Springfield, Illinois—The latest case of anti-police sentiment began with a 911 call from Sonya Massey. She reported hearing suspicious noises on her property to the Sangamon County Sheriff's Department. Deputies arrived, conducted a search, and found nothing suspicious. During their final conversation with Massey, she suddenly moved to throw a pot of boiling water at the deputies.
Body cam footage shows officers excitedly commanding Massey to drop the pot of water. When she didn't comply, Sangamon County Deputy Sean Grayson, 30, shot her in the head with his 9mm service weapon. Massey raised her hands, but it was too late; the bullet killed her instantly.
The incident raises several questions: Whose reflexes were faster, Massey's or Grayson's? Was the shooting a reasonable and justifiable act? Is a pot of boiling water considered a deadly weapon?
Benjamin Crump, a self-proclaimed civil rights attorney, quickly got involved, alleging that Massey was killed by a white officer because of her race. Critics argue that Crump profits from what they call "ghetto lottery" cases by taking on high-profile racially charged civil suits.
This case has been compared to the killing of career criminal and fentanyl addict, George Floyd, a situation that led to significant controversy and the destruction of several police officers' careers.
As the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels famously said, "If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Crump is seen by some as adept at spreading such narratives, and local officials too often feel pressured to settle these cases with taxpayer money.
In a related anecdote from the early 70s, an off-duty Chicago police officer died after his wife threw a pot of boiling water on him during a domestic dispute. The officer quickly succumbed to his injuries, and I was tasked with transporting his body to the Cook County Morgue. The wife was arrested by homicide detectives, but she was later cleared by a jury.
Circuit Judge Ryan M. Cadagin has ordered Grayson to be held in the Sangamon County Jail without bond. The deputy has pled not guilty to the charges. The outcome of this racially charged circus remains to be seen.
9 comments:
Your report forgot to mention the hiring/firing record of the officer.
He worked at SIX different agencies in four years and had two DWIs.
How did he get to keep wearing a badge and carry a gun?
The people who hired him are responsible for the way this call went down.
I didn’t forget to talk about the officers’ past. it’s not at all relevant to whether or not he justifiably shot a woman. Since there is video and a 2nd cop we don’t have to guess what happened. If this was a case of who to believe that the cops credibility may well be in the toilet.
An incompetent person serving as an officer is VERY RELEVANT. He should never have been at that place with as badge and gun.
I'm not a fan of the lawyer involved, but on the civil side he's got a GREAT CASE against not just the officer but also the agency that hired him.
Dealing with his failures as a cop is not relevant to whether or not he used necessary and justifiable, deadly force under the circumstances. Even a serial killer has a right to defend himself.. The officers past history is a matter for his employer.. Because law-enforcement has been the object of abject hatred, nobody wants to be a cop anymore. Recruitment of qualified candidates is more difficult than it has ever been in any of our lifetimes.. quality of the people that they are hiring has never been lower.
The legal std for the officer is does the person have the ability to inflict "great bodily harm". Yes. Anyone want to suggest orherwise?? I thought not. Further, is she threatening the officers? Intent? "Put it down". Refuses, continues to hold it as a threat weapon.
Further Threatening a peace officer? Well her actions are . Assault on a Peace Officer? Her actions are. Felonies. . There is basis for the use of deadly force.
Can anyone challenge under the basis of The law? We are under The Law. The officer and the woman. Your feelings are are of as much relevance as mine. NONE.
You are making excuses to justify in your mind what the officer did as correct.
"Qualified" is very relevant. He didn't know how to handle the situation, or was unwilling to follow training he should have had. He didn't try to de-escalate or in anyway calm the situation. He was more than ready to use his gun.
Bad cops do a lot to hamper police recruitment.
What you have to understand is this man is charged with a crime. His defense is very simple and that is self-defense.. I believe he has a solid case for acquittal based on the charges. Again, the evidence is clearly on video, and this man has a partner who also witnessed the entire event.. the only issue is he use appropriate force to deal with the threat. His background has nothing to do with justification.. The fact that he has an apparent background that is inconsistent with the standards that used to exist just not enter here one bit. No judge would ever properly allow his past background to be communicated to the jury during trial. His training may be an issue, but that would be in support of using deadly force under those circumstances. This is not about the credibility of the officer because the facts are not in dispute.. the jury question is what is this reasonable under the circumstances?
I have attended two police academies, and the training calls for deadly force if an officer or person reasonably believes they are about to be disfigured, seriously injured or killed. That is the standard.
De-escalating a situation is very simple when someone is using or attempting to use a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. Drop the weapon! Is more than adequate de-escalation efforts.
Post a Comment