Episode 143

It seems that whenever there is an interaction between a white police officer and a black person, the question of race and/or police brutality inevitably comes up. In some instances, it is the first thing that comes up. Should this be the case in our society? On August 24, 2023, a 21-year old woman named Ta’Kiya Young was shot and killed by police after having been accused of shoplifting liquor from a local grocery store. What makes this story noteworthy by today’s standards is that she was black, unarmed, and pregnant at the time of her interaction with the police and subsequent death. Was the shooting racially motivated? Did the officer have the legal or moral grounds to open fire? What about her family and protestors who insist the officer be indicted and brought to justice swiftly? Join us on this episode of the Removing Barriers podcast as we discuss Ta’Kiya Young: a soul for whom Christ died.

[MCG]

Ta’kiya Young did not know that August 24th, 2023, was her last day. As I watched the video of her putting liquor into her handbags, the question dawned on me, I said. I wonder, how would her choices have been different if she knew that was her last day or her last few minutes to live?

[Jay]

Thank you for tuning in to the Removing Barriers podcast. I’m Jay and I’m MCG, and we’re attempting to remove barriers so we can all have a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

This is episode 143 of the Removing Barriers Podcast, and in this episode. We will be looking at the incident surrounding the death of Takaya Young by the hands of an Ohio police officer.

[Jay]

Hi, this is Jay. MCG and I would like for you to help us remove barriers by going to removingbarriers.net and subscribing to receive all things removing barriers. If you’d like to take your efforts a bit further and help us keep the mics on, consider donating at removing barriers.net/donate. Removing Barriers, a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

Alright, Jay, let’s get into this. Who was Takaya Young?

[Jay]

All we can know about Takaya Young is what has come out in the wake of her death. But from what we know so far, Takaya Young was a 21 year old. Woman who was accused of shoplifting and stealing alcohol from a local grocery store. This all happened on August 24th of 2023. She was shot and killed by a police officer in Blendon Township. OH. And her death sparked much protest and controversy simply because she was black. She was unarmed. She was also pregnant with her third child due to give birth in November. And she was the mother of two young sons, ages three and six. The argument and the protest is that she was legally and unnecessarily shot to death by the police officer.

[MCG]

Yeah, I think it’s probably not ready to this to mention that she was 21 years old. And she was raised by her grandmother. I think that would be her paternal grandmother. I think it is. And for some reason that very third grandmother had a protection order against Takaya. I don’t know how long it was in place, but it was in place during the time of her. And it seemed like she violated that protection order that her grandmother had against her, like twice. And I think at the point when she had this interaction with the police officer, she had a few days before that had just violated her protection order. And of course, she doesn’t have extensive criminal history, but she does have. From running with law enforcement, including Taft and Flynn, from the police, so she has a little bit of a background. She also pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, so she wasn’t. At George Floyd that have a long rap sheet, but she did have a little bit of a background there in terms of law enforcement. The only reason I mentioned that because I think it might be important later down when we start talking about the circumstances surrounding her death.

[Jay]

OK. What were the circumstances surrounding her death?

[MCG]

So as you said on August 24th, 2023. Takaya was spotted and security camera footage stealing liquor. Keep in mind that at 21 she was pregnant and stealing liquor, so whatever that may mean, whether she was stealing for herself or someone else, don’t know. But this happened at a Kroger grocery store. In western. Ohio. So an employee of the store approach, the officer who was already outside helping another person get into their car. So basically this person was locked out of the car. They called the police and the police came and had some tools that were trying to get into the car for the person their employee. From the Kroger groceries to approach officer and single out Takaya as one of the persons who have just stole liquor from the store, the police officer approach Takaya’s car from the driver’s side. And asked her to get out while he was there talking to her and trying to get her to comply. The second officer went and basically placed himself at the front of the car, basically about maybe 5 feet from the front of the car.

[Jay]

To prevent her from driving.

[MCG]

Off, I think prevented from driving off, but also I think in law enforcement but not alert is more to provide cover. So he have a different angle than the other officer. So there’s one officer that is right at her door right at her window and he’s, you know, in front of the car. Presumably to prevent her from driving off, but also to provide cover just in case she proved to be a danger to this officer, he can engage her. I think that was their chain of thought behind of that as well, not just preventing for driving off. So they argue, the officer told her. You’re accused of stealing. You need to get out. Don’t leave, she said. She didn’t steal anything. Stuff like that while they were doing that. Of course the engine was running. Takia turns the steering wheel. To the right, I don’t notice you locked the steering wheel or what? But the officer that was now in front of the car, you could argue, knows no more off to the left of the car, but still in front of the hood. A sticky start moving the officer pulled his gun out. Order her to stop. She didn’t stop, but went forward. Hitting the officer, you could see that the officer feet came off the ground, the officer fired, one shot hitting, hitting her in her chest and the car rolled to a stop as they hit the building, they provided aid. I think they were the emergency room doctor happened to be in the area and he helped them provide aid. They transported her to the hospital. About 5 miles away, where she was pronounced dead. So here is a news audio of the happenings and they explain it much better.

[News Audio]

Than I do today’s body camera release comes eight days after Takaya Young was shot in the Kroger parking lot on Sunbury Rd. On August 24th. Blendon Township’s police chief, John Belford, says the 21 year old was one of several people stealing. Alcohol when police were alerted, officers say young was in her. And was asked several times to get out. Police then say young put the car in gear and drove toward an officer. Chief Belford says Young was given aid on the scene but later died from her injuries. Once again, we are going to show you that video from the police officers from that night and we are bringing you team coverage. Of the release of the video, NBC4’s Caleb Michael stands by with reaction from Young’s family attorney Eric Halperin brings us new reaction from the Fraternal Order of. Police. But we begin with NBC4’s Jamie Ostroff. She’ll walk us through more of that newly released video again, warning you ahead of time that we are about to show you could be disturbing in case you would like to step away, Jamie.

[News Audio]

Yeah, Jen, what we are going to show you is body worn camera footage from each of the two officers who were involved in that. Incident last Thursday. Each video is just over one minute long as the confrontation with Takaya Young plays out in a. Matter of seconds. The first officer to interact with Takaya Young approaches her car under the suspicion that she stole liquor from Kroger.

[News Audio]

Hey, out of the car. Out of the car.

[News Audio]

By the time the second officer gets to the car and walks in front of it, the first officer had asked young to get out five times. He keeps asking, young argues. You can hear the exchange on that officers body worn camera.

[News Audio]

Out of car.

[News Audio]

Out of the car, out of the car, out of the car. They said you stole. Stuff do not leave. Get out of the car then then get. The other person. No, no. Then get out. Get out of the car.

[News Audio]

Young begins to drive in this freeze frame. You can see the car make contact with the officer standing at the front of the car as his feet leave the ground. That is when that officer fires one shot through the windshield. We saw the video to not show that deadly shot. When we pick up the.

[News Audio]

Get out of the car.

[News Audio]

Video a moment later, you can hear the commands continue. The car rolls through the parking lot, stopping under the awning by the store. The video ends with officers busting the driver’s side window. To get young out of the car.

[MCG]

Alright, so there you have it. That’s the circumstances surrounding the death of Takaya Young. Now we must add that this is definitely a tragedy. We’re not talking about it as if tequila death was anything we relishing or anything. I’m sure no one rejoice in in this death. She was a young lady. She was pregnant, a mother of two. And this happened. But we’re going to try to be as fair and balanced as possible without the emotions that may be surrounding this, especially since she was pregnant while she was shot. So I guess one of the question that’s on my mind and probably if you look up this incident on the Internet, is did the officer had other options besides shooting her at that moment?

[Jay]

Yes, the officer did have other options. The officer could have simply gotten out of the way and allowed her to drive off. That is an option. In fact, the Blendon Township. Police Department has stated that they will not release the identity or any other identifying marks of the police officers who were involved in this incident as a result of Marci’s law, which is a law that was passed in California. I think it was in 2008 or so. That increases the rights that victims of violent crime have. And one of those protections has to do with your information being released and people knowing who you are before the circumstances of the investigation are complete in recent years.

[MCG]

With this. California, Ohio, you meant Ohio.

[Jay]

No. Macy’s law is what I’m talking about. It’s a law that started in California and many states sense have adopted some variant of Macy’s law where the law elucidates very specific rights and provides in some cases grounds for restitution.

[MCG]

OK.

[Jay]

For victims of violent crime anyway, the Police Department, in this particular situation have not released the private information. The identities of the officers involved on the grounds of Macy’s law.

[MCG]

OK. And personally I had no problem with that. I think until they’re probably proven guilty in court, I have a problem there.

[Jay]

Well, the criticism here, particularly from people who are opposed to Macy’s law, I’m sorry, not a post of Macy’s law, but opposed to the way that it’s being used in this particular instance is that. Law enforcement, which is the enforcement arm of the state, wield this law to protect officers who may be bad actors. And so if perhaps, let’s say, some crime happened involving a police officer, someone was fatally shot if. Someone performing an investigation wanted to see if the officers conduct was within the context of a. Wider pattern of violence or of complaints and just abuse and misuse of authority. They are hindered from doing that as a result of the Police Department keeping that police officers information private on the grounds of Macy’s.

[MCG]

Law, but I’m sure if that officer is indicted and charged. That all the information gonna come out. Anyway. I think during the process of the investigation for them to even determine whether or not the officer did anything wrong, I don’t think they need to destroy his life and his livelihood and everything before they make a determination that he break the law.

[Jay]

Right. Well, that’s it. That’s precisely the point here. They want to be able to do that because in a situation like this, where certain actors or certain, let’s say political prosecutor, might try to spin this to have a racial angle, they would need that information in order. To slander him in the well, this is my opinion. They would need information in order to slander him in the Court of public opinion before this actually goes through the legal gears and give their particular case an edge.

[MCG]

Not really. I think they just need to know he’s white. Then she was black.

[Jay]

In today’s climate, that’s all they would really need to know. But anyway, that’s what’s happening here. So one of the arguments the original question was that did the officer have any other option? Yes, the officer could have just moved out of the way and let her take off. Now that’s an argument to be had because. The only thing that. And had on Takaya Young at that particular time was an accusation from one of the store employees that she was shoplifting. That’s all the officers had at that particular time. Now we know subsequently that they had store surveillance videos showing that she did. But in that immediate instance, all the police officers. Had was some random employee running out of the store, pointing at some random person saying that person stole. They don’t have anything else to go on at that particular time. So the question of whether or not the police had other options, the answer is yes. The he could have just moved out of the way and let her go. The question is, did they want to do that? Would it be wise for them to do that? Would it be right for them to do that? Another thing to bring up quickly is that. One of the critics in this particular case, actually some proponents, and some I don’t want to say members, but people working within the Marshall project say that. At the Department of Justice, as well as some professional police organizations, actually recommend that police don’t shoot into moving vehicles because #1 it’s a shot that has a low chance of hitting its actual target, so you might have a stray bullet or some other dangerous. Circumstance #2 if the round does hit now you have a vehicle that is an uncontrolled threat. The vehicle will just meander and go wherever it is because there’s no one controlling the. And so they are saying that the police officer is better off just letting the vehicle take off and perhaps they would consider pursuing the vehicle or maybe following the vehicle or maybe sort of surveillance some other way in this particular instance, I would argue that that would be difficult because the vehicle had no tags. All they know it was just a black. What was it like? A Lexus or some type of four door sedan vehicle. There were no identifying markers on that vehicle. There were no tags, there was no registration that they could see. Not that they would see that on the outside, although some states do have that. But in this particular instance, there was no identifying markers on the vehicle besides what the vehicle actually was. So in short. Did they have another option? Yes, the quest. And is would they want to pursue that other option?

[MCG]

Alright, I agree with you, but not 100%. I think that law that you brought up about not shooting the moving vehicles. Hmm. I’m not quite sure you apply here because it’s not like.

[Jay]

Well, just a correction. It’s not a law, it’s a recommendation from the DOJ and professional police organizations, yeah.

[MCG]

The recommendation, the recommendation I’m not quite sure you apply here because it’s not like she was sitting on the highway at 60 mph and they were driving and fire shot at her. That was not the. Duration here. So of course the recommendation makes sense in that situation and situation like that, just like they don’t recommend that you pit a vehicle when it’s going above certain speed. So I’m not quite sure that apply here, but did the police have other options well. I’m going to look at a couple of different angles. Ultimately, I’m going to say yes, but I’m going to also look at it from different angles and come to different conclusions based on that firstly. This comparison is of unfair comparison, but. I normally try to put myself in situations that I’m going to try to pass some kind of judgment on. So in other words, what would I do now at the regular citizen is unfair because I don’t have arrest powers. I don’t have the right to ask someone to don’t leave and to come out of the car. So this example. Is unfair, but if for some reason. Someone stole something of mine and I decided I’m going to stand in front of the vehicle or whatever the case may be. Try to prevent them from moving and they decide to move. The first thing for me is not necessary to shoot them, but is to get out of the way of the. Again, unfair situation because the police officer, they were given her legal commands which she should have obeyed. So I’m just simply saying for most people who are not police officers, the first thing you probably want to do is get out of the way on at least not standing front of a car. I do understand as a police officer, he was providing. Cover and stuff like that to me. I think it came down to a situation of who’s going to blink first. They’re giving her command. Don’t go. Get out the vehicle. He’s saying. Stop. She decides. She’s gonna go forward and he shot, I think, to some extent he had the opportunity to get out of the way. Bearing the fact that, as I said before, she turned the steering all over to the right. So I don’t think she had the intention necessarily to hit him, even if she did hit him and he fired a shot and she died. Now, to me, that’s also Monday morning quarterback in because he had to make. A split decision. Sure. And the amount of time he had to make a decision, do I shoot her or do I get out of the way? Again, I don’t think it’s fair for the officer on that situation, but I’m just simply saying, are the regular citizen. Most people just get out of the way. So that’s one too. I want to compare it to Jacob Blake. Jacob Blake was, I think it was the summer of. I don’t remember when Calvin was happening public this summer of 2020 or 2021 when Jacob Blake got shot and.

[Jay]

That would have been 2021. The pandemic started in 2017.

[MCG]

Right. So comparing this to Jacob Blake, I want to talk about this because a lot of things I’m hearing on the Internet and hearing about this situation and not talking enough about this, but it’s basically the value of compliance to some extent. You can say that she force. The officer to shoot with her, non compliance to some extent. You know you can talk about Tyrone Nichols or Tyrone Nichols was basically abused by officers and stuff like that. So you say, hey, even when you comply, sometimes these officers can still beat you up and still kill you. Well, the case maybe. That’s true, but. I think we have more examples. Of non compliance leading to greater aggression than compliance that led to aggression. So I want to talk about compliance a little bit because I think tech here should have just complied and if she had. Side she would have removed all the options that police officers had when it comes to force and violence and whatever else they’re going to do to restrain her. I don’t know. Of course I’m no lawyer, but I don’t know if they could have searched her vehicle just based on the accusation. So let’s say she had the liquor that she stole. And the chunk because we know based on surveillance video that she did, stole several bottles of liquor. She went to this store with one bag, and in that one bag with another bag. And she had both of them basically fill with liquor. I called at least one bag to put at least four or five bottles. I don’t know how much she put in a second bag, but she had a number of them. So let’s say the bags were not in plain sight, so they were in the trunk. I don’t know how much they could have searched per vehicle. Based on that accusation, maybe they could have, I don’t know. But she decided, hey, she going to lie about it. She going to drive her. And the off the shoulder, I think he could have gotten out of the way if he wanted to and they said he seemed to me like he was a matter of who’s going to blink first. The officer said, well, I have a legal right here, so I’m not going to drive away. And Takia saying, hey, I didn’t do anything wrong. So I’m not going to comply and it becomes, see, a battle of wills. That’s not something you want to fight on the side of the street, I said it with Jacob Blake. I said it with all these all the incidents that happen involving so-called white officers and black victims, cotton and. Colt, the side of the street, is not the place for you to be fighting and decided. Hey, I’m right and I’m not going to give up my rights here. You know, I’m going to say this as well, because this is another pet peeve of mine when it comes to these incidents. You know, when incidents like this happen, we see these so-called. Lawyers or ambulance chasers come out of the woodwork. How about someone that’s a fun to sue cities and police departments when they violate, quote, UN quote, black people rights. Why do we wait until? Someone die or someone is crippled or someone is shot and fighting for their life. For these lawyers to come out of the woodwork, how about sort of fun to say, hey, black folks comply and if they violate your rights, we will pay for you to get an attorney to sue the cities. In the States and the police departments, too, high heavens, they don’t. I have never heard of a fund like. So they don’t tell the black folks to comply, to obey legal commands, because the Supreme Court has ruled in this several times, a police officer has a right to ask you as a driver on all your passengers to exit the vehicle for his own safety. So you can say I’m not getting other what is a legal command? It’s only gonna get worse. That’s the only way you’re going to go from here. The more you don’t comply, the worse they get for you because they’re gonna get more more officers to come if you drive off, they’re gonna be chase. And you at this point comply, you get caught. You’re 21. They probably might slap you in their wrist. You’re pregnant. They might slap you in the wrist. So I don’t know. I do think the officer had different options, especially if he was in the officer. He I think he could have gotten from in front of the car. It’s not like she. Floated at him. She basically was driving away normally I was someone would drive away from AP. In lot, but at the end of the day, she did hit him and he did shot her because a car with a deadly weapon.

[Jay]

OK, let me both strongman this argument and also play devil’s advocate because we want to give this absolutely every chance, every test under law and under just our discussion. OK, so you just mentioned how she barely moved the car and because she turned it all the way to the right, you could see that she was trying to avoid him, but ended up hitting him anyway. And she didn’t accelerate quickly. It was a slow acceleration. He had the opportunity to move out of the car. OK, so I’m gonna play devil’s advocate there. By pulling from my personal experience, I remember as a kid when one of my older siblings was learning to drive, she accidentally ran over the foot of one of my other siblings and they had to go to the hospital and take care for their well, the vehicle didn’t move very fast at all. In fact, it was a very slow. Reversal, but it was enough to do damage. Perhaps in this particular instance. The same is true. Your average sedan is. Oh, I don’t know what thousand 2000 pounds. Maybe if that’s coming at you at any speed. There’s an argument there that that’s assault with the intent to kill, or perhaps a deadly weapon. Anyone that’s in the way of that particular vehicle could perceive it as a deadly threat, so perhaps that’s why he opened fire. He obviously did, which is why I would imagine that’s why he pulled his weight. Well, actually, he already has weapon drawn when he was standing in front the car, he already had his weapon drawn, and since he had his weapon drawn, he went ahead and used it. Now, according to the news clip that you inserted there, she hit him or moved him enough to where his feet. Came off the ground, so in his mind it’s not unreasonable to assume that he thought that she was trying to hurt him or kill him. And so he opened fire. Deadly Force met with deadly force.

[MCG]

And I don’t disagree with anything you just said. The only reason I said what I said previously was that based on the speed of the vehicle and based on the fact that at least he looked like a reasonable young guy and we don’t know his name or age or anything but based upon.

[Jay]

OK.

[MCG]

The way they move once the shot was fired, it seems to be an able bodied person. I’m just saying he probably could have gotten. So wait, if he wanted to, it wasn’t like the vehicle was coming at him at 50 mph and he couldn’t jump all the. Because technically after he shot her, he still got out of the way. So again, this is Monday morning quarterback in. He had to make us a quick decision. I just wonder if that’s the case, if he could have gotten another way and it was a situation.

[Jay]

Right for both of us, it is, yeah.

[MCG]

I’m not going to blame because I’m giving you legal command and she’s saying I’m not going to blink because you have nothing on me. I didn’t steal anything.

[Jay]

OK, so I just strong manned his. Point of it here. Let me strongman her point of view. Right. Let me make the strongest case possible. So in the United States, probable cause in the 4th Amendment is a requirement that must be met before a police officer can either make an arrest or conduct a search or receive a warrant. One could argue, and this is me, strong, manning her particular position here, one can argue that an accusation from some random person shouldn’t be grounds for any type of probable cause. In this instance, the police officer was not in any sort of danger. You said that the Supreme Court recognized many, many times. That the police officer has the right to have someone step out of the vehicle for their safety. In this particular instance, he wasn’t even involved until someone came to him and said, hey, that person was shoplifting. So can an accusation like that. Be grounds for probable cause to ask her to either get out of the vehicle or conduct any type of search to see if it’s true, whether or not she stole any of that liquor or whatever she was being accused of, because one could argue anyone could point a finger at anyone for any reason and make an accusation and get folks into trouble.

[MCG]

The first thing comes to mind is the ME. Too movement. Ohh. Yeah. That one personal accusation will lead to investigation, but I don’t think this is just a random person. This was a school employee accusing someone of stealing. It’s not like. A customer go up to the office and point to the office and say hey, that person just stole from that store. This was a store employee in uniform. I’m sure properly identified themselves to the officer and singular out as stealing. I’m no lawyer, so whatever that it would rise to the level of the officer now being able to search a vehicle. Uh, I guess.

[Jay]

Or search for person. Either one. Yep.

[MCG]

I guess if you have to ask me for betting person, I would say yes properly because it’s two employee accused her of stealing and since the accused of that the officer could say hey let me see if I find a liquor in the vehicle and if I find the liquor let me make sure that the receipt again you have a point. There’s a foot amendment issue here. Because, you know, stores like Walmart and stuff like that will have people to check your receipts and a lot of people believe that the violation of the 4th Amendment because. If you pay for that product and you’re walking out, it’s no longer belongs to Walmart, it belongs to you. So Walmart, can I check my personal property to see if I’m not stealing from that? But then we’re not talking about Walmart and being a customer or not. We’re talking about a police officer here. Yeah. So in terms of stopping the person, yes, I think.

[Jay]

See right.

[MCG]

Definitely the accusation from the store employee definitely would be enough probable cause to stop her and to at least investigate whatever enough evidence is searched. I guess we’ll have to ask the lawyer that I have. No. Why, dear? I would say yes, but I’m not 100% sure on that. I would also say this though, if the stolen goods were in Plainview. For me, the police officer can look into the vehicle and see the liquor on the floor. That’s why earlier I said, if it was in the trunk, but if you can look into the vehicle and see the actual product. You know, then it’s not a matter of whether or not he’s searching is whether or not, hey, you’re accused of stealing. I see some stuff here. Do you have a receipt for it? Because it’s not like they were in store bags or anything. So I do concede that there’s probably a Fourth Amendment violation here possible, but I think it comes down to this, just like I say, a regular person would have easily got out of the way. A regular person would have easily comply with the officer as the officer. These are what I bought. And here’s my receipt. Can I go?

[Jay]

Now here’s what I would say. To that right, that shouldn’t be grounds like someone shouldn’t have to die for something like this. They shouldn’t have to. But that’s not the argument here. The argument here is that the officer was in the right. To use deadly force because whether she meant to or not, her actions endangered his life and he was in no position to gauge what was going on in her heart, whether or not she meant to that vehicle was coming at him lifted him up off the ground. She was not obeying orders and. She was not complying and the vehicle was coming at him, so the people that are furious about this and that are demanding swift indictment and all these different. Things I personally think in this situation that they don’t have a leg to stand on because of how she used that vehicle to try and get away, she endangered that officers life and that’s why he opened fire.

[MCG]

We’ll pick up on that, but you’re listening to the remove and Barrett podcast we’re talking about Takaya Young, a soul for whom? Christ, I. We’ll be right back.

[Jay]

Hi, this is Jay. MCG and I would like for you to help us remove barriers by going to removingbarriers.net and subscribing to receive all things, removing barriers. If you’d like to take your efforts a bit further and help us keep the mics on, consider donating at removing barriers.net/donate. Removing Barriers, a clear view of the cross.

Thank you so much for listening to the Removing Barriers podcast. Make sure to rate US everywhere you listen to podcasts, including Spotify, Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, or Stitcher. Removing Barriers, a clear view of the cross.

OK, MCG, we discussed the circumstances surrounding the killing of Ta’kiya Young and whether or not the police had any other options. But there’s another glaring question here, particularly in light of the aftermath, the response that you get from people who are. Activists, whether lifelong or overnight or the circumstances of her death, racially motivated us some, would like to purport that they are.

[MCG]

No, could be the quick and easy answer. I don’t.

[Jay]

Well, right next.

[MCG]

I don’t think you know. It’s a shame that every time there’s a incident between a white person and a black person that it must be racially motivated. I’m going to go on a little bit of a roundabout way of answering this question, and this is no defense of so-called quote UN quote white people. But can they have a bad day? Can their wife argue with them just before they left the home and they in a bad mood and they cut you off in traffic not because you’re black, but because they are in a bad mood and don’t really care about anything else right now because their kids are misbehaving or something? Could it be that your personality, their personality, doesn’t really mesh too well? And they don’t really like you, and you don’t really like them. I’m just saying they’re human, just like everybody else. So why is it every time there’s an interaction between the two, it must be racism rather than just human dynamics, just like a black person or a black person may not like each other, just like a black person may cut off another black person in traffic, just like a black person. Another black person personality may not mesh. No, I don’t think it’s racially motivated. What motivated this was what we spoke about earlier. It was a lack of compliance. That’s the whole thing was motivated by a lack of compliance. And here are some benefits I will see to compliance, especially when it comes to law enforcement. Your interaction with law enforcement. I haven’t had any involuntary interaction with law enforcement in years. But here’s the thing, values of compliance. You will not have extra charges tacked on to the current potential charges that the police officers stop you for. You will live to fight another day or to fight the injustices in the Court of law not being shot by the police officer. It shows some level of civility and issue of respect for the rule of law and respect for. Again, the side of the road, which is where most people interacting with law enforcement is going to be, is not the place to plead your case. Guess you can ask the officer for leniency. I guess he can try to befriend the officer. Smooth. Talk to officers if he can get out. But at the end of the day, it’s not the place to argue and try to get out of the ticket and all that stuff. Remember the last time, many years ago, when I was pulled over, I tried to get out of the ticket because honestly, quite honestly, I don’t think I was speeding. I still hold to that to this day and I was right because the judge agreed with me. So technically I wasn’t speeding. But officer Smokey? Well, that’s not his name, but he pulled me over, accused me of speeding, and I took my ticket and I decided that I was going to go to court. Because I didn’t feel like I was speeding. No. What did you do to prepare to go to court? Well, I just said I’m gonna get a lawyer. I’m gonna represent myself. And what did they say? He who represents himself as a fool for a client? Well, yeah, that’s me. Anyway. I studied the merge lane. Because the merge lane on that particular Rd. was very, very short and it was a deep curve coming around, and you have a very short merge lane before you enter the main traffic. Quite honestly, it probably should be a healed day or something because it doesn’t make sense the way you have it. So I studied it and I tried to learn how long a merge lane should be at for safety and all that stuff, and I went to court and I present that to the judge. The judge in the buy it. But he let me go. And not only that, I didn’t ever pay a court fee. He dismissed the case. He dismissed the court fee. The only thing I forget to ask him for was that $5 I had to. Pay to park. So the only thing I had to pay was $5 to get out of the parking lot. But here’s my point. When I was standing there in the court, to my right was the police officer that pulled me over. We were on equal ground. I was talking to the judge he was talking to the judge. He no longer could say, hey, do this, do that? Do that. No, the judge is in charge. The judge is gonna bring down the judgement. The judge say, hey, I’m going to let him go. I’m going to dismiss the case. And the judge, did they never pay a court fee? Now I could have chosen to not to comply because up to this day and have been several years now, I still don’t feel like I was speeding. Maybe I was, but I don’t think I was. I think the person in front of me was speeding and the officer clocked him. I believe was me. Anyways, I digress. Only thing I’m saying is there’s some values in compliance. You don’t have extra charges. Tack on you leave to fight another day or to fight it in court. You know, being shot by the police officer, you’re showing some civility and ensure respect for the rule of law and the rule of authority. Now I look at many of these incidents. Let’s go through some of them. Eric Gardner, New York. When he said, I can’t breathe, could have been avoided by. Compliance San Jablan, Texas died in jail, reportedly by suicide, could have been. Prevented by compliance. Michael Brown, Ferguson, MO. Fight with a police officer could have been prevented by compliance. The police have just simply acting to get out of the road. Freddie Gray, Baltimore, resisting arrest, could have been prevented by compliance. Richard Brooks Atlanta fighting with police. Offers could have been prevented by compliance. George Floyd could have been prevented by compliance. Alton Sterling could have been prevented by compliance. Dante Wright could have been prevented by compliance. Now I’m not saying that all of these men and women were necessarily in the wrong. But when the officer is giving you a legal command, comply, and if you turn out not to be in the officer’s favor, Sue. That’s why I talk about creating some kind of fun earlier. So maybe you can support these people that say, hey, I don’t have any money to get a lawyer. This through. And the list goes on and on and on of these situations, that could have been prevented by compliance. So, you know, were the circumstances racially motivated? Absolutely not. It was lack of compliance motivated.

[Jay]

OK, so I think it’s clear from the body Cam footage. Of the police officers, but also the parking lot surveillance. Video that this was not racially motivated the only reason why anyone would even begin to insinuate that it is is because the climate of the country is such as you said, whenever you’re dealing with white and black individuals, even though we know biblically there is no such thing as white and black. But if we’re dealing with white police officers and black suspects, there’s always that question about the racial angle. I would not go so far as to say that the lack of compliance is the cause of her death here, because there are many ways to to engage in passive non compliance. She could have just said, you know, I’m not getting out of this car. You have nothing on me but then not. Move the car. I think the match that blew up the bomb, as it were, is her use of the vehicle and threatening the officers life. That’s what. That’s yeah. So there are ways to not comply and not get yourself killed, particularly when you’re talking about a group of people who for whatever.

[MCG]

Right.

[Jay]

Police them believe that the police have it out for them to harass them and to give them a hard time and I’m not sure if they believe this themselves and the mainstream media is just augmenting it, or if the mainstream media has convinced them that this is the case. I don’t know which one it is, but in any case, I don’t believe that this was racially motivated. But I do see how the events of the last two to three years have certainly created this impossible situation where when we have an interaction between white police officers and black people, there’s no other question brought into play here, which I think is unfortunate because. Now, truth is no longer the principal thing. Accountability is no longer the principal thing. Whether you’re holding the suspect accountable or the police officer accountable. Now it’s just was this race issue. Was it race, race, race, race, race. Forget about truth. Forget about accountability. Is it race, race, race, race, race. And so I hate to say this, but you called. Some of these lawyers, ambulance chasers in the sense that whenever there’s white on black police officer versus suspect, they’re always there ready to. But that’s because there’s a lot of money to be made. Yeah, police departments and political leaders in a town or in a city don’t want all of the headache and baggage that comes with being accused of racism in any way. They will bend the knee to the DE i.e. SG, Lowercase G, gods of the workforce. And of the culture and instead of pursuing truth, they’re more than happy to just say, yeah, we’re not racist here, take the money, go away. And so. People know this, and so they are more than willing to pursue legal action, even though there’s nothing there, case in point to Kaylan’s family, even after seeing the same grandmother that you mentioned, that had a restraining order against her. The same grandmother saw the footage and said that. Now that we’ve seen the footage, I’m paraphrasing here now that we’ve seen the food. I am convinced that her death was avoidable and I am calling for the swift. I can’t remember if she said indictment or arrest or prosecution of the police officer who shot the weapon. And I thought. What do you?

[Jay]

Say to that now she’s not wrong. Takaya’s death was absolutely prevent. Table had she simply complied or even participated in some passive aggressive sort of non compliance, but at the end of the day she chose to try and drive away. There was an officer in her way. She threatened his life with that moving vehicle. That is why she is not here today. Now many people will make the argument. Police officers are a little bit too jumpy, too jittery. There are many instances, they say, of officers being more than willing to shoot being trigger happy no matter what furtive gesture or gesture that they perceive to be a threat, whether it’s reaching for car keys, whether it’s reaching for a phone or something along those lines, they believe that officers are too trigger happy. Especially when it comes to black people. And so they’re saying for those reasons, even if the video is clear, that it wasn’t racially motivated, we can infer that on some level or another, it was racially motivated. My problem with that is now you’re pretending to know what state of mind the person was in when this was happening. You are purporting to say that you know that all of the circumstances that people had to figure out and split seconds when it was actually happening, you know what was really going on in that person’s thoughts. You really know what was going on in their hearts. If it came to racial stuff. You really know whether that police officer was racial or not, and that obviously is problematic because there’s no legal way right to tease that out. And so I touched on this before in light of all of this. The argument by some people who are obviously on the other side of this, that are against the police officer they’re asking, did he even have the legal or moral footing to shoot? We touched on this a little bit. We can see both sides, but what are your thoughts on that?

[MCG]

Well, legally, it’s clear, you know, again in situation like this, I put myself in. As the jury would I base under evidence, I know now be able to convict this officer of murder. No, I would not. Because as much as I said earlier that I believe he had the opportunity to get out of the way, that’s not the legal standard, you know? And the honest truth is, as you said, Takia was not shot because she stole liquor. That’s their argument being made on the Internet. Ohh, stealing liquor is not a death sentence. She was not shot because she stole. Liquor, right. She was not shot because she was black. She was not shot because she was female. She was not shot because she resisted arrest. Quite honestly, she was not shot because of lack of compliance, neither she was shot for one and one reason only. She used a deadly weapon against an officer, and the officer retaliated with deadly force and she died and a moving vehicle is a deadly weapon and the officer. Had a legal right, according to the black and White letter of the law, yes. The officer, in my opinion, is in legal standing.

[Jay]

About moral.

[MCG]

I think the black community and the allies we need to stop being intellectually dishonest, especially lawyers and the people of influence all over Internet. As I said, she was not shot because she stole liquor. Now you come to the marble part of it. The marble part of it has to ask the very same question we asked earlier. Could he have gotten out of the way? There’s this popular YouTuber by the name of John Carrier, and he teach people how to be vigilant and how to protect yourself in a. Transition environment and stuff like that and I don’t know this is originally from him or what, but he said that the two questions you should ask before you use a gun, maybe there’s more than two, but at least these are the two that I remember. He said. Must I shoot the person or can I shoot the person? So the can part is the legal part. The officer covered that clearly he can, and he had the legal authority to do it. Must he shoot? The person is now will be escalated above the law and take it now to the moral level. Must was this a must? Well, I must agree that. I’m not 100% convinced there was a must to shoot her because I felt like he could have gotten another way again Monday morning quarterback in. Split second decision. He did get hit. His feet did came off of the ground so legally fine. But morally, I think there’s an argument here that the officer could have gotten out of the way. But then that said. Very, very, very big acts of someone who’s been attacked with a deadly weapon. So morally I would say May. 5060 percent, 55% in tachia favor legally, 100% in the office of favor.

[Jay]

I think I would agree. So legally there’s back you 100%. I agree with that morally. Should he have fired? Like you said, it’s easy to be the Monday morning quarterback, the armchair quarterback. I’m trying to imagine what I would do if I were standing in front of a vehicle and someone were driving toward me. What I shoot, it seems a lot easier to just move out of the way because what I’m thinking of taking a shot. I’m thinking of having to draw the weapon and grip the weapon aim and take a shot. But then after you take the shot, then what? The person is incapacitated. The vehicle is now an unguided threat. It’s just meandering in a parking lot. Where people are on foot going to and from the grocery store. Is that the best option here? Probably not, because actually after he shot her, the vehicle did end up crashing into the side of the store, like on the sidewalk between the pillar and a building. It was, I believe, the pillar that stopped the vehicle. And then it just kind of nudged its way into the side of the building. So it was like a strip mall type of situation where you have a grocery store and then other stores next to it. In between the grocery store and the next store is where the vehicle. You know what, if there were children walking around, and now there’s this vehicle just kind of meandering around. No one’s able to stop it. Was it the best option to shoot her? I agree with you. Probably not. It would have been much simpler to get out of the way and perhaps pursue jump in your vehicle and pursue and then you could charge her. With attempted whatever attempted assault or assault with a deadly weapon. And later, but then that opens up a whole another can of worms, you know. But I would agree with you legally, no questions. There morally seems like it would have been a lot simpler to just move out of the way.

[MCG]

So no, that’s the fact that she was pregnant. Changed anything you just said.

[Jay]

It only changes what I just said in the sense of our reaction to it. So pregnant women are vulnerable group of the population. We move like Penguins. We’re very uneasy and. We can’t move about like we need to. We’re carrying the next generation. And so you’re in the fields. You know, this is a group of people that we are to protect and you think of your own mother and you think of your sister or whoever that you know might be pregnant, perhaps even your wife. So it tugs at the heartstrings. Pregnant people are vulnerable. So it makes for a fantastic. And not fantastic in a good way, of course, but it makes for a fantastic news story. People are going to care because she’s pregnant, and so it doesn’t change anything that I just said. But it changes some things because it makes more people. To care if more people care and if there are more eyeballs on the story, the fact that she’s black would also come to the forefront as well. And some people, for better or worse, just automatically, or perhaps tribally fall on one side or the other. And so the discussion is to be had there. I think the fact that she was pregnant doesn’t change anything. Except on that particular front, it makes people care more because pregnant people, children, the elderly, these are people that we, at least in this year, we still feel a need to protect and to care for. It breaks my heart. That the unborn child who was innocent and all of this has also paid for her bad decisions, and it seems like this child would have paid anyway. Now we don’t know who she was buying the liquor for, but I I would be hard pressed to say.

[MCG]

But she wasn’t buying the liquor.

[Jay]

Or exactly who you’re right. Who? She was stealing. Liquor for, but I suppose it’s not a stretch to assume that perhaps she was going to consume the liquor herself, and so this child was paying anyway, which is just a terrible and tragic situation all around. She was pregnant. The child has paid for her terrible decisions and her two small children have paid for her terrible decisions because now they don’t have a mother and that’s going to negatively affect them. So who do you think is to be blamed for her death? I just said that. Those children are either negatively affected or have died because of her decisions. I would probably say she’s responsible for her death, but we also said that the officer could have just moved out of the way. So who do you think? Is responsible for her death. Well, as.

[MCG]

Sad as this situation is ultimately. I have to say. Takaya is ultimately responsible for her death because it could have been avoided by compliance.

[Jay]

Let me pause you there for just a second. I just remembered this, and this might actually be something we are overlooking. This entire podcast when the police officer in the front of the vehicle was telling her to get out and and all that sort of thing. And just to get out of the. Vehicle according to his badge Cam. His weapon was a already drawn and B at the low, ready with his finger on the trigger already. Is it possible? That they could argue that Takaya felt some type of she felt threatened because of the weapon already drawn and already in a position to fire because he had his finger on the. Trigger and the use of her vehicle was justified, so in that particular instance, then the police officer would be responsible for her death because she was just responding in self-defense.

[MCG]

That’s a stretch. Firstly, I think his finger being on the trigger is poor trigger finger discipline. Of course, we know that your finger should be high along the slide until you’re ready to shoot. So it’s poor finger discipline and I mentioned.

[Jay]

As an officer, he should know that.

[MCG]

Well, I mentioned John career before he talk about all the time because he sometimes helped train police officer. Police officers don’t have that many hours of gun training, a lot of civilians that are really into guns have way more training than police officers. I don’t remember exactly how much they have to, but most of them don’t go through any more training besides the minimum that is required in the police Academy and at the time police officers and that gun. People, not all police officers, gun people. So yeah, you could argue that his finger should be on sugar, but that doesn’t change anything because firstly he was providing cover. Secondly, the car was moving forward so you can argue that the gun being out at the low ready was him trying to be a deterrent. But for her, obviously she was in fear of her life. But you can argue that he was in fear of his life too. So at the end of the day, I can’t see that they will find 12 reasonable people to say, hey, yes, officer, you were wrong in this situation. I will find it hard. We’ll find 12 people to agree on that unless they find 12. BLM people to put on the jury and say no, try this officer and then wouldn’t be a fear child and he’s probably get kicked out in the higher courts. So yeah, I guess if you wanna nitpick on his gun handling skills. Yeah. His finger was on Michigan when it shouldn’t be in Michigan. And stuff like that. Poor trigger, finger discipline and stuff like that. But I don’t think that changed anything to the fact that she’s ultimately responsible. But let’s face it, she appears to have had a rough life. I think her mother died like a year ago. And again, we said she was raised by her grandmother. She was 21 years old and she had a kid that is 6 years old now. I went to public school. But 21 -, 6, and then she had, and she had a three-year old, and she was pregnant with a third. So you know, someone needs to be in jail for a 15 year old to have a kid. So I don’t know. It seemed like she probably had a rough life. I don’t know if anyone is in jail because of that, but I guess my point here is that there was a series of failures.

[Jay]

Very young. She had kids very young.

[MCG]

That led up to this failure ultimate failure and is not.

[Jay]

And that seems to be the running theme with a lot of these situations that we’re discussing on the podcast.

[MCG]

Right. It’s not just what happened on August 24th of 2023. There’s a lot of things that led up to this, and I guess there a lot of people to blame here. You can. I get that her parents are to blame, her grandmother, who had protection order against her. But ultimately I would have to say Takaya made her bed and she had to. Lie in it.

[Jay]

She had to lie in it and you know, we talked about this when we were discussing Jordan Neely. Jordan neely. We only know about his life as it was crystallized in that subway car. But it was a series of failures, a series. These of just terrible situations that led to his death at that particular point, and I think the same thing is true here in Takaya Young’s. A sakaya young is a soul for whom Christ died, whether she had a rosy life and everyone in her life rooting for her success, or whether she had a rough life and was caught on surveillance stealing alcohol. She is still very much a soul for whom Christ died. So how should Christians be looking at this particular? Situation in light of the fact that Takaya Young was someone for whom Christ died.

[MCG]

You know in Luke Chapter 19 and verse 10, the Bible says for the fathers managed to come to seek and to save that which was lost. Of course we know John 316 for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. But here is the truth. All of us Techier has gone to face her maker and a sad situation, and the LED up to her death and all the circumstances in her life, and who may have failed her. She is. To face or maker, the Bible says in Hebrews, Chapter 9 verse 27 and as it is appointed unto man once to die. But after this the judgment, she will now be judge or receive her just judgment from the righteous judge it glasses 12 and verse 14 for God shall bring. Every work into judgement with every secret thing, would it be good or would it be evil? Romans 2 and verse 6 God will render to every man according to his deeds. Mighty 12 and verse 36. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. What I’m saying, friends. What I’m saying, listener, is that one day. You 2 will have the answer to the highest judge, the creator of the universe, Jehovah God. The question is, are you? Ready to meet him face to face? Takiya Young did not know that August 24th, 2023 was her last day. As I watched the video of her putting liquor into her handbags, the question dawned on me, I said. I wonder, how would her choices have been different if she knew that was her last day or her last few minutes to live? But you can be prepared for that, which is inevitable. Tackier did not get the opportunity to live to old age and died in her sleep, but you may not get that opportunity neither or you may. But whatever the case may be, whether you die young, you die old, you die. Middle Age death is inevitable. So how do you prepare to meet your God? First you must see yourself the way God sees you. As a sin. Owner in need of a savior. See yourself as a Sinner in need of a savior. The Bible declares in Romans 323 for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Romans 512 wherefore, as by one man Sin entered into the world and death by sin as the dead passed upon all men. But that all have thin Romans 310 as it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one. And even our righteousness the Bible declares in Isaiah 6446 are filthy rags. Not only are we sinners according to God’s word, but our sins has consequences. The Bible says in Romans 6 verse 23 for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life to Jesus Christ. Our Lord friends. Yes, they raised us in his death, but he didn’t leave us hopeless because the gift of God is eternal life to Jesus Christ. Lord, the Bible declares the Romans Chapter 5 and verse 8. But God commended his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. While we are filthy, while we were on lovely while we were not complying. Christ died for us. Jesus paid the debt that we could have never paid Jesus satisfied the father requirements the Bible declares in Isaiah 53, verse 11. Speaking of Jesus, he says he thus God the Father shall see the travail of his son. Thus Jesus and shall be satisfied and I’m going to see your travel. But you’re gonna see the travel of his son. And be satisfied and you can be saved when you place your faith in what Christ has done upon the cross for. You so then how can you escape this judgment? The Bible says in Romans, chapter 10, verse 9 to 13, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture said, whosoever believeth on him shall not be a shame, for there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek for the same Lord overall is which unto all that call upon. On him, or whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. And after you are saved, the Bible says in Romans 8 there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit, for the lovely spirit of Christ. Jesus had made me free. From the law of Finn and death, my admonishment meant to you if you have never made a decision for Jesus Christ, is that you will trust him before it is eternally too late. Will you trust him?

[Jay]

Today. Hey, thanks so much for listening to the Removing Barriers podcast. Yes. Did you know that you could find us on Twitter, Gab Parlor, Facebook and Reddit go to removingbarriers.net/contact and, like, and follow us on social media, removing barriers, a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

Thank you for listening. To get a hold of us to support this podcast or to learn more about removing barriers. Go to removingbarriers.net. This has been the removing barriers podcast. We attempted to remove barriers so that we all can have a clear view of the cross.