Sonya Massey Shooting in the news today

WheatenLover said:
I wondered what the "I rebuke you" statement meant; thanks for clearing that up.

As far as the cop goes, he had no reason to shoot Ms. Massey. All he had to do was back up. Based on what I saw, he murdered her.
Click to expand...
what is really weird is that rebuke in common usage means to express disapproval..... we've already ascertained this cop left his brains in the mud where he played as a child... so how could he even have thought rebuke meant a threat to him.... I can't wait to hear his excuse in court...
 
hollydolly said:
Exactly... this is surely a case of murder... rather than manslaughter or self defence.... he just gunned her down for no reason.... .. and what's worse he was far enough away from her, if he really...really felt she was a threat to him, to just shoot her in the arm or leg... but he just wanted to kill her. That much is clear!
Click to expand...
She sure didn't look like a threat to anyone, IMO. But center mass is the best place to shoot a person who is an actual, reasonable threat to one's life.
hollydolly said:
certainly had no call...no call at all to shoot her face off.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with you. I wonder if that cop is a psychopath -- regardless, he assassinated Ms. Massey.
 

It appears that the Deputy made a bad choice. I never make statements that I can't backup without knowing the facts. There may have been circumstances that took place that I am unaware of, so I prefer to wait for the defense to present their arguments and evidence before I point fingers or make unverified statements. I would also "like" the opportunity to read each sides legal brief. I'm sure that the defense will present exculpatory evidence that may shed light on why the deputy shot. (I'm thinking out loud)
 
Born_To_Lose said:
It appears that the Deputy made a bad choice. I never make statements that I can't backup without knowing the facts. There may have been circumstances that took place that I am unaware of, so I prefer to wait for the defense to present their arguments and evidence before I point fingers or make unverified statements. I would also "like" the opportunity to read each sides legal brief. I'm sure that the defense will present exculpatory evidence that may shed light on why the deputy shot. (I'm thinking out loud)
Click to expand...
What we say here is unimportant. Everyone knows we're just a bunch of old gossips. On the other hand, if he didn't want to be talked about, he shouldn't have shot the lady, right?
 
Last edited:
gruntlabor said:
What we say here is unimportant.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We're not members of the jury, the prosecution, the defense or the judge -- all honor bound to believe he is innocent until proven guilty. We're not members of the press obliged to try and stick to known facts and to remember to say alleged when talking about the suspects.

We can speculate all we want and we can watch that video and see some very plain evidence. We can hear him say, "You're not going to rebuke me!" sounding like he thought rebuke meant attack and then, after shooting her, saying he wasn't going to let her throw boiling water on him. It couldn't be clearer that he acted out of fear and anger and does not have a self-defense leg to stand on.

You cannot claim self-defense when you have an easy path to retreat. I think the pot of water had been emptied into the sink before she even said the rebuke sentence, but even if she was still holding a pot of boiling water he only needed to turn around and run a few feet to be safe.

You don't get to kill people and then use your own poor vocabulary or lack of understanding about gravity as an excuse.

My brother and I used to have water fights all the time. You learn quickly that you really can't toss a bucket of water on someone from a distance of more than a few feet because it's going to drop to the ground before it reaches your brother and your mother is going to make you mop it all up.
 
I have to wonder what was going through the cop’s head that allowed him to shoot an unarmed woman that apparently posed no threat. I always wonder if we know all the story. I have learned that the media doesn’t necessarily tell the whole story.
 
hollydolly said:
but Oldman...we all saw the video.....
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree and if you judge the outcome by the video, the cop is guilty as sin. However, I have seen things like this before and the media or the reporter didn’t quite tell or print the whole story. I would say that he is going to be found guilty, but I like to wait until the trial is over. I don’t know why, but I still believe in “innocent until proven guilty.”
 
I had two police officers in the family, now deceased, but I have zero sympathy for that cop. He will be more than deserving for whatever a court and judge throw at him.
 
oldman said:
Yes, I agree and if you judge the outcome by the video, the cop is guilty as sin. However, I have seen things like this before and the media or the reporter didn’t quite tell or print the whole story. I would say that he is going to be found guilty, but I like to wait until the trial is over. I don’t know why, but I still believe in “innocent until proven guilty.”
Click to expand...
yes but this video is not from a passer by it's the officers own POV Camera...there's no getting around this.. he absolutely shot her for no reason..other than his own madness
 
VintageBetter said:
I hope the police department will be examined for its training procedures. I have no idea if those matter, but it is a question that should be asked.
Click to expand...
A Federal lawsuit concerning such falls under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, codified at 42 USC 1983. In order to prevail against a Municipality concerning such, a party must properly plead, in effect, a failure to train properly. There is no automatic liability through an Agency doctrine.
 
Della said:
We can hear him say, "You're not going to rebuke me!" sounding like he thought rebuke meant attack and then, after shooting her, saying he wasn't going to let her throw boiling water on him.
Click to expand...
He might not have known the word 'rebuke', but I think he did. I think he took her words personally. He meant, you're not going to insult ME. And after shooting her, trying to establish that he was in danger by saying she threatened him with throwing boiling water.
And by the way, his language tells us something of his lifestyle, certainly not living among polite company.
 
Last edited:
I know I was very harsh on the police officer who killed the woman but I also so admire all the policemen who put their lives on the line anytime they go out. What me and hubby can't understand is why don't they aim for an arm or a leg, or somewhere else, before they shoot someone??? What the heck, don't they get target practice at work??? Why do they always end up killing someone (mind some of the criminals should be shot dead).
 
oldman said:
Yes, I agree and if you judge the outcome by the video, the cop is guilty as sin. However, I have seen things like this before and the media or the reporter didn’t quite tell or print the whole story. I would say that he is going to be found guilty, but I like to wait until the trial is over. I don’t know why, but I still believe in “innocent until proven guilty.”
Click to expand...
😍No worries, oldman. Legally he is innocent until proven guilty.
 
LoveTulips said:
I know I was very harsh on the police officer who killed the woman but I also so admire all the policemen who put their lives on the line anytime they go out. What me and hubby can't understand is why don't they aim for an arm or a leg, or somewhere else, before they shoot someone??? What the heck, don't they get target practice at work??? Why do they always end up killing someone (mind some of the criminals should be shot dead).
Click to expand...
I've often wondered the same thing LT. I've noticed in too many instances that cops will kill innocent, unarmed people of color but do not shoot White gunman who committed mass murder. This was the case with the Colorado theater shooter. They knew he had killed several people inside. I even saw where one of the mass murderers was taken to a fast food restaurant to get food by the officers who arrested him!
 
I've always heard that military and police are trained to shoot for the torso because it's much easier to hit than an arm or leg. Of course that training assumes the police or the public are in danger. Not the case with this poor girl. I believe he shot her in the head because that was the only part sticking above the counter as she cowered behind it in fear.
 
Della said:
I've always heard that military and police are trained to shoot for the torso because it's much easier to hit than an arm or leg. Of course that training assumes the police or the public are in danger. Not the case with this poor girl. I believe he shot her in the head because that was the only part sticking above the counter as she cowered behind it in fear.
Click to expand...
he did it so quickly too... never gave her a chance to even stand up....
 
ohioboy said:
A Federal lawsuit concerning such falls under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, codified at 42 USC 1983. In order to prevail against a Municipality concerning such, a party must properly plead, in effect, a failure to train properly. There is no automatic liability through an Agency doctrine.
Click to expand...
This lawsuit is based on a violation of a person’s civil rights? I don’t understand what the phrase “a failure to train properly” means . Can you explain it? Does it mean the deputy was trained civil rights laws properly?
 
LoveTulips said:
I know I was very harsh on the police officer who killed the woman but I also so admire all the policemen who put their lives on the line anytime they go out. What me and hubby can't understand is why don't they aim for an arm or a leg, or somewhere else, before they shoot someone??? What the heck, don't they get target practice at work??? Why do they always end up killing someone (mind some of the criminals should be shot dead).
Click to expand...
I would have thought you would have heard or read this during your lifetime. Cops are trained to stop the threat. If the person the cop is attempting to take down has a gun and is shooting at the officer, we are trained to shoot to hit the center mass of the body. If the culprit only has a knife, we shoot to incapacitate him or her.

Up to about the year 2000, we were trained to stop the threat by shooting to kill. If the culprit has a gun and you shoot to only maimed your person with the gun and you begin to walk up to him, he could easily roll over and shoot you.
 
911 said:
I would have thought you would have heard or read this during your lifetime. Cops are trained to stop the threat. If the person the cop is attempting to take down has a gun and is shooting at the officer, we are trained to shoot to hit the center mass of the body. If the culprit only has a knife, we shoot to incapacitate him or her.

Up to about the year 2000, we were trained to stop the threat by shooting to kill. If the culprit has a gun and you shoot to only maimed your person with the gun and you begin to walk up to him, he could easily roll over and shoot you.
Click to expand...
..and in this case, I'm sure you've watched the video .. the woman was not in any way a threat to him enough for him to shoot her in the face..

Upstanding officers like @911 are a dying breed..certainly in this country anyway...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top