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.
An old lady preparing tea or noodle call the police because she’s scared of an intruder of some kind .
Police find nothing .
She start resuming her stuff In the kitchen and a cop finally saw boiling water (which was there already for a long time…) , a very deadly cop killing weapon , that needs to be thrown, high distance , by an old lady vs an agile police officer in cloths who could easily back step 2 feet if he would see the water being thrown .
And that scene escalated as quick as a bullet fi
LOL thanks for your contribution.
An old lady preparing tea or noodle call the police because she’s scared of an intruder of some kind .
Police find nothing .
She start resuming her stuff In the kitchen and a cop finally saw boiling water (which was there already for a long time…) , a very deadly cop killing weapon , that needs to be thrown, high distance , by an old lady vs an agile police officer in cloths who could easily back step 2 feet if he would see the water being thrown .
And that scene escalated as quick as a bullet fi
Old?.
Yeah it doesn't work that way my dude, the cops can't execute you simply for not immediately following directions. This woman wasn't remotely a threat to the officer.
smh, dudes really think interacting with the police should be a lethal game of Simon Says, it's wild how deep authoritarianism is in the US.
where you reside Trolly? France ? lol
OP responding to the tough questions as usual.
OP's MO:
1. Say a bunch of dumb ****.
2. Leave for a few hours while responses pile up.
3. Return and respond to the easiest/least persuasive posts.
4. Feel good about owning the libs.
5. Repeat multiple times over the course of several days.
I specifically asked you a number of times why you believe it was her intention all along. The post you responded to was calling you out for not answering those posts. I don't know why you decided to answer a different question in this response, while acknowledging that you were answering a different question.
I would like to know, specifically, why you think the fact that she did X after a gun was pointed in her fact makes it obvious that she was going to do X before a gun was pointed in her fac
ok. I will do my best tomorrow. I owe you that.
I just hope shtts isn’t a gun lover .
He will end up shooting someone for not much reason at all …
sw feeds off outrage and incensement. stop feeding
needs to be a federal law that police should have cams on them active at all times and if its ever off, it should come with a pretty big consequence for the individual or department
also iirc i think the one cop says to the guy who shot him "thats not what we do man" at some point shortly after but could have missheard and he said something else instead
Right after the shot the other officer says he's gonna get his medkit, shooter says we don't do that to headshot wounds.
2 minutes later cop 2 goes and tries to stop the bleeding.
3min later, backup arrives and cop 2 says she's still gasping.
Amazing work.
cop 3 asks where's the gun?
cop 1: no she had boiling water and came at me..with boiling water.
cop 3: you shot her?
cop 1: yeaaaah (accentuated)
she said she was going to rebuke me in the name of jesus and came at me with boiling water, that's all what this is.
I was standing right here.
amazing.
Also, frame by frame view shows no water went further than counter top.
Real danger, I'm even questionning whether there was any water left in the pot tbh.
OP responding to the tough questions as usual.
OP's MO:
1. Say a bunch of dumb ****.
2. Leave for a few hours while responses pile up.
3. Return and respond to the easiest/least persuasive posts.
4. Feel good about owning the libs.
5. Repeat multiple times over the course of several days.
Yep. OP has yet to answer any tough questions. It's quite entertaining watching him pick and choose what he replies to knowing full well he's completely incapable of further defending this murderous cop.
The fact that the officer was indicted for a crime says a lot. Usually if there is some doubt about a shooting the cop always gets a walk. In this case, he didn't.
OP responding to the tough questions as usual.
OP's MO:
1. Say a bunch of dumb ****.
2. Leave for a few hours while responses pile up.
3. Return and respond to the easiest/least persuasive posts.
4. Feel good about owning the libs.
5. Repeat multiple times over the course of several days.
It's very difficult because I couldnt find the complete bodycam from the cop that shoots her. I looked for a very long time. The video I posted only shows 6 seconds before he draws his gun. I want to see what he saw but I cant in the other cops bodycam.
She was not asked or ordered to turn off the stove. She sees him point to the kitchen to the other cop while she's supposed to be looking for her ID. She notices this and springs up from the couch. She turns off the gas, reaches for terry cloths and picks up the pot. She playfully asks "where you goin..where you goin?" He laughs and says "away from your hot steaming water" which implies that he is backing up. She repeats what he says and than says the rebuke passage thing twice. I believe he saw something and that is why he drew his gun.
All they needed from her was her name. They only asked for the ID because she fumbles telling them her name.
The arm tattoo does not belong to the cop that shoots her btw
I will concede that I cant see what he saw and you guys will have a field day if I start suggesting what he could have seen. I will continue to look for more of the shooters bodycam.
Yep. OP has yet to answer any tough questions. It's quite entertaining watching him pick and choose what he replies to knowing full well he's completely incapable of further defending this murderous cop.
it's not easy with the limited information I have. It seems easy for everyone calling for the cop to be jailed for life though.
It's very difficult because I couldnt find the complete bodycam from the cop that shoots her. I looked for a very long time. The video I posted only shows 6 seconds before he draws his gun. I want to see what he saw but I cant in the other cops bodycam.
She was not asked or ordered to turn off the stove. She sees him point to the kitchen to the other cop while she's supposed to be looking for her ID. She notices this and springs up from the couch. She turns off the gas, reaches for terry cloths
1. Where are you getting all this info if you can't find the footage?
2. You said there was more than enough in the footage we'd all seen for it to be clear as day that she always intended to throw the water, to the point that you thought it was going to be grounds for the cop to sue the liberal media for grossly misreporting her intentions. Are you retracting this?
it's not easy with the limited information I have. It seems easy for everyone calling for the cop to be jailed for life though.
You keep implying you have more information than we do, then walking it back. Do you or don't you?
If we are all going on the same information, i.e. the video posted in the OP, the issue here doesn't seem to be lack of information, is that you are drawing one conclusion from the available information, and every single other person is drawing a different conclusion.
You keep implying you have more information than we do, then walking it back. Do you or don't you?
If we are all going on the same information, i.e. the video posted in the OP, the issue here doesn't seem to be lack of information, is that you are drawing one conclusion from the available information, and every single other person is drawing a different conclusion.
that's fine. You're all free to draw a different conclusion than me. You say we as it's a collective but it's a bunch of people with varying knowledge on this event. The media coverage has a heavy effect on people interpretations of what happened. I believe the lady had bad intentions. You guys believe the cop used deadly force on a completely innocent lady. My watching her throw the pot heavily influenced my interpretation. That is the most important piece of information to me. For you guys it seems to have little to no weight on what you believe happened.
1. Where are you getting all this info if you can't find the footage?
2. You said there was more than enough in the footage we'd all seen for it to be clear as day that she always intended to throw the water, to the point that you thought it was going to be grounds for the cop to sue the liberal media for grossly misreporting her intentions. Are you retracting this?
I said she clearly throws the pot at him. Ok no ****in dispute on that. I was able to slow it down to .07 speed and it is clear as day to me.
Now you asked me why he drew his gun and that is the question that I cant honestly answer.
that's fine. You're all free to draw a different conclusion than me. You say we as it's a collective but it's a bunch of people with varying knowledge on this event. The media coverage has a heavy effect on people interpretations of what happened. I believe the lady had bad intentions. You guys believe the cop used deadly force on a completely innocent lady. My watching her throw the pot heavily influenced my interpretation. That is the most important piece of information to me. For you guys it
By "we" I mean the posters discussing this ITT. We're all discussing the information provided in your OP, i.e. the video. Accusing people of being swayed by media coverage is pretty laughable when we're all literally referring back to what is shown in the video you posted, and not the media coverage at all. If anyone here is influenced by information other than the video, it's you, with your references to other videos that you can't and whatnot. Everyone else is going on what they see in the video you posted.
I said she clearly throws the pot at him. Ok no ****in dispute on that. I was able to slow it down to .07 speed and it is clear as day to me.
Now you asked me why he drew his gun and that is the question that I cant honestly answer.
You seem to be losing track of the conversation again. We're talking about your soul read on her intentions. You said that the media is misreporting her intentions, that was your beef with the coverage. That is when I started pressing you on how you can be so sure of her intentions. You seemed pretty adamant that her intentions were obvious, and anyone who disagreed with you was being a comedian.
I'd at least prefer the media report accurately on her intentions.
We don't know her intentions, so they're impossible to report on accurately. We can infer something about her intentions though, which is that she posed no threat until he pulled the gun. You can't use her actions after he pulled a gun on her to make inferences about her intentions before he pulled the gun on her. I would have hoped this was blindingly obvious.
See I don't get how you can see her throwing the pot and also believe it was not her intention to begin with. I think the 2 nanoseconds it took her to do it indicates that was her intentions all along.
I asked you how you can be sure that how somebody doing X under duress means they always had intentions on doing X. That is a question you still have not answered, and you have gone on some mighty detours to avoid doing so.
Just in general, OP, if I thought something was obvious, everyone disagreed with me, and I found it very difficult to clearly articulate my reasons for thinking the way I do, I'd at least be open to re-evaluating my position. It seems that you're unwilling to entertain any opinion on this matter other than your own.
