The liberal media and the police Killing of Sonya Massey
I didnt give much thought on the title but I wanted to see if people actually took the time to watch the police body cam footage. I mentioned the media because nobody seems to want to talk about the obvious. This cop is still locked up as far as i know and everyone seems to be villainizing him. I actually took the time to watch the video in slow motion and you can clearly see that the lady 100% intended on throwing boiling water on him. There is no dispute on that yet nobody wants to say it for fear of upsetting an all too familiar narrative. If you watch the video you will clearly see that the woman drops to floor holding only her oven mitts. The pot is sitting on the counter. The officers arm obstructs the bodycam up until the last second where you see the woman holding the pot and throwing it at the cop. I just dont understand how in the freeist country in the world not a peep is being mentioned about this. You can say well the cop should have dropped back or ran and thats a valid argument but what you dont do is pretend that this lady was innocent when it seems to be an instance of a very troubled lady choosing to die at the hands of a cop. I will try to link the video below if that is cool with mods. It's not graphic. It will be the last 5-6 seconds and you obviously need to watch it in slow motion. It is the bodycam of the cop who shoots her. You have to realize he is only about 5 feet from her and his arm blocks a good chunk of the crucial 5-6 seconds. He is lucky his arm didnt block the whole thing or he would be spending the rest of his life in prison.
If it’s obvious she was throwing boiling water at the police then the cops will get off with not guilty or maybe they will plea down
The law is very clear. If you feel like your life or your body is in mortal danger then you can shoot people to prevent that from happening. Boiling water to the face might count
Maybe he should plead to manslaughter , I dunno.
Also this guy is an idiot, you don’t let people get that close to you when your gun is drawn. You keep distance so they can’t stab you (or douse you with water) before you end their life
The law is very clear. If you feel like your life or your body is in mortal danger then you can shoot people to prevent that from happening. Boiling water to the face might count
The law may be clear, but your description of it is erroneous.
The subjective state of mind of the officer isn't determinative.
The law is very clear. If you feel like your life or your body is in mortal danger then you can shoot people to prevent that from happening.
This is not true without qualification. If you caused the situation in the first place, self defense may not be an available defense to you. As an extreme example, if you pull a gun on someone to rob them, they pull a gun on you back, and you shoot them, you can't plead self defense.
This is not true without qualification. If you caused the situation in the first place, self defense may not be an available defense to you. As an extreme example, if you pull a gun on someone to rob them, they pull a gun on you back, and you shoot them, you can't plead self defense.
You are correct, but his statement of the law was inaccurate even aside from the qualification you describe.
You are correct, but his statement of the law was inaccurate even aside from the qualification you describe.
Seems relevant to the present case. If the jury determines that the cop caused the situation, it won't matter whether he thought he was in danger, and it won't matter whether he was in fact in danger (after pulling the gun thereby causing the danger to arise), right?
If it’s obvious she was throwing boiling water at the police then the cops will get off with not guilty or maybe they will plea down
The law is very clear. If you feel like your life or your body is in mortal danger then you can shoot people to prevent that from happening. Boiling water to the face might count
Maybe he should plead to manslaughter , I dunno.
Also this guy is an idiot, you don’t let people get that close to you when your gun is drawn. You keep distance so they can’t stab you (or d
There's a lot more to it than a subjective feeling of your life being in danger. The belief has to be reasonable and your actions have to be reasonable in the circumstances.
After he draws his gun and she says "sorry" and drops to the floor behind a counter, there's no threat to the officer's safety. Advancing with his gun drawn is not the right thing to do in that situation, and it's quite justifiable that he faces some criminal liability for his actions.
Even if she started to throw water at the officer as he approached, it would be a hard case to argue that throwing boiling water from floor level poses a threat of grievous bodily harm.
I probably think about things more in terms of how grave the risk actually was, and how easy it was to avoid with non-lethal means, but this a good and interesting post.
I think OP is mapping the heavier handed, Israeli influenced, use-of-force protocols onto the legal code and onto morality and is being heavy handed himself in so doing. In terms of risk OP is assuming any action that can conceptually, given any arbitrary extension of any possibilities in time from that point, cause bodily harm to the officer, is grounds to use lethal force.
So say Massey had simply tilted the water towards the officers and they couldn't know whether she intended to pour it into the sink (like draining off the water from some noodles) or throw it towards the officers. OP would say she could have thrown it on them within a certain amount of time so therefore she should be shot. The judgement that there was a low probability of her doing that compared to other outcomes is negated by this approach. Or say most people would rate her strength as giving her a very small chance of being able to even hit the officer with the water. OP would say even if there was any chance of her being strong enough then she can be killed. OP kind of rounds up any risk to severe and life threatening in this way and doesn't seem to see that other people see that as insanely obtuse, cruel, and totally incompatible with the laws on the books. It's like he backwardly thinks that laws flow from police practices and not from citizens.
Cliffs?
There's a lot more to it than a subjective feeling of your life being in danger. The belief has to be reasonable and your actions have to be reasonable in the circumstances.
Correct. A few years ago, I went fifteen rounds with Cuepee and a few others on this exact issue. The example I gave to illustrate the point was the following:
Under the standard in Graham v. Connor, if a police officer uses lethal force because he was scared for his life, but an objectively reasonable police officer would not have been scared, then the officer's use of lethal force was unlawful. It's that simple. If you need an illustration, think of this example. Suppose that an officer shoots a driver who failed to immediately comply when directed to put his hands out the driver side window. On the stand, the police officer states that he was shot in the line of duty when making a routine traffic stop three years ago, and ever since that time, he has been fearful for his life every time he makes a traffic stop. Expert witnesses confirm that the officer has been in extreme mental distress ever since he was shot in the line of duty. But the officer admits on cross that he did not see anything in the driver's hands that he thought was a weapon and he concedes that the driver did not make any sudden moves. If the jury does its job, that police officer will go to jail under the Graham standard, even if the jury believes the testimony about the officer's mental state.
Hopefully it’s illegal I just don’t think a just don’t think a jury will convict. But let’s hope they do
fwiw:
State Attorney John Milhiser's review did "not support a finding that … Grayson was justified in his use of deadly force", and prosecutors compared him to "an officer intentionally and unnecessarily putting himself in front of a moving vehicle and then justifying use of force because of fear of being struck"
Sounds about right.
I think OP is mapping the heavier handed, Israeli influenced, use-of-force protocols onto the legal code and onto morality and is being heavy handed himself in so doing. In terms of risk OP is assuming any action that can conceptually, given any arbitrary extension of any possibilities in time from that point, cause bodily harm to the officer, is grounds to use lethal force.
So say Massey had simply tilted the water towards the officers and they couldn't know whether she intended to pour it into
I see it clearly and the way that I saw it justifies lethal force. I believe that the officer caught onto to her plans through her body language and that is why he reacted the way he did. I concede that I don't know what it was exactly but I believe that she "tipped her hand". I'm not saying I'm a lawyer or that I got it all figured out. What I am convinced of and you guys are not is that she intended on dumping boiling water onto a cop. I dont buy that her reaction was because of what the cop did. I think she had a plan and did her best to carry it out. She told them to come in to show them papers and obviously was in a very crazy mental state. It is easy for you guys to say what you would have done in his shoes. You arent cops and he also had a partner to worry about. The lady was much closer to him than the body cam indicates. He saw her every action. We couldnt see it because his arm is in the way. He is the one that watches her spring up and grab the pot from the counter while he gives her his last commands and decides to lethal force is justified.
I see it clearly and the way that I saw it justifies lethal force. I believe that the officer caught onto to her plans through her body language and that is why he reacted the way he did. I concede that I don't know what it was exactly but I believe that she "tipped her hand". I'm not saying I'm a lawyer or that I got it all figured out. What I am convinced of and you guys are not is that she intended on dumping boiling water onto a cop. I dont buy that her reaction was because of what the cop
This might come a shock to you, but you need to give more justification for using lethal force than for calling a river bluff - you need more than fee fees that something is a bit off to shoot someone. It seems even his own police department and the state attorney agrees.
Everything you said above is pure vague speculation with nothing to back it up. "Body language", "[you] don't know what exactly", "she tipped her hand", "convinced about her intentions" for reasons you can't articulate, you think "she had a plan" for reasons you haven't given. You do realise a person is dead, right? This isn't "oops, he did have a flush, guess I need to rebuy". None of this wishy washy horseshit is cutting it here, and it's not going to cut it in court.
Also, you skipped over a bunch of posts from me and others that make much more persuasive points than the post to which you chose to respond. I'm sure this was an accidental oversight on your part.
I think it’s funny that 1) you clearly are the one with the agenda, 2) you are trying to read her mind and determining what she intended to do 3) you are not very convincing in your presentation and 4) you accuse us of acting as if we need complete understanding of what it is like to be a cop in order to view the video and come to a different conclusion of which actor bears/shares responsibility for the shooting.
I think it’s funny that 1) you clearly are the one with the agenda, 2) you are trying to read her mind and determining what she intended to do 3) you are not very convincing in your presentation and 4) you accuse us of acting as if we need complete understanding of what it is like to be a cop in order to view the video and come to a different conclusion of which actor bears/shares responsibility for the shooting.
My main goal was to show that she does in fact throw a pot of hot boiling water at a cop. That was never mentioned at all in the media. That was my goal and I got too carried away with arguing. People in here argue for sport. Everyone is enthusiastic about knowing what a scared person does when a cop pulls his gun and gives a command under the threat of lethal force. If you want to believe that its more likely that her throwing a pot of hot water while wearing two oven mitts is purely reactionary than fine. That is laughably ridiculous to me but I have to accept there are more than a few of you that hold that belief. You conceded that she grabbed a pot and threw it at him in a matter of milliseconds. That was my goal and thank you all for your 2 cents.
ShttsWeak is making bizarrely delusional observations to the point I dont think any rational conversation can be had with him. I've reached the point where I'm expecting him to say he saw her reach for a sawed off tied to a string under the sink. He's either trolling or just 'weird' in that way that some people make **** up and you cant figure out why.
My main goal was to show that she does in fact throw a pot of hot boiling water at a cop. That was never mentioned at all in the media. That was my goal and I got too carried away with arguing. People in here argue for sport. Everyone is enthusiastic about knowing what a scared person does when a cop pulls his gun and gives a command under the threat of lethal force. If you want to believe that its more likely that her throwing a pot of hot water while wearing two oven mitts is purely reactionar
1. She was already wearing the over mitts when he pulled his gun. You're giving this fact weight as though she had the presence of mind to put them on after he pulled his gun.
2. We're not saying we know what a scared person does under threat of lethal force. You on the other hand, are saying that everything they do under threat of lethal force, they intended to do anyway. You are the one making completely unwarranted inferences about her intent.
3. It's not just us saying it, his own police department that fired him, the prosecutor, and an independent expert apparently all agree.
4. You have also said on more than one occasion ITT that her plan all along was to lure cops to her apartment, which is just bizarre. You've given no reasoning at all for this, other than they couldn't find the prowler she originally called them about.
He's either trolling or just 'weird' in that way that some people make **** up and you cant figure out why.
Let me have a go at this.
- His screen name tells you a lot. He's putting on a macho facade to convey some kind of strength
- His original post lambasted the evil "liberal media". They are the enemy, and it would be the bane of his existence to ever get "owned by the libs"
- He'll keep fighting this b/c he can't even for one second imagine his side being wrong. If he acknowledges that "maybe" the cop shouldn't have raised his weapon and promised death on a woman for a strange phrase then the bad guys (libs) win. It's good and evil for him, and he's never going to give up.
1. She was already wearing the over mitts when he pulled his gun. You're giving this fact weight as though she had the presence of mind to put them on after he pulled his gun.
2. We're not saying we know what a scared person does under threat of lethal force. You on the other hand, are saying that everything they do under threat of lethal force, they intended to do anyway. You are the one making completely unwarranted inferences about her intent.
3. It's not just us saying it, his own police depar
I concede she was already wearing the oven mitts.
I concede
I see it clearly and the way that I saw it justifies lethal force. I believe that the officer caught onto to her plans through her body language and that is why he reacted the way he did. I concede that I don't know what it was exactly but I believe that she "tipped her hand". I'm not saying I'm a lawyer or that I got it all figured out. What I am convinced of and you guys are not is that she intended on dumping boiling water onto a cop. I dont buy that her reaction was because of what the cop
She was on the floor when the cop shot her, presumably in the fing face as threatened. She made a submissive move to the floor and said "I'm sorry". That reading of the situation, where she is telegraphing that she is not a threat, easily trumps any "soul read" you are imagining.
I think she had a plan and did her best to carry it out. She told them to come in to show them papers and obviously was in a very crazy mental state. It is easy for you guys to say what you would have done in his shoes. You arent cops and he also had a partner to worry about. The lady was much closer to him than the body cam indicates. He saw her every action. We couldnt see it because his arm is in the way. He is the one that watches her spring up and grab the pot from the counter while he g
She had a plan? Have you not seen the longer, full video? After it was established that there was no prowler, she politely thanked the police officers (who had been needlessly gruff with her) and wished them a nice night. Then, for no reason whatsoever, one of the cops doubled back to harass her about her ID. These cops had no business going in that house at that pint. It seems pretty obvious to me that they went back to put her through something pointless in revenge. So she let's them in and is very nice to them, perhaps not being able to read their aggressive vibes. The officer suggests she takes off the boiling water (was he just following her prescribed plot there?) She changes the tone when she says "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus". That got the shooting officer good and raging (shocked if cop not roided).
It is totally incongruous for her to have threatened them with the water or to have preplanned some boiling water attack. It just doesn't fit with what we know for fact. Let me ask you, is there any cop interaction you've ever seen in which the cop was at fault?
She was on the floor when the cop shot her, presumably in the fing face as threatened. She made a submissive move to the floor and said "I'm sorry". That reading of the situation, where she is telegraphing that she is not a threat, easily trumps any "soul read" you are imagining.
It's not mine I just think its the best way to get you caught up on what actually happened.
I linked the youtube and its been a cluster****
https://twitter.com/WhiteBoySabbath/stat...
This was obviously edited but she did exactly what the video shows.
Shits...what is your opinion of Derek Choviun?
Seems relevant to the present case. If the jury determines that the cop caused the situation, it won't matter whether he thought he was in danger, and it won't matter whether he was in fact in danger (after pulling the gun thereby causing the danger to arise), right?
It seems like one of the claims the victim's side is making is that this guy should never have been allowed to be a cop. Seems to be a bunch of crap in his past that should have prevented him from being a cop.
It seems like one of the claims the victim's side is making is that this guy should never have been allowed to be a cop. Seems to be a bunch of crap in his past that should have prevented him from being a cop.
If they learnt that from CNN, sounds like he has a rock solid case! Meet Covington Kid II, chaps.
