Anonymous wrote:This shows me that we need better screening of people that we allow to have law enforcement roles, and that we need better training for law enforcement.

It's astounding that after all that's happened, all of the LEO abuses, departments still haven't learned a damn thing.

You ever consider that the system is doing exactly as it was designed to do? Our police system was borne out of a desire to antagonize, terrorize, and control the Black population. That it continues to brutalized that population specifically should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cop: “get away.”
Lady: “get away from what?”
Cop: “get away from the hot steaming water.”
Lady: “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.”
Cop: “huh?”
Lady: “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.”
Cop: “you better not, I will shoot you in your mother f’n face.”
Lady: “ok, I’m sorry.”

I am sorry but you can’t not threaten to throw boiling water on someone as boiling water is in your hand. Yes, it was in her hand has she said it. She let go and hid as she said sorry. The cop gave multiple warnings. She continued on and took it as a joke. Now both of their lies are gone.

You clearly did not watch the video if that was your take! He's the one who told her to go near the water. He was about 10 feet away. Then he makes the comment, in a half-joking, half-condescending tone, about her throwing water and how she better not. That's why she said the Jesus comment, matching his tone. At no point was she a threat to the guy who was far away and if he still was so scared by hot water could have just backed a couple feet off! There was absolutely no justification to shoot. She was on the ground when he shot her and she could not have reached him with any hot water even if she tried (which she did not, she was saying sorry!)

The aftermath was telling. The other cop tries to help and he stops them. Then he lies when he reports to shooting and says that she came after him. She didn't move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The policeman who shot her is in jail without bail. Is there a purpose to your post?

I’d like to know how these clowns get hired as cops in the first place.

Hard to get good cops in a lot of places after all the attacks on cops.

He had been fired by 6 other police jurisdictions. What does that tell you?

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.

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?

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."

LIAR!
He told her to go turn it off.

I described what he should have done.

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.

Kitchens not lichens. In a car (passenger) texting.

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."

LIAR!
He told her to go turn it off.

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."

He had two DUIs and was still a cop. Wonder how many times his brothers in blue let him go without even a cite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cop: “get away.”
Lady: “get away from what?”
Cop: “get away from the hot steaming water.”
Lady: “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.”
Cop: “huh?”
Lady: “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.”
Cop: “you better not, I will shoot you in your mother f’n face.”
Lady: “ok, I’m sorry.”

I am sorry but you can’t not threaten to throw boiling water on someone as boiling water is in your hand. Yes, it was in her hand has she said it. She let go and hid as she said sorry. The cop gave multiple warnings. She continued on and took it as a joke. Now both of their lies are gone.

You must be a non-human bit!
Where did she threaten him?
WHERE ?
He effing told her to go to the kitchen !!!!
She was about to put out the water.
Do you know what the EFF rebuking is you #%^*** , it is not throwing!
You belong in jail with that murderous cop!

they said to turn off the water. Turning it off does not require you to remove the pot. Follow directions. She repeated twice that she would rebuke them while holding water. Back in the day, that means to throw water on a person to bring out their demons. She says that while holding boiling hot water.

It has never meant that you idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cop: “get away.”
Lady: “get away from what?”
Cop: “get away from the hot steaming water.”
Lady: “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.”
Cop: “huh?”
Lady: “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.”
Cop: “you better not, I will shoot you in your mother f’n face.”
Lady: “ok, I’m sorry.”

I am sorry but you can’t not threaten to throw boiling water on someone as boiling water is in your hand. Yes, it was in her hand has she said it. She let go and hid as she said sorry. The cop gave multiple warnings. She continued on and took it as a joke. Now both of their lies are gone.

You must be a non-human bit!
Where did she threaten him?
WHERE ?
He effing told her to go to the kitchen !!!!
She was about to put out the water.
Do you know what the EFF rebuking is you #%^*** , it is not throwing!
You belong in jail with that murderous cop!

they said to turn off the water. Turning it off does not require you to remove the pot. Follow directions. She repeated twice that she would rebuke them while holding water. Back in the day, that means to throw water on a person to bring out their demons. She says that while holding boiling hot water.

Anonymous wrote:Why was he indicted for 1st degree murder? It wasn’t premeditated. I’d understand 2nd degree. He did seem like a hothead and used nothing he learned at the academy. He didn’t attempt to de-escalate; he didn’t attempt to use less than lethal; there was a counter in between them (there was no imminent danger); and as a nice touch, he had a skull tattoo on his arm.

Illinois statute does not list premeditation as a requirement for 1st degree murder.


Sec. 9-1. First degree murder.

(a) A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:
(1) he or she either intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that individual or another; or

(2) he or she knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another; or

(3) he or she, acting alone or with one or more participants, commits or attempts to commit a forcible felony other than second degree murder, and in the course of or in furtherance of such crime or flight therefrom, he or she or another participant causes the death of a person.