Sonya Massey: Monday Release of Footage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On Monday, police will release the footage showing Sonya Massey being shot in the face by police after calling 911 for help.

In a political environment that is so polarized, how will our nation's politicians address this murder?

I think it is for our judicial system to address this murder. Not for politicians.

There should be legislation in place that problematic cops fired from one department, cannot be fired into another.

This would have prevented this murder.

+1

We need a healthy and safe police force that protects all of us. I’m White. I’ve never had to worry about calling the police and I say on every one of these threads that that should be a basic tenet of modern society, not a privilege. It’s pretty clear that some laws need to be passed around policing and that oversight needs to be moved from within the force to outside of it.

For example: the Washington Post ran an article a month or so ago about all the police officers who sexually abuse children who are entrusted to their care. It was disgusting. Read it and literally weep, so many children broken by officers in whom trust, whether implicit in the basic relationship between officer and citizens or explicit as in sometimes the police were supposed to be acting as mentors, had been placed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/police-officers-child-sexual-abuse-in-america/?itid=mr_1

Eh. I mean, I understand implicit bias—but I don’t think that’s as big of a thing as the media narrative makes it out to be. Like, being afraid of calling the police specifically because you’re black.

I’m white and I am somewhat wary of calling the police—because you never know what kind of officer you’re going to get. And there’s quite a bug culture of “shoot first ask questions later”. Pretty sure when they do police training they drill that into you by showing recruits the dashcam video of a deputy pulling someone over without drawing his gun and calmly engaging him, only to be shot and killed.

Being white doesn’t protect you; ask Christian Glass, Hunter Brittain, Justine Damond, etc.

I think there just needs to be a bigger change in police culture.

I agree that there needs to be a change in police culture, but I still think there is a far bigger problem for Black people than for White, and my Black neighbors definitely have had different experiences with the police than I have and a far different relationship to the police than I do.

But yes, the police force needs to be fixed. I don’t know if you nosed through the link about police officers sexual abusing/assaulting children in their care, but it’s not a limited problem and just like Catholic priests before them, many of them simply moved to make the problem “go away” in one location. There needs to be oversight. There needs to be way more training.

They get plenty of training. The problem is WHAT they're being trained to do, and who they're being trained to see an their enemy. We need to rethink what policing should be, and reframe it as community support. Make protect and serve actually mean something again, and stop training officers to treat the populations they are entrusted to protect as their enemy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On Monday, police will release the footage showing Sonya Massey being shot in the face by police after calling 911 for help.

In a political environment that is so polarized, how will our nation's politicians address this murder?

I think it is for our judicial system to address this murder. Not for politicians.

There should be legislation in place that problematic cops fired from one department, cannot be fired into another.

This would have prevented this murder.

+1

We need a healthy and safe police force that protects all of us. I’m White. I’ve never had to worry about calling the police and I say on every one of these threads that that should be a basic tenet of modern society, not a privilege. It’s pretty clear that some laws need to be passed around policing and that oversight needs to be moved from within the force to outside of it.

For example: the Washington Post ran an article a month or so ago about all the police officers who sexually abuse children who are entrusted to their care. It was disgusting. Read it and literally weep, so many children broken by officers in whom trust, whether implicit in the basic relationship between officer and citizens or explicit as in sometimes the police were supposed to be acting as mentors, had been placed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/police-officers-child-sexual-abuse-in-america/?itid=mr_1

Eh. I mean, I understand implicit bias—but I don’t think that’s as big of a thing as the media narrative makes it out to be. Like, being afraid of calling the police specifically because you’re black.

I’m white and I am somewhat wary of calling the police—because you never know what kind of officer you’re going to get. And there’s quite a bug culture of “shoot first ask questions later”. Pretty sure when they do police training they drill that into you by showing recruits the dashcam video of a deputy pulling someone over without drawing his gun and calmly engaging him, only to be shot and killed.

Being white doesn’t protect you; ask Christian Glass, Hunter Brittain, Justine Damond, etc.

I think there just needs to be a bigger change in police culture.

I agree that there needs to be a change in police culture, but I still think there is a far bigger problem for Black people than for White, and my Black neighbors definitely have had different experiences with the police than I have and a far different relationship to the police than I do.

But yes, the police force needs to be fixed. I don’t know if you nosed through the link about police officers sexual abusing/assaulting children in their care, but it’s not a limited problem and just like Catholic priests before them, many of them simply moved to make the problem “go away” in one location. There needs to be oversight. There needs to be way more training.

They get plenty of training. The problem is WHAT they're being trained to do, and who they're being trained to see an their enemy. We need to rethink what policing should be, and reframe it as community support. Make protect and serve actually mean something again, and stop training officers to treat the populations they are entrusted to protect as their enemy.

A lot of these people get trained by the IDF: https://www.amnestyusa.org/blog/with-whom-are-many-u-s-police-departments-training-with-a-chronic-human-rights-violator-israel/

That's a foreign military renowned for its human rights abuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the Supreme Court has given the police special “split second” rights it is entirely possible that the now-former police officer will be acquitted.

It doesn't fit this case at all.

Of course it does. The standard is not “reasonable person” but “reasonable police officer,” allowing an entirely different standard of (mis)behavior. The defendant will allege, and adduce experts to testify, that an experienced police officer reasonably would fear serious harm from an apparently mentally disturbed individual armed with a pot of boiling water. The second cop drew his gun. He can hardly say he disagrees with the claimed defense of the shooter. The alleged prior misconduct will doubtless be ruled inadmissible. Illinois doesn’t appear to have a duty to retreat even for non-police being forced from a place they have a lawful right to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the Supreme Court has given the police special “split second” rights it is entirely possible that the now-former police officer will be acquitted.

It doesn't fit this case at all.

Of course it does. The standard is not “reasonable person” but “reasonable police officer,” allowing an entirely different standard of (mis)behavior. The defendant will allege, and adduce experts to testify, that an experienced police officer reasonably would fear serious harm from an apparently mentally disturbed individual armed with a pot of boiling water. The second cop drew his gun. He can hardly say he disagrees with the claimed defense of the shooter. The alleged prior misconduct will doubtless be ruled inadmissible. Illinois doesn’t appear to have a duty to retreat even for non-police being forced from a place they have a lawful right to be.

I know what it is. No reasonable officer would have taken any of the actions he took. That man is going to jail. She was not a suspect. She was not agitated. She was sitting on her couch. He told her to go handle that hot water he then was so scared off, from too far a distance to be harmed by it. There was no threat, immediate or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how you said she took it as a joke. I don't know of the boiling water and her remark were related to mental health, although possibly. Odd they said they were worried about fire,it would take a long time for that pot to boil away and even then it would be a hot pot on the burner. As a sometimes absent minded cook I've burned enough rice or beans to know that. I am puzzled about first degree charges but don't know the criminal code specifically where this happened

Did you watch the video?

I did.
Cops usually prefer people to sit still and not move around. U of Chicago expert said they are trained to not send people into lichens where there are dangerous items. "Ma'am, you stay there on the couch, you gave a burner on, I am going to turn it off."

She was not a suspect she called because of a suspected intruder.

Has nothing to do with suspects vs non suspects. Cops want people to stay put, generally. I realize this was just one person vs several but principle still holds, especially because cops do not know when a non suspect might become a suspect. The u of Chicago guy who said police are trained to not let people go into kitchens had a point. Look, suppose there had been a gun or knife on the kitchen floor. Would the cop have told her to go put the gun or knife away? No? Then if cop thinks the pot of water is dangerous why send the civilian to deal with it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how you said she took it as a joke. I don't know of the boiling water and her remark were related to mental health, although possibly. Odd they said they were worried about fire,it would take a long time for that pot to boil away and even then it would be a hot pot on the burner. As a sometimes absent minded cook I've burned enough rice or beans to know that. I am puzzled about first degree charges but don't know the criminal code specifically where this happened

Did you watch the video?

I did.
Cops usually prefer people to sit still and not move around. U of Chicago expert said they are trained to not send people into lichens where there are dangerous items. "Ma'am, you stay there on the couch, you gave a burner on, I am going to turn it off."

She was not a suspect she called because of a suspected intruder.

Has nothing to do with suspects vs non suspects. Cops want people to stay put, generally. I realize this was just one person vs several but principle still holds, especially because cops do not know when a non suspect might become a suspect. The u of Chicago guy who said police are trained to not let people go into kitchens had a point. Look, suppose there had been a gun or knife on the kitchen floor. Would the cop have told her to go put the gun or knife away? No? Then if cop thinks the pot of water is dangerous why send the civilian to deal with it?

Exactly. Why tell someone to get the pot of boiling water and then shot them when they do?

[Anonymous]

I found out she was still alive when grayson said no point in rendering aid, although he did get his kit then.

I think basically a cop who did a shifty job of assessing and managing the situation he was called to, and the 3 f bombs when he threatened to shoot showed him to be someone with poor control of himself, which in a cop is inherently dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Shitty not shifty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the Supreme Court has given the police special “split second” rights it is entirely possible that the now-former police officer will be acquitted.

It doesn't fit this case at all.

Of course it does. The standard is not “reasonable person” but “reasonable police officer,” allowing an entirely different standard of (mis)behavior. The defendant will allege, and adduce experts to testify, that an experienced police officer reasonably would fear serious harm from an apparently mentally disturbed individual armed with a pot of boiling water. The second cop drew his gun. He can hardly say he disagrees with the claimed defense of the shooter. The alleged prior misconduct will doubtless be ruled inadmissible. Illinois doesn’t appear to have a duty to retreat even for non-police being forced from a place they have a lawful right to be.

The sheriff I think it was said he was like a cop who purposely steps infront of a living vehicle then shoots the driver because the vehicle is moving. The split second standard does not apply. It often allows police to shoot someone raising a phone or a screwdriver unexpectedly, but not thus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the Supreme Court has given the police special “split second” rights it is entirely possible that the now-former police officer will be acquitted.

It doesn't fit this case at all.

Of course it does. The standard is not “reasonable person” but “reasonable police officer,” allowing an entirely different standard of (mis)behavior. The defendant will allege, and adduce experts to testify, that an experienced police officer reasonably would fear serious harm from an apparently mentally disturbed individual armed with a pot of boiling water. The second cop drew his gun. He can hardly say he disagrees with the claimed defense of the shooter. The alleged prior misconduct will doubtless be ruled inadmissible. Illinois doesn’t appear to have a duty to retreat even for non-police being forced from a place they have a lawful right to be.

The sheriff I think it was said he was like a cop who purposely steps infront of a living vehicle then shoots the driver because the vehicle is moving. The split second standard does not apply. It often allows police to shoot someone raising a phone or a screwdriver unexpectedly, but not thus

What law school did the sheriff go to? The example is inapposite.

[Anonymous]

I’m confused about what actually happened in this video. It looked as though she ducked and apologized just before the officer started shooting, but after the shots were fired, they say something about water landing right at their feet. Did she actually throw the water?

[Anonymous]

It would have been helpful to be able to see the sequence of events from the shooter's body cam, but he didn't turn it on until after he shot her. How convenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused about what actually happened in this video. It looked as though she ducked and apologized just before the officer started shooting, but after the shots were fired, they say something about water landing right at their feet. Did she actually throw the water?

She didn't throw it. Bullets were flying. Probably hit the pot, as well as going through her head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On Monday, police will release the footage showing Sonya Massey being shot in the face by police after calling 911 for help.

In a political environment that is so polarized, how will our nation's politicians address this murder?

Be stoking the fires of racism and encouraging the democrats to riot and burn down cities again like they did in 2020.

The guy is in jail who did it, the justice system did its job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because the Supreme Court has given the police special “split second” rights it is entirely possible that the now-former police officer will be acquitted.

It doesn't fit this case at all.

Of course it does. The standard is not “reasonable person” but “reasonable police officer,” allowing an entirely different standard of (mis)behavior. The defendant will allege, and adduce experts to testify, that an experienced police officer reasonably would fear serious harm from an apparently mentally disturbed individual armed with a pot of boiling water. The second cop drew his gun. He can hardly say he disagrees with the claimed defense of the shooter. The alleged prior misconduct will doubtless be ruled inadmissible. Illinois doesn’t appear to have a duty to retreat even for non-police being forced from a place they have a lawful right to be.

Second officer drew his weapon because the first officer pulled his.
Too many other department’s washed their hands of this guy and this is how it ends.