User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/28/2024 9:21:29 AM EST
[#1]
Interview with Sonya Massey's Father
 One-on-one interview with Sonya Massey's Father |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2024 9:31:59 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: exigent, like on going criminal investigation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Making them legally leave is simple. You revoke consent for the entry. Unless there is an exigent circumstance or a warrant, the police legally must leave immediately, The problem is cops have zero problem violating the Bill of Rights and NOT leaving. That needs to be fixed. Shooting a cop unlawfully in your home should be no different than shooting a stranger unlawfully in your home. exigent, like on going criminal investigation. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2024 9:33:18 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bad shoot. A pot of boiling water has never killed anyone at 15 ft away. It's simply not a lethal threat. I agree with your post as a whole. But just as a sticking point, the threat doesn’t have to be only lethal. Deadly force can be used to stop great/serious bodily harm (rape, kidnapping etc) in some states (probably all states) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2024 9:45:32 AM EST
[#4]
Seems like she was menacing and threatening the police by saying she rebuked them and by grabbing the pot. However, they should have never been in the house in the first place and the officer was being a gigantic dick. Also, it was stupid for them to get nearer to her when they drew their guns. I'm thinking bad shoot due to how the officers' handled the situation but not second degree murder worthy. More like manslaughter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2024 9:54:04 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems like she was menacing and threatening the police by saying she rebuked them and by grabbing the pot. However, they should have never been in the house in the first place and the officer was being a gigantic dick. Also, it was stupid for them to get nearer to her when they drew their guns. I'm thinking bad shoot due to how the officers' handled the situation but not second degree murder worthy. More like manslaughter. lol, 2 more pages at least. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 1:17:54 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So if a cop doesn't know a word someone uses it's reasonable to assume it's a threat and point their gun at their head then shoot them?  Quote HistoryQuoted: By admitting that a well educated lawyer doesn't understand the word he adds reasonableness to the deputy's response to the word. It increases the possibility that the officer misunderstood or misinterpreted it not that I meant it's okay to draw over an unknown word. Yeesh. Quoted: Holy shit. The deliberate avoiding of the obvious is obnoxious beyond belief. ETA: TWO posters with the same retarded response not just the one I noticed at first. Quoted: It’s reasonable to threaten deadly force if you don’t know what a word means? The reasonable officer standard ladies and gentlemen. ETA: Make that THREE: Quoted: Yep, defending shit like this is testament of what that person expects in their own future, the display is wishful in the thinking that there will be someone like them that will make an attempt to justify bad behavior. Bringing in ad hominem attacks that the family didn't care , why should you , please defend me ,I'm a cop. Proves how far some will go , as well as there state of mind. Callous disregard for life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 3:43:29 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most here will mock this but part of me believes it. I've seen enough to know the devil is real. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Demons hate that name and react with violence Most here will mock this but part of me believes it. I've seen enough to know the devil is real. Indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 3:46:31 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree with your post as a whole. But just as a sticking point, the threat doesn't have to be only lethal. Deadly force can be used to stop great/serious bodily harm (rape, kidnapping etc) in some states (probably all states) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Bad shoot. A pot of boiling water has never killed anyone at 15 ft away. It's simply not a lethal threat. I agree with your post as a whole. But just as a sticking point, the threat doesn't have to be only lethal. Deadly force can be used to stop great/serious bodily harm (rape, kidnapping etc) in some states (probably all states) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 7:17:59 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's retarded. It increases the possibility that the officer misunderstood or misinterpreted it not that I meant it's okay to draw over an unknown word. Yeesh. +1 The deliberate avoiding of the obvious is obnoxious beyond belief. ETA: TWO posters with the same retarded response not just the one I noticed at first. ETA: Make that THREE: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: By admitting that a well educated lawyer doesn't understand the word he adds reasonableness to the deputy's response to the word. It increases the possibility that the officer misunderstood or misinterpreted it not that I meant it's okay to draw over an unknown word. Yeesh. Quoted: Holy shit. The deliberate avoiding of the obvious is obnoxious beyond belief. ETA: TWO posters with the same retarded response not just the one I noticed at first. Quoted: It’s reasonable to threaten deadly force if you don’t know what a word means? The reasonable officer standard ladies and gentlemen. ETA: Make that THREE: Quoted: Yep, defending shit like this is testament of what that person expects in their own future, the display is wishful in the thinking that there will be someone like them that will make an attempt to justify bad behavior. Bringing in ad hominem attacks that the family didn't care , why should you , please defend me ,I'm a cop. Proves how far some will go , as well as there state of mind. Callous disregard for life. It’s weird that multiple people misunderstood what you said. I’m sure it has little to do with you saying “he adds reasonableness to the deputy's response to the word” when you really meant “It increases the possibility that the officer misunderstood or misinterpreted it”. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 7:55:25 AM EST
[#10]
It was said she didn't even have the pot in her hands when he fired. Is that right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 7:57:30 AM EST
[#11]
So the elephant in the room is that the ethnicities aligned to the point of legal action.
Had it been reversed? No political axe to grind. We all know the answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 8:03:37 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So the elephant in the room is that the ethnicities aligned to the point of legal action. Had it been reversed? No political axe to grind. We all know the answer. Yet when examining that video the shooting appears to 1st degree murder. So is what you are saying really all that much better? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 8:05:25 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was said she didn't even have the pot in her hands when he fired. Is that right? That’s definitely been said. No that’s not what happened. Deputy fired after she already started the throw. You can see the water hit the ground at their feet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 8:09:17 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was said she didn't even have the pot in her hands when he fired. Is that right? It was flung at them. I'm leaning towards the situation created by the cops being bad but I'm also questioning all these assertions that boiling water is harmless at 'X' feet. On what basis has this been determined? I do know that water at around 200F is pretty much an instantaneous burn anywhere it touches and it's going to be quite severe anywhere its in clothing and stays in contact for several seconds. I'm sure as shit not volunteering to let someone throw water off the stove at me across my kitchen. That makes contact over a large patch of body and the results will be life altering. I'm also not on board with 1st degree murder here, it's completely inappropriate even if the shooting is not justified. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 8:10:33 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yet when examining that video the shooting appears to 1st degree murder. So is what you are saying really all that much better? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So the elephant in the room is that the ethnicities aligned to the point of legal action. Had it been reversed? No political axe to grind. We all know the answer. Yet when examining that video the shooting appears to 1st degree murder. So is what you are saying really all that much better? Let me spell out the obvious: if the shooter (i.e. official) had been the black lady and the victim a white male, no charges would have been filed. I am not commenting on the validity of the charges but just on the political climate. I am not defending anyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 8:17:57 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was flung at them. I'm leaning towards the situation created by the cops being bad but I'm also questioning all these assertions that boiling water is harmless at 'X' feet. On what basis has this been determined? I do know that water at around 200F is pretty much an instantaneous burn anywhere it touches and it's going to be quite severe anywhere its in clothing and stays in contact for several seconds. I'm sure as shit not volunteering to let someone throw water off the stove at me across my kitchen. That makes contact over a large patch of body and the results will be life altering. I'm also not on board with 1st degree murder here, it's completely inappropriate even if the shooting is not justified. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It was said she didn't even have the pot in her hands when he fired. Is that right? It was flung at them. I'm leaning towards the situation created by the cops being bad but I'm also questioning all these assertions that boiling water is harmless at 'X' feet. On what basis has this been determined? I do know that water at around 200F is pretty much an instantaneous burn anywhere it touches and it's going to be quite severe anywhere its in clothing and stays in contact for several seconds. I'm sure as shit not volunteering to let someone throw water off the stove at me across my kitchen. That makes contact over a large patch of body and the results will be life altering. I'm also not on board with 1st degree murder here, it's completely inappropriate even if the shooting is not justified. From my perspective it doesn't matter. After the officer threatened her with illegal lethal force then she would have been within her right to remove his head with a shotgun, although it would have obviously been tactically unwise. The officer created this entire situation through his unlawful thread of lethal force and put her in a fight or flight response to which the confused lady responded poorly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 8:18:33 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let me spell out the obvious: if the shooter had been black lady and the victim a white male, no charges would have been filed.asd I am not commenting on the validity of the charges but just on the political climate. I am not defending anyone. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So the elephant in the room is that the ethnicities aligned to the point of legal action. Had it been reversed? No political axe to grind. We all know the answer. Yet when examining that video the shooting appears to 1st degree murder. So is what you are saying really all that much better? Let me spell out the obvious: if the shooter had been black lady and the victim a white male, no charges would have been filed.asd I am not commenting on the validity of the charges but just on the political climate. I am not defending anyone. That's your opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 8:32:38 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From my perspective it doesn't matter. After the officer threatened her with illegal lethal force then she would have been within her right to remove his head with a shotgun, although it would have obviously been tactically unwise. The officer created this entire situation through his unlawful thread of lethal force and put her in a fight or flight response to which the confused lady responded poorly. I don't share your perspective. They were called to investigate a possible intruder. There is a vehicle with busted out windows in the driveway. They try to figure out who it is they are talking to while in the home. Later they ask her to turn off the flame on the stove while she is hunting for ID. Instead she picks up a pot of boiling water and makes a crazy statement that could be taken as a threat and only then is the threat to shoot made. She has means to do remote harm, is told to drop that means, and then moments later decides to hurl it at the officers. I sure as hell do not see a 1st degree murder charge here. As I said I'm not ready to say it was a 'good shoot' but this is a Ben Crump case and the assertions being made are predictably absurd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 8:32:38 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From my perspective it doesn't matter. After the officer threatened her with illegal lethal force then she would have been within her right to remove his head with a shotgun, although it would have obviously been tactically unwise. The officer created this entire situation through his unlawful thread of lethal force and put her in a fight or flight response to which the confused lady responded poorly. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: It was said she didn't even have the pot in her hands when he fired. Is that right? It was flung at them. I'm leaning towards the situation created by the cops being bad but I'm also questioning all these assertions that boiling water is harmless at 'X' feet. On what basis has this been determined? I do know that water at around 200F is pretty much an instantaneous burn anywhere it touches and it's going to be quite severe anywhere its in clothing and stays in contact for several seconds. I'm sure as shit not volunteering to let someone throw water off the stove at me across my kitchen. That makes contact over a large patch of body and the results will be life altering. I'm also not on board with 1st degree murder here, it's completely inappropriate even if the shooting is not justified. From my perspective it doesn't matter. After the officer threatened her with illegal lethal force then she would have been within her right to remove his head with a shotgun, although it would have obviously been tactically unwise. The officer created this entire situation through his unlawful thread of lethal force and put her in a fight or flight response to which the confused lady responded poorly. Do not let the fact that the officer told her to move the pot of water to avoid a fire be forgotten. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 8:42:14 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't share your perspective. They were called to investigate a possible intruder. There is a vehicle with busted out windows in the driveway. They try to figure out who it is they are talking to while in the home. Later they ask her to turn off the flame on the stove while she is hunting for ID. Instead she picks up a pot of boiling water and makes a crazy statement that could be taken as a threat and only then is the threat to shoot made. She has means to do remote harm, is told to drop that means, and then moments later decides to hurl it at the officers. I sure as hell do not see a 1st degree murder charge here. As I said I'm not ready to say it was a 'good shoot' but this is a Ben Crump case and the assertions being made are predictably absurd. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: From my perspective it doesn't matter. After the officer threatened her with illegal lethal force then she would have been within her right to remove his head with a shotgun, although it would have obviously been tactically unwise. The officer created this entire situation through his unlawful thread of lethal force and put her in a fight or flight response to which the confused lady responded poorly. I don't share your perspective. They were called to investigate a possible intruder. There is a vehicle with busted out windows in the driveway. They try to figure out who it is they are talking to while in the home. Later they ask her to turn off the flame on the stove while she is hunting for ID. Instead she picks up a pot of boiling water and makes a crazy statement that could be taken as a threat and only then is the threat to shoot made. She has means to do remote harm, is told to drop that means, and then moments later decides to hurl it at the officers. I sure as hell do not see a 1st degree murder charge here. As I said I'm not ready to say it was a 'good shoot' but this is a Ben Crump case and the assertions being made are predictably absurd. Since the words we use matter: Prowler: outside the home Intruder: inside the house From what I recall they went inside the house after they determined there was no prowler. Grayson followed her into the house for a welfare check after she seemed confused about the car in the driveway. Somewhere there should have been a radio transmission of: "Clear us No Report off this call and put us out at the same address on a welfare check". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 8:46:27 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't share your perspective. They were called to investigate a possible intruder. There is a vehicle with busted out windows in the driveway. They try to figure out who it is they are talking to while in the home. Later they ask her to turn off the flame on the stove while she is hunting for ID. Instead she picks up a pot of boiling water and makes a crazy statement that could be taken as a threat and only then is the threat to shoot made. She has means to do remote harm, is told to drop that means, and then moments later decides to hurl it at the officers. I sure as hell do not see a 1st degree murder charge here. As I said I'm not ready to say it was a 'good shoot' but this is a Ben Crump case and the assertions being made are predictably absurd. I get that they got into the "we need to get ID" loop. I sure hope that ID card is worth the officer defending his freedom in court. Why they didn't just go back in service after verifying there was no prowler is a damn mystery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 8:52:46 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s definitely been said. No that’s not what happened. Deputy fired after she already started the throw. You can see the water hit the ground at their feet. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It was said she didn't even have the pot in her hands when he fired. Is that right? That’s definitely been said. No that’s not what happened. Deputy fired after she already started the throw. You can see the water hit the ground at their feet. How many skin gradts did the deputies need? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 9:10:47 AM EST
[#23]
'I rebuke you in the name of Jesus' then starting to throw boiling water at the cop - anything can be a lethal weapon, and a weapon is not even required for a policeman to shoot, such as being attacked by a number of assailants, etc. In this case, the boiling water was definitely a weapon which she brandished and made motions as to deploy. I look at it as another case of 'mental health crisis'. I believe the policeman will be exonerated. Don't forget, she called the police because of an intruder. When the police arrive, they must quickly determine who is the resident and who is the intruder - this is usually done with guns drawn because the whole thing could be an ambush set-up. Anybody not following police orders at that time could be putting themselves in danger, especially when they threaten officers with anything potentially harmful.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 9:14:13 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's your opinion. substantiated by decades of data. all these charges are almost always politically motivated. The Floyd incident, Rodney King, etc. I am not saying they were, or wheren't guilty, just making an observation. A white dude gets no political leverage and is a non-issue. This will become big national issue, CNN material, to milk all they can out of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 9:14:18 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do not let the fact that the officer told her to move the pot of water to avoid a fire be forgotten. this too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 9:22:27 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 'I rebuke you in the name of Jesus' then starting to throw boiling water at the cop - anything can be a lethal weapon, and a weapon is not even required for a policeman to shoot, such as being attacked by a number of assailants, etc. In this case, the boiling water was definitely a weapon which she brandished and made motions as to deploy. I look at it as another case of 'mental health crisis'. I believe the policeman will be exonerated. Don't forget, she called the police because of an intruder. When the police arrive, they must quickly determine who is the resident and who is the intruder - this is usually done with guns drawn because the whole thing could be an ambush set-up. Anybody not following police orders at that time could be putting themselves in danger, especially when they threaten officers with anything potentially harmful. I guess you did not watch the video. They were there for a prowler. They had already cleared the area and were making contact with the caller. There was never any discussion of an intruder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 9:41:27 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Since the words we use matter: Prowler: outside the home Intruder: inside the house From what I recall they went inside the house after they determined there was no prowler. Grayson followed her into the house for a welfare check after she seemed confused about the car in the driveway. Somewhere there should have been a radio transmission of: "Clear us No Report off this call and put us out at the same address on a welfare check". I don't know what she called in specifically or exactly what the 911 call relayed but fair enough... prowler does imply someone outside. It still makes sense to me to know who it is for certain that you are speaking to when you have been dispatched somewhere under these circumstances and details like who's car is that out there and when were the windows broken on it. Stuff like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 9:42:45 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many skin gradts did the deputies need? So unless bullets hit you they aren't a problem? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 9:44:26 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: substantiated by decades of data. all these charges are almost always politically motivated. The Floyd incident, Rodney King, etc. I am not saying they were, or wheren't guilty, just making an observation. A white dude gets no political leverage and is a non-issue. This will become big national issue, CNN material, to milk all they can out of it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's your opinion. substantiated by decades of data. all these charges are almost always politically motivated. The Floyd incident, Rodney King, etc. I am not saying they were, or wheren't guilty, just making an observation. A white dude gets no political leverage and is a non-issue. This will become big national issue, CNN material, to milk all they can out of it. Agreed, if the colors were reversed it wouldn’t be murder one but still would be a bad shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 9:49:34 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I get that they got into the "we need to get ID" loop. I sure hope that ID card is worth the officer defending his freedom in court. Why they didn't just go back in service after verifying there was no prowler is a damn mystery. Probably not. I'm sure Mr Skull tats wishes he wasn't one now and probably didn't need to be one at all. However I don't see it the way some are arguing it. They were allowed inside while she looked for ID (if they REALLY needed it I don't know). They asked her to turn off the stove. She picked up a pot of liquid that had been on the stove and then with it in hand made a rather odd and potentially threatening statement which would certainly put me on edge were I seeing it. It all goes sideways after that because she's not all there and they get locked into 'threat' mode. I don't see anything there that looks like police barged into her home and executed her for no reason or with malice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 9:50:26 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 'I rebuke you in the name of Jesus' then starting to throw boiling water at the cop - anything can be a lethal weapon, and a weapon is not even required for a policeman to shoot, such as being attacked by a number of assailants, etc. In this case, the boiling water was definitely a weapon which she brandished and made motions as to deploy. I look at it as another case of 'mental health crisis'. I believe the policeman will be exonerated. Don't forget, she called the police because of an intruder. When the police arrive, they must quickly determine who is the resident and who is the intruder - this is usually done with guns drawn because the whole thing could be an ambush set-up. Anybody not following police orders at that time could be putting themselves in danger, especially when they threaten officers with anything potentially harmful. And the officer pointed a gun at her head and threatened to shoot her in the heard before she touched the pot. There was a mental health crisis and it was the cop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 9:52:36 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Probably not. I'm sure Mr Skull tats wishes he wasn't one now and probably didn't need to be one at all. However I don't see it the way some are arguing it. They were allowed inside while she looked for ID (if they REALLY needed it I don't know). They asked her to turn off the stove. She picked up a pot of liquid that had been on the stove and then with it in hand made a rather odd and potentially threatening statement which would certainly put me on edge were I seeing it. It all goes sideways after that because she's not all there and they get locked into 'threat' mode. I don't see anything there that looks like police barged into her home and executed her for no reason or with malice. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I get that they got into the "we need to get ID" loop. I sure hope that ID card is worth the officer defending his freedom in court. Why they didn't just go back in service after verifying there was no prowler is a damn mystery. Probably not. I'm sure Mr Skull tats wishes he wasn't one now and probably didn't need to be one at all. However I don't see it the way some are arguing it. They were allowed inside while she looked for ID (if they REALLY needed it I don't know). They asked her to turn off the stove. She picked up a pot of liquid that had been on the stove and then with it in hand made a rather odd and potentially threatening statement which would certainly put me on edge were I seeing it. It all goes sideways after that because she's not all there and they get locked into 'threat' mode. I don't see anything there that looks like police barged into her home and executed her for no reason or with malice. Dud she invite the cops in or did they have an exception to the warrant requirement? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 9:54:26 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No she didn't. They should have left once they cleared the area and were standing awkwardly on the front porch. Did you even watch the video? Fucking sad that the front porch conversation was seconds away from ending and the police leaving when the shooter cop mentally circled back and ask about the car in the driveway. He goes into investigation mode and escalates the rest of the encounter. He does start to come off in that moment as a cop that is going to find something to hang on her too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 9:56:30 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dud she invite the cops in or did they have an exception to the warrant requirement? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I get that they got into the "we need to get ID" loop. I sure hope that ID card is worth the officer defending his freedom in court. Why they didn't just go back in service after verifying there was no prowler is a damn mystery. Probably not. I'm sure Mr Skull tats wishes he wasn't one now and probably didn't need to be one at all. However I don't see it the way some are arguing it. They were allowed inside while she looked for ID (if they REALLY needed it I don't know). They asked her to turn off the stove. She picked up a pot of liquid that had been on the stove and then with it in hand made a rather odd and potentially threatening statement which would certainly put me on edge were I seeing it. It all goes sideways after that because she's not all there and they get locked into 'threat' mode. I don't see anything there that looks like police barged into her home and executed her for no reason or with malice. Dud she invite the cops in or did they have an exception to the warrant requirement? The bodycam doesn't show because the shooter hadn't yet turned his on. When the non shooter cop walked in the house, the shooter was already in there, "asking" Massey for her ID. Which she had no obligation to give to him, as he had no legal right to be in her house except with her invitation. He never should have gone in that house. But he just couldn't help himself. Had to have that ID crack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 9:58:45 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dud she invite the cops in or did they have an exception to the warrant requirement? Well, the video I have seen doesn't really show that interaction directly from skimming through the body cam segments minus the commentary. It did not look like they forced themselves in. I don't think she said "please come inside" but it doesn't look she refused if she was asked either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:07:47 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fucking sad that the front porch conversation was seconds away from ending and the police leaving when the shooter cop mentally circled back and ask about the car in the driveway. He goes into investigation mode and escalates the rest of the encounter. He does start to come off in that moment as a cop that is going to find something to hang on her too. Yeah, something about the car made him decide to keep pressing it sadly. The water thing is certainly odd the way it all goes down and his response seems over-amped. Probably would have gone differently too if she had just turned off the stove and left the pot alone. I don't hear them tell her to move the pot as some comments are saying. I do think the cop went over-the top in his response. He felt the lady was 'off' and went to 11 on the dial over her being weird while holding the pot of hot water. I'm only stating that I don't see this as 1st degree murder. There were circumstances that led to the cop's reaction. He was not there to kill him someone that night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:08:49 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the officer pointed a gun at her head and threatened to shoot her in the heard before she touched the pot. That's completely false. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:09:14 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, the video I have seen doesn't really show that interaction directly from skimming through the body cam segments minus the commentary. It did not look like they forced themselves in. I don't think she said "please come inside" but it doesn't look she refused if she was asked either. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Dud she invite the cops in or did they have an exception to the warrant requirement? Well, the video I have seen doesn't really show that interaction directly from skimming through the body cam segments minus the commentary. It did not look like they forced themselves in. I don't think she said "please come inside" but it doesn't look she refused if she was asked either. Shame that the shooter didn't turn on his body camera sooner. And I don't think the standard for consent is "didn't refuse". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:16:41 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shame that the shooter didn't turn on his body camera sooner. And I don't think the standard for consent is "didn't refuse". Again, I can't hear the interaction so I can't refute or assert anything about it. Sure there are times when non-verbal response indicates a response. Can I look inside here, and you open the 'here' would imply I can. Lets step inside - and you open the door would imply we may step inside. I can't say that they absolutely did those things but experience with them says most times they ask because most times people agree and then that short-circuits all the tests so my gut says he asked to step inside and she let him or the interaction we do hear would likely be different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:18:15 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, something about the car made him decide to keep pressing it sadly. The water thing is certainly odd the way it all goes down and his response seems over-amped. Probably would have gone differently too if she had just turned off the stove and left the pot alone. I don't hear them tell her to move the pot as some comments are saying. I do think the cop went over-the top in his response. He felt the lady was 'off' and went to 11 on the dial over her being weird while holding the pot of hot water. I'm only stating that I don't see this as 1st degree murder. There were circumstances that led to the cop's reaction. He was not there to kill him someone that night. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Fucking sad that the front porch conversation was seconds away from ending and the police leaving when the shooter cop mentally circled back and ask about the car in the driveway. He goes into investigation mode and escalates the rest of the encounter. He does start to come off in that moment as a cop that is going to find something to hang on her too. Yeah, something about the car made him decide to keep pressing it sadly. The water thing is certainly odd the way it all goes down and his response seems over-amped. Probably would have gone differently too if she had just turned off the stove and left the pot alone. I don't hear them tell her to move the pot as some comments are saying. I do think the cop went over-the top in his response. He felt the lady was 'off' and went to 11 on the dial over her being weird while holding the pot of hot water. I'm only stating that I don't see this as 1st degree murder. There were circumstances that led to the cop's reaction. He was not there to kill him someone that night. Prosecutors love to say (to Jurys) "premeditation can be formed in an instant," when trying to convict non LEOS of first degree murder. I also don't agree that he should be convicted of first degree murder though. And these things don't happen in a vacuum. This guy was trained to be this jumpy. Just like the acorn cop, and many, many others. They shouldn't be able to just throw these cops under the bus as if they didn't create them in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:20:56 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s definitely been said. No that’s not what happened. Deputy fired after she already started the throw. You can see the water hit the ground at their feet. You can see the very small amount of water that was in the pot hit the ground several feet away from where they were standing. The jury will have the last say |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:30:02 AM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's completely false. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And the officer pointed a gun at her head and threatened to shoot her in the heard before she touched the pot. That's completely false. First the shooter puts his hand on his gun and says "you better fucking not - I'll shoot you in the fucking face." That's as she removed the pot from the heat and is looking over her left shoulder at the cops, having just said "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus." So, "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus." "You better fucking not - I'll shoot you in the fucking face." (hand on gun) Her hands then go up and she says I'm sorry. Then ducks down. (Pot no longer in her hands after he threatened to shoot her in the face). Then they yell drop the pot repeatedly, while she's not holding the pot, as she's ducked down. Then she reaches up and grabs the pot and dumps/throws, as she gets shot in the face. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:31:16 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Prosecutors love to say (to Jurys) "premeditation can be formed in an instant," when trying to convict non LEOS of first degree murder. I also don't agree that he should be convicted of first degree murder though. And these things don't happen in a vacuum. This guy was trained to be this jumpy. Just like the acorn cop, and many, many others. They shouldn't be able to just throw these cops under the bus as if they didn't create them in the first place. Yeah I know, and while I agree with them, that's a limited circumstance. Like say an argument about something that will be damaging to you personally and you decide that rather than that happen you will just kill this asshole and be done with it right there in the moment. They naturally try to stretch it to fit when they want to and juries sometimes buy it too. This case just isn't it. He does overreact to a circumstance and seems to perceive it as more of a threat than I think it really is but the circumstance was there and it is why he fired. Not simply to kill this woman for 'rebuking' him... as odd as that statement was. I agree on your second point completely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:34:23 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: First the shooter puts his hand on his gun and says "you better fucking not - I'll shoot you in the fucking face." That's as she removed the pot from the heat and is looking over her left shoulder at the cops, having just said "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus." So, "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus." "You better fucking not - I'll shoot you in the fucking face." (hand on gun) Her hands then go up and she says I'm sorry. Then ducks down. (Pot no longer in her hands after he threatened to shoot her in the face). Then they yell drop the pot repeatedly, while she's not holding the pot, as she's ducked down. Then she reaches up and grabs the pot and dumps/throws, as she gets shot in the face. I'll watch again but I don't see her hands or the pot in the 2nd cam as he draws. Her hands are behind something else. She absolutely touched the pot and brought it over to the sink before the draw and it's clear the heated contents of the pot is the concern... at least that seems clear to me. ETA: At 10:58, his gun is drawn and her hand are up with the hot mitt she was just using to hold the pot, I can't see well enough to see if she has it still or just released it right then. I have seen video of her throwing it however so she obviously had it between the drawing and the shooting. Is there a good, non-cut video of that whole sequence. Start to finish, no jump edits? My suspicion is he saw the object in her hand as "the pot" when it may just be the mitt she was holding with the pot moments earlier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:43:41 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah I know, and while I agree with them, that's a limited circumstance. Like say an argument about something that will be damaging to you personally and you decide that rather than that happen you will just kill this asshole and be done with it right there in the moment. They naturally try to stretch it to fit when they want to and juries sometimes buy it too. This case just isn't it. He does overreact to a circumstance and seems to perceive it as more of a threat than I think it really is but the circumstance was there and it is why he fired. Not simply to kill this woman for 'rebuking' him... as odd as that statement was. I agree on your second point completely. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Prosecutors love to say (to Jurys) "premeditation can be formed in an instant," when trying to convict non LEOS of first degree murder. I also don't agree that he should be convicted of first degree murder though. And these things don't happen in a vacuum. This guy was trained to be this jumpy. Just like the acorn cop, and many, many others. They shouldn't be able to just throw these cops under the bus as if they didn't create them in the first place. Yeah I know, and while I agree with them, that's a limited circumstance. Like say an argument about something that will be damaging to you personally and you decide that rather than that happen you will just kill this asshole and be done with it right there in the moment. They naturally try to stretch it to fit when they want to and juries sometimes buy it too. This case just isn't it. He does overreact to a circumstance and seems to perceive it as more of a threat than I think it really is but the circumstance was there and it is why he fired. Not simply to kill this woman for 'rebuking' him... as odd as that statement was. I agree on your second point completely. Yelling "I'll shoot you in the fucking face." then shooting her in the fucking face certainly looks bad from a premeditation perspective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:46:03 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll watch again but I don't see her hands or the pot in the 2nd cam as he draws. Her hands are behind something else. She absolutely touched the pot and brought it over to the sink before the draw and it's clear the heated contents of the pot is the concern... at least that seems clear to me. ETA: At 10:58, his gun is drawn and her hand are up with the hot mitt she was just using to hold the pot, I can't see well enough to see if she has it still or just released it right then. I have seen video of her throwing it however so she obviously had it between the drawing and the shooting. Is there a good, non-cut video of that whole sequence. Start to finish, no jump edits? My suspicion is he saw the object in her hand as "the pot" when it may just be the mitt she was holding with the pot moments earlier. It's on his blog: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:49:22 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yelling "I'll shoot you in the fucking face." then shooting her in the fucking face certainly looks bad from a premeditation perspective. Yeah. I think, based on the situation he's responding to her holding the pot of hot water and warning her not to use it (poorly, loudly, and stupidly) which is him reacting to a perceived threat, not formulating a plan for murder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:50:51 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll watch again but I don't see her hands or the pot in the 2nd cam as he draws. Her hands are behind something else. She absolutely touched the pot and brought it over to the sink before the draw and it's clear the heated contents of the pot is the concern... at least that seems clear to me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: First the shooter puts his hand on his gun and says "you better fucking not - I'll shoot you in the fucking face." That's as she removed the pot from the heat and is looking over her left shoulder at the cops, having just said "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus." So, "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus." "You better fucking not - I'll shoot you in the fucking face." (hand on gun) Her hands then go up and she says I'm sorry. Then ducks down. (Pot no longer in her hands after he threatened to shoot her in the face). Then they yell drop the pot repeatedly, while she's not holding the pot, as she's ducked down. Then she reaches up and grabs the pot and dumps/throws, as she gets shot in the face. I'll watch again but I don't see her hands or the pot in the 2nd cam as he draws. Her hands are behind something else. She absolutely touched the pot and brought it over to the sink before the draw and it's clear the heated contents of the pot is the concern... at least that seems clear to me. This is the moment the shooter says I'll shoot you in the fucking face. She was removing the pot from the heat, or fiddling with it - whatever. She made no threat, either verbally or physically w/ the pot, or anything else.  This is the moment the shooter pulls his gun. She has said nothing else. She looks afraid. She has not turned around w/ the pot, nor attempted to throw it, chase them w/ it, etc.  When she realizes she's about to be shot, she begins to react - not by coming at him w/ the pot, nor attempting to throw it, but sort of recoils and begins to duck down.  Then she raises her hands and says, I'm sorry. Pot is not in her hands.  Then, even after raising her hands (w/ no pot) and saying I'm sorry, and ducking down (w/out the pot), the 2nd officer also draws down on her and shouts to drop the pot:  The pot that she is NOT HOLDING: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:51:29 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll watch again but I don't see her hands or the pot in the 2nd cam as he draws. Her hands are behind something else. She absolutely touched the pot and brought it over to the sink before the draw and it's clear the heated contents of the pot is the concern... at least that seems clear to me. ETA: At 10:58, his gun is drawn and her hand are up with the hot mitt she was just using to hold the pot, I can't see well enough to see if she has it still or just released it right then. I have seen video of her throwing it however so she obviously had it between the drawing and the shooting. Is there a good, non-cut video of that whole sequence. Start to finish, no jump edits? My suspicion is he saw the object in her hand as "the pot" when it may just be the mitt she was holding with the pot moments earlier. On YouTube there is uncut footage of both body cams. The cop who shot is the only uninstructed view. When he pointed his weapon at her, she was not holding the pot. She ducked down, because he was pointing a gun at her head. While ducking, she grabbed the pot. On her way back up from ducking down, she throws the water while being shot in the head and killed. If you watch the second body cam from second cop, you can see exactly where the water lands. You can also get an idea of how much water was in the pot, not very much at all. It is a tragic situation and completely avoidable, but they is easy to say from the sidelines. The morale of this story is not to invite armed government agents into your house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2024 10:55:15 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryThank you. Yeah, I'm going with he saw the mitt as 'the pot'. She wasn't holding the pot but he saw her hands come up with a red rectangle in them and that became 'the pot' in his head then she dove below the counter. I can't see the toss from that angle but there is another where you can see her fling the pot so I think she grabbed it after she dove down and made the worst call ever to throw it at them. It sucks and I do feel bad for her. It's not 1st degree murder though. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
