You guys are seriously baffling. It absolutely shows her grabbing it and throwing it. That's how it ends up a few feet in front of her on top of a chair, after she left it on the counter when she got on her knees.


lol nope. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. Defendant doesn't have to prove shit in America.

Not in Illinois, my friend. Self defense justification is on the defense to prove that it was reasonable. The only exception is if deadly force was used against someone forcibly entering a dwelling to harm the occupant.

“The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.”

I don't like him. I just think it was a justified shooting based on what I've seen. I've come down against cops in the past too.

I don't think two prior DUIs proves he's "not of sound mind". I don't like that, and I don't think people with multiple DUIs should generally be cops, but it doesn't mean that he's mentally cooked or anything.

Words cannot express how true that is. These individuals are like informants who selectively highlight the positive aspects of the Gestapo’s role in suppressing opposition to the Nazi regime.

The only thing baffling is people justifying this shoot.

It's not baffling... it's fucking scary!

That is entirely state dependent.

She said she rebuked him in the name of Jesus.

He pulled his gun, aimed at her head, and said he would shoot her in the face.

She didn't half-assed toss the pot until the guy was advancing on her after making his threat.

We’re not “split about it on here”.  Besides 2 or 3 humoring themselves by arguing that it was a justified killing, it’s nearly unanimous that this was a murder.

He'll go to prison hang achieved his life goal of killing a bad guy for the State.

Well, going by that summary, they had a legal reason to be in the apartment, and information that she had been threatening others recently.  Just a bit different than "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus"

I’m glad some of you guys aren’t in law enforcement. Holy shit man.

Correct.  In many (most?) they have to prove that he murdered the lady.  The defendant could use an affirmitive defense that it was a in self-defense.

The problem is that you are looking at this from the lens of the reasonable man.

Police don't use the reasonable man standard, they use the reasonable officer one.  Unfortunatly there are far too many absolutely paranoid cops that know they have the most dangers job in the world (excluding all data that contracdicts their world view of course).  In the Shaver thread there was a cop on here that said it was a lawful shooting because Brailsford didn't know that Shaver was unarmed.  Not that he was armed, not that he was dangerous, and definatly not that he was armed and dangerous.  In another thread about 100 cops disobeying orders to call off a chase a cop said that since so many cops disobeyed orders their actions were probably reasonable.

The standard is absurd and a downward spiral because at this point Brailsford's shooting counts as something that reasonable officers would do, and that's how their actions should be judged.  

I'm not arguing whether it's justified or not, I'm pointing out the plainly obvious. Before you can even consider whether it was justified or not, you have to know what actually happened, and what actually happened is she threw the pot.

wonder why the gif cuts off just there. Maybe because the pot travels straight down from her hand at that point? Wait, are you saying she threw it at herself, or towards the cop?

if he thought he was going to get splashed, why didn't he just back up?

We know she grabbed the pot after the derranged armed man who threatened to shoot her in the face told her to drop it.  Then after the derranged armed man who threatened to shoot her in the face did indeed shoot her in the face the pot was in a different location.  Whether this was because she intended to throw it at the derranged man who threatened to shoot her in the face or if it was a result of the derranged man actualy shooting her in the face is speculation.

What's incredible is that after the derranged armed man who threatened to shoot her in the face did shoot her in the face he kept yelling at her to drop the pot.  

You're going to trigger some cops by suggesting an officer retreat.

Sounded like she poured the water down the sink. Or was that just crappy audio?

It cuts off there because the next frame is blocked by the officers arm. The pot ended up a few feet in front of her on a chair, in the same place water can be seen splashing, she threw it at the officer.


Not really, he shot her when she started to throw it.

But then he wouldn't get to shoot her in the fuckin' face.  

non-concur.

I may find a similar sized pot and fill it with hot water and see how far I (as a 6'4" 250 pound man) can throw it towards a mannequin or something. I think it would have been impossible to even reach him. Can anyone estimate the distance she was from the shooter?

Troll

Who are you going to believe, the TBL/boot lickers or your own lying eyes?

Posthumous resistance is not uncommon. Upon reviewing numerous police shootings, you'll notice that pretending the deceased is still resisting is SOP, often used to justify the use of force or to create a narrative that the threat is still ongoing.

Mornin. Serious question, not stirring shit. The metric used is what would a reasonable officer do in the same situation. If the officer is found to be within the correct standards and guidelines, how do you proceed?

If she were able to get enough hot water on the cop to harm him (she couldn’t) seems to be irrelevant.  He intentionally created the circumstances that he thought would justify shooting the poor woman in the face.
His behavior afterwards suggests the mindset of a callous killer.

It would certainly be an interesting experiment to test the hypotheses that the reasonable officer standard isn't based on objective facts regarding threats.

What happened first?

The cop pointing a gun at her head and telling her he would shoot her in the face, or her "throwing the pot at him?"

But what also happened was he threatened her with deadly force before she threw the pot.

Quite a statement from the sheriff

Apologies if previously posted.

The Body Worn Camera footage has now been released, and the public can see what we saw: Sonya Massey lost her life due to an unjustifiable and reckless decision by former Deputy Sean Grayson.

Grayson had other options available that he should have used. His actions were inexcusable and do not reflect the values or training of our office. He will now face judgment by the criminal justice system and will never again work in law enforcement. Ms. Massey needlessly lost her life, and her family deserves answers. I trust the legal process will provide them.

This incident does not reflect the values or actions of our law enforcement community. It was a tragic decision made by an individual who had the training, tools, and experience to know better. We are committed to upholding a standard that prevents such tragedies from occurring in the future.

Thank you.

Sheriff Jack Campbell

He sounds like an unreasonable officer.

Not exactly.

The issue is whether Officer Grayson's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable based on the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time the force was used. See, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). A police officer may use deadly force if he has reasonable cause to believe that a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others, and the officer, if feasible, warns the suspect before using deadly force. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1985); Sherrod v. Berry, 856 F.2d 802, 805 (7th Cir.1988). The reasonableness of a police officer's use of deadly force "must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, ..." at the moment the force was used, and not in hindsight. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396.

That is the controlling caselaw in the 7th circuit that will be applied, probably verbatim.

If you look specifically at the Graham factors, two are automatically against any force at all being used - she wasn't under arrest and wasn't suspected of criminal activity at all, and thus she also couldn't have been resisting or evading arrest. That leaves the only possible justification as being the claim of immediate serious physical harm.

Had she actually "come at him" with a pot of boiling water, that would be different. But he created distance, and maintained plenty of distance. Then instead of backing away, he appears to begin to advance on her right before firing, which the Illinois State Police expert concluded was akin to attempting to create justification by placing yourself in danger, such as in front of a moving car. And whether or not she grabbed and attempted to throw or dump the pot, I don't believe any reasonable person would have believed she posed an immediate serious threat of physical harm to anyone. At least not yet. If she grabbed the pot and advanced on him, as if to dump it on him or something, that would be a much different situation.

Imagine if this was a paramedic in her home because she was suffering some episode and called 911, and she grabbed a pot and a non-LEO reacted in this way and shot her in the head... IMO, there would be no LEOS claiming it was justified.

For the same reason they shoot golden retriever puppies.

For the sake of conversation, let's say that you're correct that she did attempt to throw the pot.  You're leaving out everything that led up to that point.
- Cop was aggressive / rude with her from the jump
- At one point she was walking back into the house and said "I love you all"....this could have been the end of the whole thing.  So far it doesn't seem like she's aggressive or planning an ambush with a pot of water like one poster suggested
- The cops brought up the water on the stove and let her go take the pot off the stove, they must not have felt too threatened yet or she wouldn't have been allowed to handle it.
- She removes the pot, sits it down and says "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" because the second cop took a step back
- The cop apparently not knowing that phrase is not a physical threat, pulls his gun and threatens to shoot her in the face
- She put her hands up, apologized and dropped to her knees

At no point did she seem aggressive, a little off but it seems safe to assume cops have conversations with people every day that are a little off.  The whole situation went south when the cop lost his shit because he didn't know the definition of rebuke.  I would guess that the vast majority of people would not make completely rational decisions when a conversation transitions from "nice conversation, even if a little off" to "I'll shoot you in the fucking face" with a gun pointed at them within 2 seconds.....let alone someone who's obviously struggling a bit.

I don't believe this was 1st degree murder.....but watching the video it's clear to me that the reason this escalated the way it did is on the cop.

OK, now what, good shoot hurr durrs?

They are called assholes for a reason.

IMO, something is wrong with him mentally by the way he was triggered by her saying "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" it was like that really offended him.  I would think a LEO hears much worse almost daily.

She looks like she is shielding herself from the psycho pointing a gun at her.

Because he had to get it on.

What happened first was deputy grayson told her to remove the pot from the stove to avoid a fire.  His partner backs up as she moves the water.  She asks why. Grayson tells hee it is because she has the pot of hot water he told her to move.  She rebukes him in the name of Jesus.  Then he shoots her.

Yup, deliberately escalating to prompt reaction to justify shot to face.

No police officer has ever been thrown under the bus by their police chief or sheriff.  /sarc

That proves nothing one way or the other and you know it.

No true Scotsman....

Not sure if serious. But if you are I gotta know due your screen name.  Do you have the Gadsden Flag sticker right next to the TBL decal, or are they in opposite corners of your rear window?

The Illinois State Police did the investigation and reached that conclusion. The sheriff was not involved, other than referring it to the state police.

Chief says he will never be a cop again.  

   Will that stick regardless of trial outcome ?
 
    After Brailsfords b.s PTSD claim I hope they investigate weather this asshole was shooting for the golden ticket.