although she was reluctant, she gave it to him. Sean then asked her for her driver's license, saying that would be easier At 1.20 am.
Speaker 1:As Sonia was looking for her driver's license, sean noticed a pot of hot water on the stove. He pointed toward the kitchen and said we don't need a fire while we're here. Sonia went into the kitchen to remove the pot from the stove, turned off the stove, carried the pot to the sink and turned on the faucet. The deputies were still in the living room at this point and they backed away from Sonia, prompting her to ask when are you going? Sean laughed as he responded Away from your hot steaming water.
Speaker 1:Sonia dramatically changed the tone of the encounter by saying Away from the hot steaming water. Oh, I rebuke you in the name of Jesus. Sean replied with the word huh, which led to Sonia to repeat I rebuke you in the name of Jesus. As Sean put his hand on his pistol, he told Sonia that she better not or he would shoot her in the face. Just as he finished that sentence, he drew his weapon, pointed it at Sonia and said drop the expletive pot. She responded by saying okay, I'm sorry. After repeating the words I'm sorry, sonia crouched next to the sink. Sean stepped forward and to the right to see around the corner, closing the distance to Sonia as he continued yelling at her. To Sonia as he continued yelling at her.
Speaker 1:Even though Sean had not activated his body camera, it would still capture what happened next because he turned it on a few seconds later. Body cameras also recorded the video when they were activated. They retained a few seconds prior to activation. From Sean's body camera video it appears that after Sonia crashed down, she grabbed the pot of water and threw it toward Sean. At 1.28 am, sean responded by firing his weapon three times, striking Sonia once in the face and killing her. Sean yelled drop the expletive pot. During the confrontation, deputy 2 drew his weapon but did not fire it. His body camera was on the entire time but the camera didn't get a clear view of the shooting. Due to his position, there's a claiming of self-defense that is in by Sean Grayson, but eventually, on July 7th, 11 days after the shooting, sean Grayson was arrested and charged with first degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm and official misconduct.
Speaker 1:For those who didn't know the story, saw the video.
Speaker 1:Not that I'm recommending you should go see a video that is watching another human life come to an end, but it is something that does need to be taken into consideration of what's taking place when you do watch that video. But let me start with you, aaron. I was thinking about the outline and how we should direct the conversation, and one thing that came to my mind is this phrase enough is enough. Like is awareness of brutality? Is awareness of this like? It seems that this is nothing more than pandering language. Again, I guess, enneagram-wise, I'm an eight, so I feel for those who are most vulnerable and then have been taken advantage of. I don't see a world where this is ever okay, hence the charge that have been made to Officer Grayson. But it just seems that this is enough is enough. These stories are way too common. So, aaron, what is your reaction? Do you feel what I'm saying enough is enough? Or are you just giving me and just saying this is just a front row seat to humanity at its worst and that's just the way it is.
Speaker 2:That's a hard question. There's not a lot of options. I am going to say yeah, it is. It is bad. Like I don't know when the options that you're giving me, I'm going to say enough is enough. This shouldn't happen.
Speaker 2:Um, a person shouldn't call 9-1-1 to find out somebody in their house, whether they have mental health issues or not, and they end up dead. So that shouldn't happen. Um, but I'd also I mean not trying to say I'm seeing both sides, because I don't see both sides, but I am saying you still are going to have bad people in power and I don't know if that's going to change and I don't know how you change that portion of it, because I think a lot of the people involved again, it seems as if and I have not seen all the talk through, but it doesn't it seems like a lot of people from every angle are like this is flat out wrong. This shouldn't happen. And we're dealing with it where I feel like, as we were in 2020, there was a lot of debate of like oh, is this, is this, is this, this isn't, and this one I think I don't know too many people were fighting to say this one's, this is justified.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and let me and maybe when, anton, when you comment, I can get a little bit more clarity what I'm saying about. Enough is enough, but I'm just pointing out the fact of guys like it feels almost like we people have their platforms, they talk, there's talking heads all over the place and I'm not saying that we are instigating, you know, a Malcolm X to arise, but it just seems like enough is enough, like like it just seems like this can't continue right in this mode of protection. This, just these kind of stories just cannot be so common that anton has to then be like which case is that? Is that the body cam guy? No, that's the guy that you, you know it. Just, it's just, it's just too much. Anton, can you speak to it about my, my sentiment of enough is enough?
Speaker 3:Um, yeah, I think police reform is a necessity and much like criminal justice reform in both areas. Now I know and I saw when we put this thing on the podcast this is not one where I'm going to be. I will let you guys handle it. There is things about it where Aaron said that no one is saying it's justified. I would disagree.
Speaker 2:Okay, I have not heard it myself. I take that as.
Speaker 1:Well, speak to it, anton. I mean we don't want to be a biased version, just because it might save our feelings. I mean I'm curious. You come from the law enforcement background and it's currently. What is what this is? This is in your wheelhouse, so can you at least walk me down that path of what it looks like you know?
Speaker 3:because I think there's two separate questions that people uh can play. And I think our second question is George Floyd and I look at George Floyd in a completely different uh vein. And I think our second question is George Floyd and I look at George Floyd in a completely different vein. It's is the person a good cop and did the person break the law? Those are two fundamentally different questions. He's a terrible cop, he's, he seems to be a terrible person. That doesn't mean he broke the law because, again, I think even the video you sent us, the gentleman I assume he's a lawyer from the way that he was speaking, he, he, he said that he would say second degree murder. That's the charge that he would put it under.
Speaker 3:And there are so many assertions he makes in that video and it's. You don't have foreknowledge of any of these events. Hindsight's always 20 20. You say there's water in the pot. What if there's not water in the pot? What if there's acid in the pot? You say that this man couldn't have felt like his life was in danger. That's again. Again, those are assertions. You say that there was no one else in the house. Even after the shot is given or the shots ring out. No one even checks the house. We have no idea.
Speaker 3:Now again, is he a good cop? Is a different question. I think he violated police protocols a thousand times in that video. But again, the legal standard for what would be considered murder would be could a reasonable person assume that severe bodily injury could have happened to them? She threw a pot of boiling water at a person. By definition that is the legal standard. Again, we don't have to like that as a legal standard, but that is the legal standard. Again, we don't have to like that as a legal standard, but that is the legal standard. Could he have reasonably believed that he could have been seriously bodily injured? I think that's a reasonable assessment he could have made.
Speaker 3:And for the, again, I think also in that video the man talks about why would he close the distance? He has to close the distance. It's like why don't you run away from the water? That's again, that would be against any law enforcement training. You can't run away from the thing once she drops under the counter. Because what if there's a weapon under the counter? He has to close the distance. But by closing the distance he also puts himself in the secondary injury zone. So there's again, I don't know how you could legally call it murder. That doesn't mean it should have happened, which is again a different question, but I don't know how you could legally justifiably say that it's murder.
Speaker 1:And this is why I love the diversity within the podcast.
Speaker 1:Even though we're brothers, we're completely different of how we see things, and so let me then just this goes back to a stay in your ground type situation. I think I gave this illustration bit possibly in the past, and so let me go ahead and rephrase it right now for this context. So if I, if there is a group of people that are walking down the street and they're just eating apples, eating apples, enjoying their house, and I come over and I have the right to have a open weapon, open carry weapon or whatever it is, and let's just say that I make them feel threatened, and then they respond to me in a way that then threatens me, and then they drop their apple because I have, let's just say, I'm flaunting it, I'm not hurting them, but I'm flaunting it, I'm making them feel threatened. That then makes them I don't know take one of their apples and start throwing them at me and throwing other objects, rocks at me or whatever, because I have made them feel that way. Then I shoot them and I am justified because they were threatening my life by throwing whatever it was something, let's just say, a pot of boiling water at me when I was the one that caused them to feel threatened in the very beginning.
Speaker 1:I hear what you're saying, that it can be a weapon, and I figured and I'm glad you went that way. But I am just saying that, number one, he's coming as a position of authority, coming into a situation like this. And number two I mean there's a lot of sub points of he's coming in already, chip on his shoulder, coming in already using points of he's coming in already chip on the shoulder, coming in already using expletives and coming in already saying things that are insightful. So nice.
Speaker 3:Can I hold on you right there for one second? Sure, this is exactly what I mean. You're arguing he's a bad man. I agree with that. Okay, but I agree with that. That's not my argument. My argument has nothing to do with the arrogance, has nothing to do with the arrogance, has nothing to do with the complete and utter disrespect and disregard for his power. All I'm talking about is, again, because that's what I'm saying from a legal perspective. That's why that guy kind of got on my nerves. Whatever is that from a legal perspective?
Speaker 3:You really only need to watch 20 to 30 seconds of that video for the legality of the situation. Because does he have a legal reason to? He's legally investigating a crime. So, unlike your Apple analogy, he has a legal reason to be in this woman's home. He has a legal reason to defend himself. Those are the legal questions. You're speaking to the moral questions and I don't disagree with anyone on the moral questions. I'm speaking to the legality. You can't put people in prison for being bad people. That's not a crime. Being a jerk disrespecting power, using your office, again non-legally again, this is not a. Those aren't crimes. Those are moral problems, which I agree with all of them. It's just not murder. That's the only thing that I'm saying by watching the video.
Speaker 1:Okay, so the legal person, the person that is carrying the gun from the kids at the apples, he has a legal reason to be there, but do you give them any type of responsibility for how they handle what they have been given? Meaning like I can use my authority to intimidate and to incite, do I am I? Is that not to be held accountable as well for that? Does that, does my question make sense?
Speaker 3:um, yeah, and as a point, like, if you want to uh say that he broke laws, sure, I think they're. Most the issue that I'm and that's one thing to me, this is the public outcry is that the crimes he committed would almost all be misdemeanors, and see, people don't like that, but that's true. They wouldn't actually be felonies. The crimes that were actually committed by this man would barely land him in prison. But the idea is, because we're so upset with him, we're going to charge him with murder and there's just no way you can watch that video and make a murder diagnosis. That's something like you're really stretching it and again to go all the way to first-degree murder again. Even I think the guy in the video said that's extreme To even say first-degree murder is incredibly to say. And he says second-degree murder. I that's extreme To even say first degree murder is incredibly to say. And he says second degree murder.
Speaker 3:I don't know how you can, possibly, because, as I'm saying, the only way you can say that it is murder of second or third degree is to say he was not actually in danger and I think that is. That's just an outright lie. There's no way you can say a mentally ill person and you have no clue what's in the pot. You have no clue what's in the pot, their weapons in the house. She's ducking behind a counter. She's throwing things at you that you are not actually at risk. I don't think you can actually make that argument To me. That's just not true. That's disingenuous. Of course he could have been in some harm. Now we can look in hindsight and say there was nothing there. There weren't any guns. I'm saying a reasonable person could have believed they were at risk of serious bodily injury. That would make it not murder aaron, you saw the video.
Speaker 1:What, what is your take?
Speaker 2:um, I'm, I'm learning here, I'm not gonna lie.
Speaker 2:I'm hearing anton talk through it and again I think anton saying, like as a person, he's, he's not a good dude, um, but as far as the only problem, the only struggle that I have is and I don't have the background on this but I'm asking, wouldn't there be a non-lethal force thing, like I guess for me if I was looking at the part I struggle with and I don't know about the legal part, about murder and those things, but I'm saying, like as a grown man, like I'm just picturing my own wife.
Speaker 2:Okay, so just putting my own thing, like if I'm the kitchen, my, my wife is there, I, whether I have a weapon or not, like I am strong enough to withhold my wife and I, I'm just even, I just tried to picture it in my own mind like, even in my own house, like if I'm standing on the other side of a counter, my wife has whatever in the pot.
Speaker 2:I mean, again, it seemed like I'm I'm trying to walk through all the things you're saying, anton, but I'm like I don't most people the reason people don't have acid boiling on the stove, and so I mean, and he brought up the water like she didn't even bring up the water. He brought up the water like, hey, go turn that off, we gotta do this, I'm not gonna get burned blah blah. So he brings it up and I'm just picturing, like when that happens, if I'm that much bigger than a person, it seems like it's a neutralized situation. I I don't see why I pull a gun and I guess, again, I'm not law enforcement trained I, but I just don't see that part.
Speaker 3:Are you wanting me to respond?
Speaker 1:I'm curious to respond because I do agree, like you know, the thing about tasers and things of like just non-lethal force rubber bullets. I mean I don't know.
Speaker 3:Like I'm just I'm not trained in that, so I'm not going to say I can't speak to it but I just I question Because, again to go to the legal statute if someone could reasonably suspect they could be severely injured. Which even boiling water, if we take everything at face value, which again, let's walk through the situation again from his perspective, not hers they have not swept this home. They do not know if there are guns in this home. They don't know if there's other people in this home. So, yes, throwing water in and of itself if the water is boiling, they do not know if there are guns in this home. They don't know if there's other people in this home. So yes, throwing water in and of itself if the water is boiling would be considered legally serious bodily harm. But let's say she's just throwing the water because she knows so-and-so is in the back room and that's the signal. And you don't know. There are so many factors of that situation. And then again you were ducking on the counter.
Speaker 3:You say you could take your wife. Yes, you could take her if she only has what she says she has. But there's no evidence to suggest that's true and you're dealing with something. Someone who has already, by your own admission and other people, has serious mental illness. So you're saying a reasonable person wouldn't. She's not reasonable. That's not really that's what I'm saying. That wouldn't be relevant to the statute, because to have that you would need a reasonable person. And that's the point. The only reasonable person you would be dealing with legally by the legal statute is him, Because she literally is not legally competent enough for most people to give it that kind of grace. We have no clue and you have no clue, what's in the house. And this idea of the taser thing again, I don't know what has happened to people in tasers. No one's going to switch to a taser if they don't know who else is in the house, because then you left yourself completely vulnerable to the next guy who's just going to shoot you. And again, this is the only reason I'm making the legal argument. That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 3:The legality of the situation is he's a terrible law enforcement officer, but there's a lot of not terrible law enforcement officers that would have made that call, because that's a hard call and although he's terrible, the call he made is not completely unreasonable. And again, this is the issue of should do I, this is the issue of like should do I think this young lady should still be alive. I do, cause I think he was a bad cop, but in again the situation there are a lot of people who are good men who would have made that call. That's all I'm saying. From a legality standpoint, he has to have the right to go home too.
Speaker 3:There's no way to really dice that situation where, if he hadn't shot her we have video evidence he would have been hit with boiling water. That's what was happening. Again, the pot drops as she is literally throwing boiling water at the officer. You can say again and I understand that he's overly aggressive, but there's no reason he has to get hit with boiling water just so other people are appeased. That's not his job, that is not his duty.
Speaker 2:I struggle with that.
Speaker 1:And I want to comment on, and again, the fact that, anton, you are able to dissect between the two. I have absolute respect for, like, clearly, I have absolute respect, but to me maybe I'm just too idealistic in living into a utopia. But to me it's like boiling water has a range dependent upon the person's strength, meaning that I could step myself back, I, but I, I did address this the first time, though that's my point.
Speaker 3:That again would break protocol, because if he, if she dies under the counter which she did that's exactly what happened when he moved forward and she has a weapon you have no visual, you can't lose visual contact, Otherwise, again, you don't know what's in the house. That's again. You can't do that. No law enforcement person, A crouching woman has a boiling pot contact.
Speaker 1:Otherwise again, you don't know what's in the house. That's again. You can't do that. No law enforcement person. A crouching woman has a boiling pot of water.
Speaker 3:How far can it logistically go? But I'm not talking about that. I'm saying if he backs up and she drops, there's exactly what happens. What if there's a gun under the counter? Now we're in a shootout. You can't fall back. He has to come forward and by coming forward he exposes himself to this danger. He's choosing between two dangers. If he walks forward, he's in line for the boiling water. If he walks backwards, he has no visual and has no clue. If he has a weapon, no law enforcement personnel is ever going to fall back. That makes no sense going to fall back.
Speaker 1:that makes no sense.
Speaker 1:Well, I'm not saying you need to fall back, but can we just at least consider the trajectory of the water at that point, the effectiveness of the weapon that is, that is going to then bring his life into jeopardy, which boiling pot of water legally, yes, I understand it can do whatever, whatever, but like the fact is like, it still is not something that's going to bring it in an instantaneous version of his life, meaning a person crouching down can toss water strategically out of a pot up toward a standing human being.
Speaker 1:That's going to get there into a position where he's just going to be seriously we'll just say seriously injured. I understand what the protocol that you're suggesting, but it doesn't seem that there wouldn't be some level of restraint concerning a person who we cannot add, you know, assume that the fact that he's a bad cop does not enter into the fact of him making a bad decision. I just don't feel that every person well, number one, he'd even have his little camera on and he's already walking in and we can't ignore the things he was saying prior to this and then, even after the fact of her being shot, we can't ignore the fact that he says, man, that got her man, there's no need to grab that medical kit. I mean, that did it, she's gone. Like hold up, wouldn't there be? I can't divorce from a mind bad cop from bad call right. And so because those two are married, I'm thinking to myself like surely there could have been another way out of this.
Speaker 3:Can I just add one more thing, though, because I do think this is another one of these. It's because people watch cop shows and don't know cops.
Speaker 3:I was about to say the reality of the situation is if you've ever seen a person who had a headshot, that man is just talking because he's terrified and you can watch the video after where he's just panting by his car, yes. And or even the guy which again, it's a silly video with the other one where a guy heard an acorn and he just goes into like attack mode and no one was ever shooting at him. He was shooting at literally no one because acorns fell in his car and it's like you hear him after and again, he wasn't in actual danger and you see, hear him trying to talk after and he's just saying crazy things and like I don't, uh, don't get anything, I don't know, I'm good. Yes, because if you've never been in that situation, you've never seen a person take a headshot. Yeah, that's how most people respond. After, again, you literally took someone's life.
Speaker 3:I think people are taking it as he's an arrogant whatever in that moment that looks like a terrified man who's never actually taken that shot, took that shot and now has no clue what to do, because I said they didn't follow any protocol. If you think this was an evil dude, he probably would have checked the house, tried to make it look different if he had his body had kept his body camera off, doesn't do any of that. He paces around like a scared person waiting for the other cops to get there and when they do, he looks like a relieved child because he just shot someone and killed them. And most people who have never seen that take place act like that. That's how they act. That is not, again, the face of evil, in my opinion. Like I said, this is why I would disagree with the George Floyd comparison, because I think these are far different reactions when you actually map them out.
Speaker 1:Aaron, do you have any commentary upon that?
Speaker 2:No, I see what Anton's saying, because I thought when I first watched the video I was like the way he was talking is that I'm going to use the word arrogance. But it's that moment when you're trying to convince yourself you made a right decision and you're doubling down on it versus like Go ahead and call it like I shouldn't have done this, I shouldn't have done this, where you have to double down and be like, oh yeah, they had that coming, like I had to do this, and so I felt that even in watching the video. So I do see some of what Anton, what Anton is saying, and watching the video, so I do see some of what Anton. What Anton is saying, I guess I still I have I'd like you, adrian, on this one have a hard time separating the instigation that got him there to what happened. So I understand, but I was actually going to say, like what Anton said is I know I probably watched too many cop shows, too much chicago, pd and everything else to where, like it's all an act and this is not real life, and so I was even thinking through that as anton was saying it's like, yeah, this is, this is probably affecting my judgment, and so I I do still struggle with it because I guess like and I know I'm not, and this is the part so many things in my mind because I see where anton's coming from and I understand exactly what he's saying from a law enforcement officer thing, but I'm just like, like as a pastor and I know, like not as a law enforcement officer Deal with people with like mental health issues and things and de-escalate situations, like, hey, hey, let's calm down, let's calm down, let's not do that.
Speaker 2:Hey, hey, why don't we set that down? And he wasn't doing any of those things. So I feel like when you escalate I see Adrian's standpoint of you escalated the situation and then you ended the situation. It's like you kind of picked this fight and then you killed somebody, and so I struggle with it. I do struggle with that part, the more even as I try to just process it in my mind. So, yeah, those are my thoughts. I do struggle with the thought of you instigated something and then got out of hand, and I do believe you have responsibility for that. And I would just say, whether running away or not, like as law enforcement, I still would think your job is to deescalate the situation. And you didn't deescalate at all. In fact, it felt like you escalated it higher and higher In fact, it felt like you escalated it higher and higher.
Speaker 1:And I just want to just add, at least for my just clarity upon my perspective of how I even see this. Number one when it comes to the law, I respect the law, I believe that we submit ourselves to the law, but am I saying that every law that has been created by man is absolutely, you know, the flawless thing? So therefore I can't argue because, well, the law says it. I'm not there like it's not. You know, there's only one absolute truth, and I'm not saying that anton's saying that this is absolute truth, but I'm making it clear there's only one absolute truth in that scripture, right? So therefore, just because there is a law that states that that can be the weapon and therefore that then requires that response, I understand that is a training or whatever it is, but I am just make sure that, at least for me, clarity on the record is I see that as an absolute abuse of the authority given to somebody walking into a situation Because, as Aaron said, you picked a fight and then you could end the fight too as well, said, you picked a fight and then you could end the fight too as well, and I do believe that there was clear instigation that was on the person who was coming to the supposed to be the big boy in this. This is the person supposed to be the, the one that's going to take responsibility and even shape how this story is going to end, because I mean to protect and to serve right. So when it's that's not on the table and it's almost like I'm not negating the fact that it's a hard job, I'm not negating the fact that it is there's crazy stress and the training and stuff and unappreciated I am not saying any of those are there. I'm saying as it relates to this specific instance. I do not see the world where that response was necessary, no matter what you consider a pot of boiling water to be, and I do think he should take action for it. I'm completely wrong, probably emotionally driven in this regard, but I'm just at least making sure that, as we give each one of our opinions, I believe there can be respect on all sides of the triangle and I'm just saying for me, I'm probably the one that's probably on the most side of what took place to Massey above, and I'm not just trying to do it for cultural popularity. I think I've made many statements on this podcast that are not culturally popular, but I just I do have those who are in power abusing that power and then having their claims that they made you know of their reasons, of why they've done it. But let me move to this real quick because I know that we can spend we've pretty much spent a lot of time there.
Speaker 1:Anton alluded to the fact about being compared to Floyd. So when I say it compared to Floyd, because that was written within the outline that we are going through to discuss the story about these big emotions, I'm not comparing to Floyd about, like you know, police brutality, racially, and things like that. I'm comparing it more about outrage and the outcry from it. It just seems that Sonia Massey versus Floyd I think Floyd was more of a household term than Massey when this was one of those ones where, kind of like Floyd, you watched the video one time and you knew for me at least, at least people that would sympathize more so with me, not law enforcement, like Anton, but people like me would be like that didn't have to happen. Like Floyd, you watched it one time. You don't need a second opinion, you don't need to know more the story. You just saw what happened. I saw that that shouldn't have happened, right, you know, clear as day, like I amad albert, that was terrible. But at the same time you watch it and you're like, well, what was he doing? Like, and I and I still don't.
Speaker 1:We did an entire podcast that you can go back and listen to what we think. But I'm just what we think about it. But I'm just pointing out is this one? You didn't really need much, didn't need context, you didn't need a background lesson. You saw what happened and thought that's incredibly jacked up. So my question, anton, I'll start with you Do you think that this one is going to be Floyd level as it relates to that? Or why is it there such a difference? Because it seems, at least in the court of public opinion, that it's an open and shut case as far as how this was handled.
Speaker 3:I actually agree and I think that's what's troubling. It's one of the reasons why I think the legality situation is very important, because in public opinion somehow these two cases seem to have generated similar outrage. When George Floyd was again to call that murder is exactly again that would be an accurate statement he was already again not only detained but in custody Like there was absolutely no purpose. You can't argue, for example, just like Sonny Massey, there was no perimeter. In that case you did not know if there was anyone else in the house. There's so many variables In one case. In the other case, there really are no variables. The man is on the ground. There's absolutely no purpose to any of this. The actual again legality or the legal reason to subdue him has already passed. There's not even a reason for you to be doing this. You're now outside the scope of law enforcement duty.
Speaker 3:There are so many problems with George Floyd Whereas, like I said, in this case and I think you said it yourself you're like they're similar and they're like people view them the same. You only had to watch the video one time. And that's what scares me, because they are so fundamentally different. There are so many sub factors to one of these cases and virtually none to the other. The other case, literally, is open. The George Floyd case is open and shut.
Speaker 3:The only thing you're really discussing is is it first, second or third degree murder? But you're watching a literal murder happen, whereas people think this is also a murder and again you can say the law is an end, all be all. But as far as for the legality of a situation, there's nothing else we can appeal to and there's just no legality that would make this murder, even if again, that's what I'm saying everyone keeps going to the moral whatever of the man. I'm not speaking to his morality. These two things are just fundamentally different, different and, like I said, the fact that we see them similarly or that the society as a whole sees them similarly is very concerning. I would say, if you work in a law enforcement space or have friends in that space, it's very concerning that we would see those two things the same, because they're very different.
Speaker 1:Aaron, any commentary?
Speaker 2:No, that makes a lot of sense. I saw the difference in it and the other part for me and maybe I'm wrong here on a podcast about culture and race. Is this a race conversation or is this a mental health conversation?
Speaker 1:Yes, and that's the point to be made. Yeah, and that's the last question, but you can go ahead and jump the gun.
Speaker 2:Sorry, sorry, I was trying to wait but I didn't know how to formulate the thought in my mind because that's the difference in my, the biggest difference. I see the difference, of course, see all the differences. Anton said about someone being in, already been. Anton says and I can see it, but then for me it's a white cop, a black lady. Can we say that race had nothing to do with it? I can't, but I can't say it is. It just felt to me. I didn't feel like this was a racist, he wasn't yelling racist things.
Speaker 2:This is a mental health conversation and even when I've not talked to him about this one but I have an acquaintance who does um, he does de-escalation for um. He used to do it here for baltimore county, um, and he called in for those things and he talked about. He, me and him had a conversation one time about what it is to deal with people with mental health issues and how he helps people come in. I mean, he helps come in in those situations and helps de-escalate, and he was the first person I thought of when we were talking through this because I'm like, okay, yeah, if you have a deescalation person like they can really walk into this, and so for me, the difference is, I think, we're having a mental health conversation versus a race conversation add a little something to that.
Speaker 1:Um, because I again, there's gonna be things that come out at the current date, right now that we're recording this podcast. I don't see anything that would fuel that fact of it being a racially charged situation. The fact that she was black escalated it, but I do think it's mental health and police brutality. I think these two thoughts are combined. However, I would just, echoing a metaphor that aaron used, an illustration.
Speaker 1:Aaron used many I don't remember how many podcasts back, or whatever it is, about the husband who beats his wife for 15 years and then he repents and says I'm not going to do it anymore, and then, after doing that, you're not going to tell me that there's not going to be some repercussions, that every time he raises his hand to scratch his back, that she's not going to think and cower, and so I know that intellectually, I do realize that this is a situation where I don't believe race is involved. Of what's taking place between police and the Black community, I can at least intellectually understand why the outrage would be of race. Like I said, I'm not saying that it is, but I get it. You know, like this is these two things of Blacks and race and police. I haven't been things that have jiven. Anton, is that fair or is that still not helping? Are we adding more fuel to the fire of disunity by even letting that thought even have some air time?
Speaker 3:Again, I'm going to be the guy who gets in trouble for the podcast. For this one, again, I do. I think this is a very bad turn. I think this case is a very it's not the case. I do think it's a mental health case. Again, I think this is a police reform case. To me, these both were ill-equipped to handle the situation, ill-trained to handle the situation.
Speaker 1:And one of them wasn't supposed to even be hired, from my understanding.
Speaker 3:but yes, he can legally be hired, okay, the DUI doesn't change that, it doesn't. Okay, you can say again I think that's what the lawyer guy said they shouldn't if they were, whatever. But again this goes to a moral thing. And again, if you want to say they're morally bad people, that that's fine, but that's not. Again, uh, something they're not allowed to do. But these men were ill-equipped to handle a mental health situation and I think again it's.
Speaker 3:I think I said this on another podcast we have started to call police in situations that most normal b cops cannot handle. Most normal cops are not going to be de-escalation experts. And again to me that's television talk, again that it's like no, barney Fife is not. He was never de-escalating situations and he was never asked to the idea that we ask police to go to schools and be virtually guidance counselors, security guards, fathers. I'm saying like that's not, that's not.
Speaker 3:You're going to have a hard time having normal police forces that are designed to handle mental health situations, counseling situations, mentoring situations, while also being the law enforcement arm. And it's, it's not a real thing. That's going to happen. And I think by saying race, I think and I'm not, I don't think anyone should, whatever word you wish to say but anyway, I don't think anyone should give into trying to appease the conservative, republican right wing. But I think you play into that by calling these situations racist, because this situation it's clearly not racist. This guy is a terrible person but he seems equally terrible to all people. So again, I don't think that calling all situations racist I think really does minimize the ability to have conversations when racial injustices occur.
Speaker 1:Oh, and just for clarity. I said I intellectually understand why that argument's being made, but I just want to make sure abundantly clear that I do not see that as a situation here because I would give that the PTSD argument would be. The same thing is that there are many people who struggle with PTSD, but there are some people who have used that as to advantage their own selves for certain things as well. So I do think that this is a situation like I don't want to add to that narrative and I just want to make sure I'm clear to do that. And I hear it to both sides and we're going to close up because we've already gone a while on this topic, already gone wild on this, on this topic, and I but I did want to make sure that out of all the cases it was one that did resonate in a way of like man some should be said um, on podcast, affecting things, the culture of this manic magnitude. But my last question before we have all hearts in mind clear this one part. That's not my heart's not clear on this yet, but did it seem to you guys that? And I don't want to be ultra spiritual about it, but I definitely want to make sure I get some airtime, but it didn't seem.
Speaker 1:It did seem to me that things did escalate after she did say I rebuke you in the name of Jesus, like I'm not saying that Jesus's name and voted the conversation cause this demonic influence. I'm not saying that I know that there are some that I got far. I not saying that, I'm just pointing out it just seemed that that just escalated because it made the man like he, she could have said f you or something like that, and then it would have been like you know, vernacular, that he would be used to somebody saying to him or whatever it is, but it just seemed like that just triggered him. Am I wrong in that assumption? Am Am I being too too spiritually sensitive by that?
Speaker 2:No, I, I mean I thought that when I saw the video I was like oh man, he just obviously did not like that phrase, but uh, I don't, I don't, I can't say that I put more to it than that, but it was. But it did to me seem like that was a like whether her but then that's the part where I think it has to. I don't know all the things that happened up to that point and what's going on. So I don't know if again something in her like snapped in that moment or something I don't know from either side, but I did notice that it was just like oh man, that that seemed to get him going.
Speaker 3:And any thoughts, santa, I I think if she would have said anything of those along those lines, but I don't I said I don't think it was that, like you said, if he would have spoken her vernacular, I think he would have been equally upset, I think Okay. Can I ask one question though? Would you consider this murder? Because I think that's the only thing that I disagree with. That's my point. I think we agree on literally 95% of things, but would you call it murder?
Speaker 1:Can I answer it in two ways, and I'm answering off the cuff, so I might. So, a podcast listener, you might think to yourself like, if I come and you look in the comment section to make sure that I haven't changed the wording of an echo, how I word this as currently constructed in our law that we have, that we follow, that have been written by human laws, I can see that an argument can be made that murder is something that cannot be convicted of because of the laws made that are currently in place, due to the fact of the reasons you lifted out so eloquently about. Is a weapon, the risk and all those different things. I would, I would concede to that. I would then concede. I would also then add, though um, I guess the word would be should it be murder? Yes, I do, I do, I do so. As for the construction of law, no, but should there be something? Because I do not believe that it is ever okay to retaliate with such a level of force.
Speaker 1:The, you know, the Lex Talonis. Like that is the eye for an eye. It was meant not, it was meant that equal punishment would be met with equal consequence. Like it was met. There was a reason. And so you do not bring a boiling pot of water and make it face a revolver. That's not. That's not okay. So whether or not it should be going into the future, you know that's that's not okay. So whether or not it should be going into the future, you know that's that's a bigger discussion. Does that answer your question? Yeah, okay, aaron do you agree?
Speaker 1:or do you have another answer?
Speaker 2:no, I I'd say I don't think it's murder. I feel like there should be some kind of very strong punishment for it. I I don't know the legal side on it and, as Anton's even explained it, I I see what he's saying and I know that if it's a situation that turned out differently and it was a family member of mine who's a law enforcement officer and it saved their life I'd be like he did what he had to do. I have a hard time seeing it, um, like why he did it. He did what he had to do. I have a hard time seeing it Like why he did it.
Speaker 2:But I don't consider it murder, as in my, man was just going off killing people and what's going on. I mean, this is one of the first times I would say my. This is when the pastoral heart comes in, right, and everybody is just like people watching the Olympics, right, people sit on the couch watching the Olympics, watching the Olympians, like, do things and be like, ah well, you know what they should have done. And I'm telling you that's what this is. I'm telling you that's what it is. But even in my pastor's heart it was like when I saw it, I was like, if I was there, I think I could have calmed her down, like I think I could have talked her down, and that's the part for me.
Speaker 2:again, again, that's me sitting on the couch talking about the Olympics, but so that's the part where I feel like there has to be some serious punishment, because that can't be allowed to happen, even at the expense of no, not at the expense of, not at the expense of a law enforcement officer's life, but that there has to be some balance, and I just don't know where it is yet.
Speaker 1:And I honor both lives that are in that case. And the only thing that I guess these are my closing thoughts, closing thoughts here would be the idea that Anton, you're saying like he's a bad cop, you know, and then over here as far as a good call and I keep on merging these two because of this situation happens. Let's say Anton was the officer, I would look through it Completely different eyes. Yes, because Anton's my brother. Yes, of course, but you know also, anton's a good guy, anton loves his family, anton's trying to do right. Like what I'm saying is just like, like we can't act. Like what? What plays into officers sometimes writing you a ticket versus not writing a ticket?
Speaker 1:Your history matters, what you have done matters, and so I, I hear it, but it just seems like I am not going to just going to give you the benefit of the doubt, when your entire career has been something that does not even lend itself to that whatsoever, that I'm thinking that you made the holy call that brought someone's life to an end. I can't defend you, I can't, but again, if your life decisions that's why, if it was an Anton, his life decisions for me would affect the fact of how I felt Anton truly must have felt threatened. Anton wouldn't do that. You know what I mean. And so that's where I stand, because, like these things are not mutually exclusive, in my little brain that's all I can say, but that's the heavy one guys can anton follow up with anything because I'm learning, so I just wanted to see if he could follow up with anything.
Speaker 2:He had thoughts.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, we're going to do all hearts and minds.
Speaker 3:Oh, okay, make sure he has time.
Speaker 3:I guess, when I watch the video and I think this is going to be when we had the question number two, and I think it's probably the foundational difference Once the situation was escalated, whether it be through her saying you're bringing the name of jesus, this guy pulling his weapon, I don't know what the other outcome is if she was going to insist on throwing this thing at him. That that's again, I think, the fundamental disagreement of why I'm always going to say it's self-defense, because I don't think again. This is the world that I live in. Once she goes behind that counter, all bets are off. That's something I get, just if you've ever been anywhere near a situation like that, because you keep saying and I think, and it's exactly what that guy said and that's why I said it's someone who's never actually dealt with the situation remotely close to that.
Speaker 3:Once, someone who's never actually dealt with the situation remotely close to that, once she goes under that counter, you can say you keep saying she has water.
Speaker 3:I don't know what she has at that point, none whatsoever. Once the visual contact is gone and now you're throwing something at me I don't know if you're throwing something at me to go get a revolver. You keep assuming that it's like she only has water, and I am 100% sure of that. There's no way other than someone tested that water beforehand that you know that to be the case. There's no way you do not know there's another weapon under that counter that she's diving for. There's no way you know any of those things to be true until we all, like Aaron said with the Olympics go back and rewind the video and say well, there was nothing there, no-transcript, distant. That's why I said to me I'm only looking that's why I'm not talking about the morality than then at that window of about 25 seconds, because that's what would qualify as a crime to me. The rest of that is whether or not he's a good person, which is, to me, a separate discussion.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but at the end of the day, you can never expect me to side with a bad man's call.
Speaker 3:See, I don't think that's fair, but that's a completely long conversation.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and that's true. That's true Especially because there is a measure of this that's outside the purview of the training, in my opinion. But again, I've never been there and that will always be the ace in the hole for any officer that's in that position, and it's a true ace in the hole. It's not, it's not a pandering, it's a true ace in the hole. It's just that, um, if the people that you are meant to protect and serve, it would help for greater understanding for the people that you protect and serve to, would help for greater understanding for the people you protect and serve to at least I don't know there would be there be some type of context to which, like, we can look at that and say, that's okay, you know, and so what does that mean for society? We need to grow right. What does that mean for law enforcement? Like, yes, there is. Unfortunately, the reality is, the core of a public opinion is going to still judge at on every level still, and that's just a sad reality of where we live.
Speaker 1:It's just, I just don't know and again we have a separate conversation of the day but at the end of the day you're asking me to go with the bad man's forgive the word the clarity of a bad man's's righteous call. I don't think it was can I add one thing?
Speaker 3:I'm sorry. One last thing. It's that the reason and I can say I speak for this. I speak on no one's behalf. So let everyone know I speak on no government's behalf. I speak on the half of it.
Speaker 3:I think the fear that many people have who work in that industry is that I am well aware by watching this video. Like you're saying all the good things about Anton, everyone doesn't know Anton and everyone's not going to agree with you and I can tell you that's a call I'm going to say 70% of people are making and everyone's concern is that they will also be a villain and not also be seen as a good person, because that call has to be able to be made. It just does. Yeah, I don't like it.
Speaker 3:It's terrible that it has to be made, but it will have to be made by someone again, and a lot of people do not want to be in that situation where my moral character from 15 years ago is going to decide whether or not this was a good call. It either was a good call or it wasn't. Whether he didn't graduate high school is not relevant. Whether he did something else 10 years ago is not relevant to whether this call, because that's what you're asking me. Is this call good? We have to be able to call that, otherwise you're in a very legally dicey situation when everything's going to be well five years ago. Tom, that's not fair to law enforcement in any meaningful capacity.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we keep saying one more thing. I hear you, I hear what you're saying and again, is your credentials going to make the one call? But I do think that we're beyond in this case here we are beyond the one call situation because there are so many things that happened before that call happened that made it in at least my eyes, to be like. You put yourself in a situation that made it a one call type situation, and so I don't know I I hear what you're saying and again, you're right, the court of public opinion is, anton, a good person? Will it speak to that that?
Speaker 2:those are big questions can I throw one thing, because I think we see this obviously. So I'm bringing it back to my world, in the church world, like all you do is want. Like Anton said, though, when you are in the court of public opinion, they will find the stuff they need to tell you that you're a bad person. Like you don't have to. I mean, this happens all the time in ministry Like a pastor falls or a pastor has a moral failure, and I mean that man could have started orphanages all over the country, that man could have what's gone, and they'll have every single thing. One time in a meeting he blinked twice when he should have blinked three times, and it's like he's a terrible person. So I do see what Anton's saying, and when you get in the moment, it doesn't matter where people know you or not. When they're coming for you, they're coming for you. If you made the wrong call and they think you made the wrong call, they're coming for you.
Speaker 1:Wow. Well, if you stuck with us this long then that means you've been nearly an hour into this conversation and yeah, this was a heavy one, A lot to be able to consider, a lot of different avenues to be able to look at, but, like I said, nothing more to give a little bit more clarity to this case and also for me, I guess, being, you know, obviously, the big mouth on this whole podcast many times is like I, like I I really just had a big heart for stories and situations and I felt this one was one of those ones that did reach the level of let's talk about this a very common story going on unfortunately in our world today and have a conversation about it. So this was our best attempt to do the analysis and look into it, and so we hope you enjoy this podcast. And let me just ask real quick all hearts and minds clear, please say yes.
Speaker 1:The answer is actually no.
Speaker 3:One more thing For the fifth time, I think, and I don't want anyone to mishear anything that I've said, and I just want to clarify it myself so I don't have to defend it later. This was a tragedy. I don't believe it should have happened. I think again, they're two separate discussions and right now we're having the legal discussion, which is not about the moral discussion. That's all I would like to clarify.
Speaker 1:Clear, clear, clear. I think we got it. You might want to add commentary to it? Let us know at a bird for the times at gmailcom or on our Facebook or Instagram page. Thank you so much for joining us for this episode and we look forward to you joining us.
