Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / The Killing of Sonya Massey - A Tragic Case of Systemic Failure

Transcript

The Killing of Sonya Massey - A Tragic Case of Systemic Failure · Murder Files Unsealed

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to the deep Dive. Today, we're looking into something
0:03
really heavy, a case that frankly shook a lot of
0:06
people and brought up some incredibly tough questions.
0:08
Speaker 2: We are We're focusing on the fatal shooting of Sonia
0:10
Massey on July sixth, twenty twenty four, in Springfield, Illinois,
0:14
a thirty six year old black woman killed in her
0:17
own home by a sheriff's deputy.
0:19
Speaker 1: And our goal here isn't just to recount the headlines.
0:21
We really want to get into the details, understand the
0:25
sequence of events, the legal side of things, and importantly
0:28
the bigger picture exactly.
0:30
Speaker 2: This deep dive is about dissecting how this happened. The circumstances, yes,
0:34
but also the systemic issues police violence, mental health, crisis response, race,
0:40
it all intersects here.
0:41
Speaker 1: We've got quite a bit of material reports on the
0:43
encounter itself, bodycam details, the officer's background, the charges, community reactions,
0:48
expert analyzes on reform. We're aiming to give you a
0:51
really structured.
0:52
Speaker 2: Look because it's not just what happened, but why how
0:55
does a call for help, a plea for safety turn
0:58
deadly in what minutes?
1:00
Speaker 1: That's the absolute core of it, isn't it the tragic irony?
1:04
Sonya Massey called nine to one one. She thought someone
1:07
was outside her house, a potential prowler. She was asking
1:10
for protection.
1:11
Speaker 2: And that call led to her death. It's that fundamental
1:14
conflict we need to unpack first.
1:15
Speaker 1: Okay, let's do that. The timeline is just staggering. It
1:19
all happens so fast. We need to walk through it
1:22
step by step because understanding that speed is key to
1:26
seeing how things went so wrong.
1:27
Speaker 2: Right. So the call comes in just after midnight July sixth,
1:31
MASSI reporting a possible prowler near her home. It's in
1:34
an unincorporated part of.
1:36
Speaker 1: Springfield, so a standard call. Seemingly nothing inherently violent in
1:40
the initial report itself, no.
1:42
Speaker 2: Exactly, a resident asking for assistance. Two deputies from the
1:45
Sangamung County Sheriff's Office respond, one of them mis Shawn Grayson, and.
1:49
Speaker 1: The initial interaction outside the house, based on the bodycam
1:51
footage reports, it seemed well routine. They didn't find anyone outside.
1:55
Speaker 2: Correct, no immediate external threat found. So miss Massey invites
1:59
them inside to continue the conversation, maybe look around.
2:02
Speaker 1: Okay, So they're inside her home now and how she
2:06
described at this point.
2:07
Speaker 2: Sources say she was cautious, which seems understandable, but calm, cooperative.
2:13
She answered their questions, provided id and critically.
2:16
Speaker 1: She also mentioned her mental health history. Yes, this is vital.
2:19
Speaker 2: She confirmed she was taking medication and had a history
2:22
of mental health challenges. So right away the deputies are
2:26
or absolutely should have been aware they were potentially dealing
2:29
with someone in a vulnerable state, maybe even experiencing an episode.
2:33
Speaker 1: That context is everything. They know this, they're inside just
2:37
talking about a possible prowler. What happened next? What was
2:40
the spark?
2:41
Speaker 2: It seems almost surreal, how mundane it was. Deputy Grayson
2:44
is looking around the kitchen area, sees a pot of
2:47
water boiling on the stove, okay, and he makes a comment,
2:50
apparently just casually, suggesting they move it, you know, maybe
2:53
to prevent a fire hazard or an accident, just a
2:56
practical suggestion.
2:57
Speaker 1: It seems a seemingly harmless comment, but mass reaction wasn't
3:00
what he expected, not at all.
3:02
Speaker 2: She turns to him and says, quite clearly, I rebuke
3:05
you in the name of Jesus.
3:06
Speaker 1: Wow. Okay, a religious statement coming from someone they know
3:11
has mental health challenges, possibly experiencing paranoia or distress.
3:15
Speaker 2: Exactly. It's a verbal expression rooted in her faith, likely
3:19
her way of expressing fear, distrust, or setting a boundary
3:23
in her distress state. It wasn't a physical action, not
3:26
a threat.
3:27
Speaker 1: But Grayson didn't see it that way.
3:28
Speaker 2: No, his reaction, according to all accounts of the footage,
3:32
was immediate and incredibly aggressive. He starts shouting at her,
3:37
shouting what, demanding she dropped the pot, ordering her. The
3:41
entire tone shifts instantly from zero to sixty, just like that.
3:44
Speaker 1: And this is where the compliance part becomes so critical,
3:47
isn't it? Because she did comply?
3:49
Speaker 2: She did. Reports say she looks startled, taken aback by
3:52
his sudden aggression. She actually apologized.
3:54
Speaker 1: I apologized even after he started shouting.
3:57
Speaker 2: Yes, apologized and immediately put the pot down on a surface.
4:01
She followed the command. She stopped the verbal exchange.
4:04
Speaker 1: She complied, But it was too late in Grayson's mind.
4:06
Speaker 2: Apparently so, because even after she put the pot down,
4:09
he had already drawn his fire.
4:10
Speaker 1: Arms had already drawn.
4:11
Speaker 2: While she's complying, weapon drawn, pointed at her, and he's
4:15
still yelling commands, conflicting commands. Some reports say it created
4:19
total confusion and terror.
4:21
Speaker 1: So what does she do then, faced with a gun
4:23
after complying.
4:25
Speaker 2: Her actions were purely defensive, She ducks behind a counter,
4:28
trying to get cover, create distance, and she raises her.
4:31
Speaker 1: Hands hands up like surrendering.
4:33
Speaker 2: Exactly hands up, open palms visible in some descriptions of
4:37
the footage, a clear non threatening posture, trying to shield
4:41
herself while showing submission. Multiple sources stress she posed zero physical.
4:47
Speaker 1: Thread at this moment, Yet he fired.
4:49
Speaker 2: He fired three shots, one struck her in the head.
4:51
She died right there on her kitchen floor.
4:53
Speaker 1: Then, the timeframe for all this, the escalation.
4:56
Speaker 2: Seconds from the comment about the water to the shots fired,
4:58
mere seconds, the whole interaction inside the house less than
5:02
ten minutes, less.
5:03
Speaker 1: Than ten minutes from entering her home to her death
5:05
after she called for help.
5:07
Speaker 2: It's just the speed and the lack of any justification
5:10
for lethal force under those circumstances. The video shows compliance,
5:14
not attack. It shows a scared woman, not an aggressor.
5:17
Speaker 1: A catastrophic failure of de escalation. Lethal force requires an
5:23
immediate credible threat to life. Compliance removes that, and here
5:28
the initial defiance wasn't even hostile. It was, as you said,
5:31
a religious utterance born of distress. Precisely, so Massie is dead.
5:37
What happens immediately after? How does the Sheriff's office initially
5:41
frame this?
5:42
Speaker 2: Well, the initial statement from the Sangamon County Sheriff's Office
5:45
painted a very different picture. They put out a narrative
5:47
suggesting the shooting happen after a threatening action by missus Massey.
5:52
Speaker 1: Oh, the standard opening move sometimes yeh, control the narrative
5:55
before the evidence gets out.
5:56
Speaker 2: It often seems that way. But that narrative just completely
5:59
imploded when the body camera footage was released publicly on
6:02
July twenty second.
6:03
Speaker 1: And the impact of that release.
6:05
Speaker 2: Immediate national outrage. People saw the footage, saw her compliance,
6:08
saw the sudden escalation by Grayson. It wasn't just the killing,
6:12
it was the attempt to seemingly cover up the reality
6:14
of it that fueled the anchor.
6:16
Speaker 1: But interestingly, the legal action started before the public saw
6:20
the footage.
6:21
Speaker 2: Yes, that's quite notable. Deputy Grayson was actually indicted by
6:25
a grand jury on July seventeenth, just eleven days after
6:29
the shooting and before the video went wide. The charges
6:32
were serious, extremely serious, he was terminated from his job
6:35
and charged with first degree murder, aggravated battery with the firearm,
6:39
and official misconduct held without bond.
6:42
Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack that. Why is an indictment like this,
6:45
especially for first degree murder considered so rare? In police
6:48
shooting cases, usually there's a lot more deference given to
6:52
the officer's perspective, right.
6:53
Speaker 2: There absolutely is. Prosecutors and grand juries often lean heavily
6:57
on the officer's statement of perceived threat, even if it's
7:00
out to be mistaken. Legal doctrines like qualified immunity also
7:03
shield officers. In civil court, it's a high bar to
7:06
even get charges, let alone a murder one charge.
7:10
Speaker 1: So what made this different? Why the swift severe charges here?
7:13
Speaker 2: The consensus among legal experts and activists cited in our
7:16
sources is unambiguous. It was the body camera footage. It
7:19
was so clear, so undeniable. It apparently left the prosecutor
7:23
with very little room to argue self defense or reasonable fear.
7:26
Speaker 1: It basically eliminated the I feared for my life defense
7:30
before it could even take root exactly.
7:32
Speaker 2: It just showed compliance, It showed escalation by the officer,
7:36
and that charge of official misconduct is also really significant.
7:40
It's not just saying he committed a crime, it's saying
7:43
he abused the power of his badge to do it.
7:46
That carries a lot of weight.
7:48
Speaker 1: So the video was the game changer for legal accountability
7:51
in the.
7:51
Speaker 2: Specific instance, undeniably, and that legal action, those serious charges
7:56
really added fuel to the fire in the community.
7:59
Speaker 1: Yeah, talk about the response on the ground.
8:00
Speaker 2: Immediate protests, vigils, not just in Springfield, but it resonated nationally.
8:06
It became another focal point for the ongoing movement demanding
8:09
police reform and racial justice.
8:11
Speaker 1: And the family, their voices must have been.
8:13
Speaker 2: Central, incredibly powerful. Sonia's mother, Donna Massey, her son Malachi
8:18
Hill Massey. They spoke out, painting a picture of Sonia
8:21
as a loving mother, part of the community, emphasizing she
8:24
wasn't a threat. Malachi's words were particularly quoted, saying his
8:28
mom was just trying to get help.
8:29
Speaker 1: Heartbreaking stuff, just devastating. And civil rights attorneys got involved
8:33
quickly too.
8:34
Speaker 2: Yes, Ben Crump, a prominent figure in these cases, joined
8:37
the family's legal team. He immediately framed it as a
8:41
preventable tragedy and.
8:42
Speaker 1: He connected it to the bigger picture right away.
8:45
Speaker 2: Absolutely. He pointed to the lack of proper mental health
8:48
training for officers and crucially raised questions about Deputy Grayson's
8:53
own history. Even before this incident, the narrative shifted from
8:57
a single bad apple towards systemic fail.
9:00
Speaker 1: Right, not just a mistake, but something that the system
9:02
itself allowed or even enabled to happen.
9:05
Speaker 2: And that brings us squarely to those intersecting crises. You
9:09
really can't understand this case without looking at both the
9:12
mental health aspect and the racial dynamics. They are completely
9:15
intertwined here.
9:16
Speaker 1: Let's start with mental health. We know Sonia Massey had
9:19
a diagnosis.
9:20
Speaker 2: Yes, paranoid schizophrenia. Her family confirmed she was likely in
9:23
the midst of an acute episode when she called nine
9:26
one one. That call about a prowler very possibly a
9:29
symptom of her paranoia her heightened fear.
9:31
Speaker 1: So her request for help was actually a manifestation of
9:33
her illness.
9:34
Speaker 2: It seems very likely, and understanding that context is crufal
9:38
for interpreting her actions inside the house. That comment about
9:42
the boiling water. For someone experiencing paranoid schizophrenia, a suggestion
9:46
like that, even if well intentioned, could be perceived very differently.
9:50
Speaker 1: How So, like an intrusion a.
9:52
Speaker 2: Threat, potentially it could feel like someone trying to control
9:55
her space contaminate something a certain power in a way
9:58
that triggers intense fear or suspicion, So her response, I
10:02
rebuke you in the name of Jesus makes more sense
10:05
as a defensive mechanism rooted in that fear, rather than aggression.
10:08
Speaker 1: Which is exactly what trained crisis responders would likely recognize.
10:11
Right But that leads to the massive failure. Why aren't
10:15
police better equipped for this? They're so often the first
10:17
ones on scene from mental health.
10:19
Speaker 2: Calls, It's a huge gap. The specialized training, often called
10:22
Crisis Intervention Team or CIT training, it's still not mandatory
10:26
or consistently implemented across the US. CIT focuses on de escalation,
10:31
active listening, recognizing symptoms, creating space using time, basically the
10:36
opposite of what Grayson did.
10:38
Speaker 1: So an officer without that training, like Grayson, apparently defaults
10:42
to what threat assessment, command and control pretty much.
10:47
Speaker 2: They see non compliance, even if it's rooted in confusion
10:51
or illness, as defiance, requiring immediate control, often through force.
10:56
A CIT trained officer would ideally recognize the religious phrase
11:00
as distress, slow things down, lower their voice, try to
11:04
build rapport, not instantly escalate to drawing a weapon.
11:08
Speaker 1: And the stats on this are grim, they really are.
11:10
Speaker 2: The National Alliance on Mental Illness and AMI estimates that
11:13
about one in four people killed by police have a
11:16
serious mental health condition. Sonia Massey tragically became part of
11:19
that statistic.
11:21
Speaker 1: It just screens for a different approach, doesn't it. Sending
11:23
armed officers into situations that are fundamentally medical or psychological
11:27
crises seems counterintuitive.
11:29
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and that's where the push for alternative responder models
11:32
comes in. People are asking, if there's no immediate violence reported,
11:35
why not send mental health professionals instead of police?
11:38
Speaker 1: Like the Eludes program. We hear that mentioned a lot
11:40
as a model. How does that actually work for listeners
11:43
who aren't familiar.
11:44
Speaker 2: Right cohoots Crisis Assistance helping out on the streets. It's
11:48
based in Eugene, Oregon. It's been around for decades. It's
11:50
funded through the public safety budget, but it's not.
11:53
Speaker 1: Law enforcement, so who responds.
11:56
Speaker 2: Teams usually consist of a medic like an EMT or
11:59
a nurse paired with a mental health crisis worker, maybe
12:02
a social worker, counselor someone with experience in housing or
12:05
addiction services. They respond to calls related to mental health crises, intoxication,
12:10
homelessness issues, welfare checks, things that don't necessarily require a
12:15
badge and a gun, and they're unarmed, completely unarmed. Their
12:19
focus is de escalation, assessment, providing immediate care or counseling,
12:24
and connecting people to services shelters, clinics, detoc centers. They
12:28
aim for therapeutic outcomes.
12:30
Speaker 1: Not arrests, and the results.
12:32
Speaker 2: Overwhelmingly positive according to studies. They handle a significant portion
12:36
of nine to one one calls, reduce the burden on police,
12:39
drastically lower the instances of force being used in these encounters,
12:43
and save money on er visits and jail bookings.
12:45
Speaker 1: It's hard not to imagine how Sony Massey's call might
12:48
have ended differently if a coho's style team had responded.
12:52
Speaker 2: It's impossible not to. They likely would have recognized her distress,
12:56
understood the context of her religious statement, and focused on
12:59
calming her and getting her help, not confronting her with
13:02
lethal force.
13:03
Speaker 1: Okay, let's pivot now to the other critical lends here race,
13:07
how did being a black woman potentially impact How this
13:11
unfolded so rapidly.
13:12
Speaker 2: Well, we have to start with the backdrop of policing
13:14
in America. The data is stark. Mapping police violence projects
13:19
shows Black Americans are almost three times more likely to
13:22
be killed by police than white Americans. That disparity hangs
13:25
over every interaction.
13:27
Speaker 1: So unconscious bias or even conscious bias can play a
13:31
role in threat perception.
13:33
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And it comes back to that verbal exchange, I
13:35
rebuke you in the name of Jesus. How is that
13:37
statement interpreted?
13:39
Speaker 1: You mean if a white person in distress said something
13:41
similar versus a black person exactly?
13:44
Speaker 2: Research and countless anecdote suggests that behavior perceived is eccentric, confused,
13:48
or distressed in a white individual might be perceived as hostile, defiant,
13:53
or dangerously aggressive when exhibited by a black person, especially
13:57
a black woman. Stereotypes about black anber or unpredictability can
14:01
tragically lead officers to perceive a threat where none exists.
14:06
Speaker 1: So Grayson might have filtered her words through a lens
14:09
of racial bias, seeing defiance instead of fear or a
14:12
symptom of her illness.
14:13
Speaker 2: It's a strong possibility that has to be considered. That
14:16
perceived defiance then justifies in the officer's biased view bypassing
14:21
de escalation entirely and jumping straight to the highest level
14:24
of force. Her fear, her distress becomes invisible, replaced by
14:28
a perceived.
14:28
Speaker 1: Threat, and in that dynamic, her compliance, her raised hands,
14:32
they don't even register because the decision has already been
14:34
made based on that initial bias perception.
14:37
Speaker 2: That appears to be what happened here, a deadly combination
14:40
of failed mental health response and potential racial bias and
14:42
threat perception.
14:44
Speaker 1: So beyond the immediate interaction, we need to look at
14:47
the system that put Deputy Grayson in that position in
14:50
the first place. This wasn't his first job in law enforcement,
14:53
was it.
14:53
Speaker 2: No, And this is a huge systemic issue. Sources reveal
14:56
Grayson had worked for multiple police departments in Illinois before
14:59
being hired by Sangmon County in twenty twenty three. This
15:03
pattern is sometimes called the wandering officer problem.
15:06
Speaker 1: And did he have issues at those previous jobs?
15:08
Speaker 2: Yes, Reports indicate a documented disciplinary history. This included prior
15:13
allegations of using excessive force and failing to follow department protocols.
15:18
Speaker 1: So how does an officer with that kind of record
15:20
get hired by another agency. That seems like a massive
15:23
failure in the hiring process.
15:25
Speaker 2: It absolutely is. It points to a critical vetting gap.
15:28
Either Sangamon County didn't do a thorough background check, or
15:31
they knew about his history and hired him anyway, perhaps
15:33
due to staffing pressures.
15:35
Speaker 1: Is it easy for officers to hide their records when
15:38
moving between departments?
15:39
Speaker 2: It can be surprisingly easy. There's no single mandatory national
15:44
database tracking officer misconduct, terminations, or resignations under investigation. An
15:50
officer might resign from one department just before being fired.
15:54
Speaker 1: Ah, so the record just says resigned, not resigned facing
15:57
termination for.
15:58
Speaker 2: Excessive force precisely, and the next apartment doing a background
16:01
check might not get the full story, especially if the
16:04
previous department isn't fully transparent, sometimes due to union agreements
16:08
or fear of lawsuits. It's a loophole that allows problematic
16:12
officers to just move to the next town over and
16:14
continue policing.
16:15
Speaker 1: Which puts the public at risk. Sangomin County apologized after
16:19
the shooting, but the damage was done by the hiring
16:21
decision itself exactly.
16:23
Speaker 2: The hiring process is the first line of defense and
16:26
it failed. Here the department bears responsibility for putting an
16:29
officer with a known history of issues back on the
16:32
street in a position of power.
16:33
Speaker 1: Okay, let's talk about the body cameras again. We said
16:36
the footage was key for accountability after the fact, But
16:39
are they preventing these incidents in the first place?
16:41
Speaker 2: That's the million dollar question, isn't it. The footage was
16:44
absolutely crucial here. Without it, we might still be debating
16:48
the sheriff's initial threatening action narrative. It provided objective evidence
16:53
that countered the official story and forced legal action.
16:56
Speaker 1: But they're not a magic bullet.
16:57
Speaker 2: No far from it. They record events, they don't necessarily
17:00
change behavior. A major review mentioned in our sources, published
17:04
in Criminology and Public Policy, looked at numerous studies and
17:08
found pretty mixed results on whether cameras actually reduce police
17:11
use of force overall?
17:13
Speaker 1: Why is that? Why don't they always deter bad behavior?
17:16
Speaker 2: Well? Effectiveness seems to depend heavily on department policies and culture.
17:20
Our officers required to have them on consistently, Is the
17:23
footage regularly reviewed, and most importantly, is leadership willing to
17:27
use that footage to enforce discipline and seek prosecution when
17:31
misconduct occurs. If those things aren't in place. The camera
17:34
is just a recording device, not a real deterrent, so.
17:37
Speaker 1: It's a tool for transparency, but transparency only matters if
17:40
it leads to actual consequences Exactly.
17:43
Speaker 2: The footage got accountability in this case, which is significant,
17:46
But the bigger goal is preventing the next Sonia Massy case,
17:50
and that requires broader reforms.
17:52
Speaker 1: What are the key areas being pushed for now reignited
17:55
by this tragedy.
17:56
Speaker 2: Well, first and foremost is training, mandating robust, ust ongoing
18:00
training and de escalation crisis intervention like CI two and
18:04
understanding implicit bias, not just check the box training, but
18:09
stuff that's scenario based and truly changes officer responses, emphasizing
18:13
that compliance must de escalate the situation.
18:16
Speaker 1: And fixing that vetting loophole we talked.
18:18
Speaker 2: About, yes, strengthening accountability mechanisms. That means things like civilian
18:22
oversight boards with real power to investigate and discipline, and crucially,
18:26
creating that national database to track officer misconduct so problematic
18:30
officers can't just jump departments.
18:32
Speaker 1: This sounds a lot like the components of the George
18:34
Floyd Justice and Policing Act That federal legislation is stalled,
18:39
but Masse's case seems to highlight exactly why proponents say
18:42
it's needed.
18:43
Speaker 2: It really does. The Act aims to tackle several of
18:46
these systemic issues. One of the biggest and most controversial
18:50
is limiting qualified immunity.
18:52
Speaker 1: Remind us briefly what qualified immunity does.
18:55
Speaker 2: It's a legal doctrine that shields police officers and other
18:59
government officials from being sued civilly unless they violated a
19:02
constitutional right that was clearly established in law, often requiring
19:07
a previous court case with almost identical facts. It makes
19:10
holding officers financially accountable in court extremely difficult.
19:14
Speaker 1: So limiting it would make it easier for families like
19:16
Sonya Massi's to sue the officer and maybe the department.
19:20
Speaker 2: Correct The idea is that the threat of real financial
19:23
liability for the officer personally and for the department or
19:26
city paying settlements or judgments would create a powerful incentive
19:29
for agencies to improve training, titan discipline, and fire bad officers.
19:34
It puts financial teeth into accountability.
19:37
Speaker 1: It really underscores how many layers of systemic protection had
19:41
to be pierced the initial report, the usual deference, the
19:45
lack of misconduct tracking. Just to get this one officer charge,
19:48
criminally changing the civil liability structure could be another lever entirely.
19:53
Speaker 2: Avocate, certainly hope so they see it as essential for
19:56
forcing deep structural change across the thousands of police departments
20:00
in the country hashtag outro.
20:03
Speaker 1: When you pull it all together, the killing of Sonia
20:06
Massy feels like such a profound failure on so many levels.
20:09
Speaker 2: It truly does. A failure of vetting that hired an
20:12
officer with a troubled past, a failure of training that
20:15
prioritized immediate force over de escalation and understanding mental illness,
20:19
a failure of the emergency response system that sent armed
20:22
police to a likely mental health crisis.
20:24
Speaker 1: And through all the policy discussion, the legal analysis, we
20:27
have to come back to the person. Sonya Massey, a mother,
20:31
a community member, someone reaching out in fear her son.
20:34
Speaker 2: Malachi's words just stick with you. My mom didn't deserve this.
20:37
She was trying to get help, not hurt anybody. It
20:39
captures the absolute tragedy in betrayal.
20:42
Speaker 1: Here. She asked the system for protection and the system
20:44
killed her.
20:45
Speaker 2: That's the brutal reality of it.
20:47
Speaker 1: And while the indictment of Deputy Grayson is a step
20:49
towards accountability may be forced by that undeniable video, it's
20:54
just one step. Accountability for one officer. Isn't systemic reform.
20:58
Speaker 2: No, it isn't. It doesn't fix the hiring practices, the
21:01
training gaps, the reliance on police for mental health calls,
21:06
or the potential biases that might have influenced Grayson's perception.
21:09
Speaker 1: Which leaves us with a big, lingering question, doesn't it?
21:13
This case had unusually clear evidence, unusually swift charges. Will
21:18
Sonia Massey's death actually be a catalyst? Will it force
21:21
the kind of widespread, meaningful changes in policing that advocates
21:25
have been demanding for decades, Or will.
21:27
Speaker 2: It, despite the headlines and the outrage, ultimately fade into
21:30
the statistics, another tragic data point in a system resistant
21:34
to fundamental change. That's the question facing communities, police departments,
21:38
and lawmakers right.
21:39
Speaker 1: Now, a question that demands an answer and action.
21:42
Speaker 2: Indeed, it does.
21:43
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining us for this difficult, but necessary
21:46
deep dive