IL - Sonya Massey Shot To Death In Her Own Home by Sangamon County Deputy After Calling to Report a Prowler, Springfield 6 July 2024

[Marantz4250b]

the body cams are equipped to retroactively record up to 30 seconds prior to their being activated pursuant to paragraph 1 of the statute listed above. Pre-Event recording technology.

that is why we see from the other deputy's footage Grayson turning his on after the shooting but when the cam video was played back it actually recorded Grayson as he shot Sonya.

The other deputy saw Grayson turning on his cam and that is why he assured Grayson "it's okay, mine is on" what neither deputy was probably taking into account is that pre-event technology feature programed into their body cams. They may not even have been aware that their cams could do that.

Thing I don't get is why even have the facility to turn them off? The requirement is that they record for no less than ten hours anyway and that's pretty much a full shift unless you get into some huge event that really extends your duty day.

You'd just have them record all the time, surely?

 

[tlcya]

Thing I don't get is why even have the facility to turn them off? The requirement is that they record for no less than ten hours anyway and that's pretty much a full shift unless you get into some huge event that really extends your duty day.

You'd just have them record all the time, surely?

apparently they must turn them off if a witness or citizen requests it, and are not required to have them on while in their cruisers filling out reports, etc.

the requirement that they must record for 10 hours is not a requirement for the deputy, it is a requirement of the equipment that they have that ability.

I agree, it might be better if they simply had to leave them on at all times but I can see bathroom breaks being a bit dicey because I surely don't want to see all that.

they must also turn them off under the following circumstances:

​

(4) Cameras must be turned off when: (A) the victim of a crime requests that the​

​ camera be turned off, and unless impractical or impossible, that request is made on the recording;​

(B) a witness of a crime or a community member​

​ who wishes to report a crime requests that the camera be turned off, and unless impractical or impossible that request is made on the recording;​

(C) the officer is interacting with a​

​ confidential informant used by the law enforcement agency; or​

 

[UrsulaWrenn]

Thing I don't get is why even have the facility to turn them off? The requirement is that they record for no less than ten hours anyway and that's pretty much a full shift unless you get into some huge event that really extends your duty day.

You'd just have them record all the time, surely?

I *assume* they turn them off when they're at the station, on breaks, in the washroom, etc. Then often forget to turn them back on. I don't blame the officers for wanting some privacy, but also wish there was a more fool-proof way to make sure they're on when they're interacting with the public.

 

[Marantz4250b]

apparently they must turn them off if a witness or citizen requests it, and are not required to have them on while in their cruisers filling out reports, etc.

the requirement that they must record for 10 hours is not a requirement for the deputy, it is a requirement of the equipment that they have that ability.

I agree, it might be better if they simply had to leave them on at all times but I can see bathroom breaks being a bit dicey because I surely don't want to see all that.

they must also turn them off under the following circumstances:

​

(4) Cameras must be turned off when: (A) the victim of a crime requests that the​

​ camera be turned off, and unless impractical or impossible, that request is made on the recording;​

(B) a witness of a crime or a community member​

​ who wishes to report a crime requests that the camera be turned off, and unless impractical or impossible that request is made on the recording;​

(C) the officer is interacting with a​

​ confidential informant used by the law enforcement agency; or​

Oh yes, agreed totally. Okay, so you have the facility to switch it off but all of the circumstances outlined above will either be explainable by the officer or the reason will be shown on the video, such as a member of the public requesting it.

The rule should be, imo, that it's always on unless you have a good reason for it not to be.

 

[tlcya]

Sean P. Grayson served in the US Army as a mechanic for two years, but was discharged in 2016 for a serious offense of misconduct. A statement from Sangamon County Sheriff Jack Campbell said that his office "understood that the serious misconduct referenced in these documents was a DUI. We were aware of the DUI at the time of hire."
Former deputy charged in shooting of Sonya Massey was discharged from Army for misconduct

so if his misconduct in the army was a DUI then that makes 3 DUIs he pled guilty to? How did he even still have a license let alone license to carry and a job in LE?

 

[sunspun]

the body cams are equipped to retroactively record up to 30 seconds prior to their being activated pursuant to paragraph 1 of the statute listed above. Pre-Event recording technology.

that is why we see from the other deputy's footage Grayson turning his on after the shooting but when the cam video was played back it actually recorded Grayson as he shot Sonya.

The other deputy saw Grayson turning on his cam and that is why he assured Grayson "it's okay, mine is on" what neither deputy was probably taking into account is that pre-event technology feature programed into their body cams. They may not even have been aware that their cams could do that.

Wow, never heard of that. Any idea how that could possibly work? The only way I can come up with would be by MAGIC, but I assume there's another explanation!

 

[celinesleuth]

This has absolutely broken my heart and infuriated me. MOO but "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus Christ" isn't a super weird thing to say, Sonya was only expressing her disapproval to the officer implying she was going to throw the water at him. Again just my opinion. Additionally, I'd like to see measurements or floor plans of the property in order to gauge just how much the threat of the boiling water posed - shooting THREE times is absolutely an overreaction and hopefully the prosecution will take all measures necessary to show just how much of an overreaction it was. It escalated soooo quickly it's terrifying.

 

[PrairieWind]

Thing I don't get is why even have the facility to turn them off? The requirement is that they record for no less than ten hours anyway and that's pretty much a full shift unless you get into some huge event that really extends your duty day.

You'd just have them record all the time, surely?

There are times the camera should not be recording, like when an officer uses the restroom or if interacting with an informant.

 

[PrairieWind]

This has absolutely broken my heart and infuriated me. MOO but "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus Christ" isn't a super weird thing to say, Sonya was only expressing her disapproval to the officer implying she was going to throw the water at him. Again just my opinion. Additionally, I'd like to see measurements or floor plans of the property in order to gauge just how much the threat of the boiling water posed - shooting THREE times is absolutely an overreaction and hopefully the prosecution will take all measures necessary to show just how much of an overreaction it was. It escalated soooo quickly it's terrifying.

The speed of the escalation is what stuns me. There is a fairly routine encounter, she calls, they respond, look around, talk to her on the porch, very calm and normal and he says something about "is there anything else we can do for you." implying they are about to leave, she responds a bit odd and he says something about, "are you doing ok, you know mentally" or something to that effect. He seems to detect that she might not be totally ok. They go in, he is getting some identification, again all calm and pleasant, she goes to move the water and he just completely changes, pulls the gun and warns her he will shoot her in the face. I don't get it. If he really felt threatened, just back off and out the front door.

 

[MollyDDD]

I was thinking about the neighborhood where this occurred, and thinking about how the officers responded to this situation. They arrive, search the place, from what we see they never announce themselves, just start knocking on the door. No "Sherrif's department, we're here to help." Ask dispatch to call her to let her know they are outside.

I am reminded of active school shootings, where kids and staff are trained to not open the doors for anyone, even if they claim to be LE. Ask for them to show their badge, or give them some evidence. They didn't let her know who they were, just assumed she would know they were the answer to her 911 call. To me, that could speak of their opinion of people who lived in that neighborhood, whether that be about poverty, race, substance use or combination of factors.

I do not know if these two officers were partners, or if they met up at the scene after being separately dispatched there. I remember listening to the dispatch audio about the incident, but don't remember if the two LE were together or separate. Either way, it is clear, at the end of the officer camera footage, how much this incident impacted the officer who tried to help her. He kept saying he was okay on his radio, as his hands are shaking and his breathing is still racing. Finally another officer comes up to him, gives him some comfort and tells him to turn his camera off, go off duty, take care of yourself. I hope they force him to take a leave and get ongoing support. What a horrific incident to be a part of.

Imagine that being your job every day?

 

[sunspun]

Imagine that being your job every day?

They signed up for it. They know what's involved. They can always QUIT.

If only he had.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Imagine that being your job every day?

It won’t be Sean Grayson’s job anymore. Thankfully.

jmo

 

[MollyDDD]

The speed of the escalation is what stuns me. There is a fairly routine encounter, she calls, they respond, look around, talk to her on the porch, very calm and normal and he says something about "is there anything else we can do for you." implying they are about to leave, she responds a bit odd and he says something about, "are you doing ok, you know mentally" or something to that effect. He seems to detect that she might not be totally ok. They go in, he is getting some identification, again all calm and pleasant, she goes to move the water and he just completely changes, pulls the gun and warns her he will shoot her in the face. I don't get it. If he really felt threatened, just back off and out the front door.

Perhaps he felt that she was challenging his authority and his guard went up by whatever it was that she said to him, as she went to move the boiling water. JMOO
Disclaimer: I am not defending his actions or making excuses for why he shot her. She did not deserve to die that day. Thank you.

 

[MollyDDD]

They signed up for it. They know what's involved. They can always QUIT.

If only he had.

Maybe they will.

 

[sunspun]

This has absolutely broken my heart and infuriated me. MOO but "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus Christ" isn't a super weird thing to say, Sonya was only expressing her disapproval to the officer implying she was going to throw the water at him. Again just my opinion. Additionally, I'd like to see measurements or floor plans of the property in order to gauge just how much the threat of the boiling water posed - shooting THREE times is absolutely an overreaction and hopefully the prosecution will take all measures necessary to show just how much of an overreaction it was. It escalated soooo quickly it's terrifying.

Imo, it doesn't matter how big or small her place was, because they could have just turned around and walked out. No one was blocking their access to the front door. She had not done anything yet that broke any laws, so there was nothing wrong with them just leaving her there, ending their interaction with her, and just walked right back out the same door they came in.

If they really thought their work there was not yet done and they shouldn't leave just yet, all they had to do was STEP BACK a few feet. She wasn't much of a threat to them where they were, imo, but if they had moved back just a few feet away from her, she would have certainly been no threat at all and they would've been in absolutely no danger.

Why was that asking too much for them to do? Why was it so important for him to remain rooted in the spot he was in, if he really thought she was about to throw boiling water on him? When that thought formed in his mind, that she might be thinking of harming him, that's when he decided she had to die. Or at least that's when he thought that he would have to kill her.

That's why he never moved. When he suddenly thought he was in danger from her, his first thought, his first INSTINCT should have been to move AWAY from her. But instead, his first instinct was to HURT her. To kill her. So it wasn't because he felt he was in danger or that he feared for his life, it was because he was OFFENDED. Because she had offended him. And apparently, that's a very dangerous thing to do to a man like him when he's holding a lethal weapon and has been given the authority to use it to kill a person if he decides to. I'm afraid there are way too many men like him in that same position. Some women too, but many more men. I wish there were a better way to police the citizenry than what we have.

 

[celinesleuth]

Imo, it doesn't matter how big or small her place was, because they could have just turned around and walked out. No one was blocking their access to the front door. She had not done anything yet that broke any laws, so there was nothing wrong with them just leaving her there, ending their interaction with her, and just walked right back out the same door they came in.

If they really thought their work there was not yet done and they shouldn't leave just yet, all they had to do was STEP BACK a few feet. She wasn't much of a threat to them where they were, imo, but if they had moved back just a few feet away from her, she would have certainly been no threat at all and they would've been in absolutely no danger.

Why was that asking too much for them to do? Why was it so important for him to remain rooted in the spot he was in, if he really thought she was about to throw boiling water on him? When that thought formed in his mind, that she might be thinking of harming him, that's when he decided she had to die. Or at least that's when he thought that he would have to kill her.

That's why he never moved. When he suddenly thought he was in danger from her, his first thought, his first INSTINCT should have been to move AWAY from her. But instead, his first instinct was to HURT her. To kill her. So it wasn't because he felt he was in danger or that he feared for his life, it was because he was OFFENDED. Because she had offended him. And apparently, that's a very dangerous thing to do to a man like him when he's holding a lethal weapon and has been given the authority to use it to kill a person if he decides to. I'm afraid there are way too many men like him in that same position. Some women too, but many more men. I wish there were a better way to police the citizenry than what we have.

110% agree with all of this. IMO his mind was made up before he entered the house. Maybe (probably) made up weeks, months, even years before. Awful

 

[spyblond]

Perhaps he felt that she was challenging his authority and his guard went up by whatever it was that she said to him, as she went to move the boiling water. JMOO
Disclaimer: I am not defending his actions or making excuses for why he shot her. She did not deserve to die that day. Thank you.

<modsnip - personalizing> I don't think we really need to come up with hypotheticals as to why he acted the way he did. What matters is that he murdered someone and we should all be able to side with the VICTIM here.

 

[fsngruv]

<modsnip - personalizing> I don't think we really need to come up with hypotheticals as to why he acted the way he did. What matters is that he murdered someone and we should all be able to side with the VICTIM here.

I can't help but completely agree. Is this same consideration given to the perpatrator who rapes or kills a child? No. No one comes to the perps side to say, maybe they were attracted to the child? Maybe the child was coming on to them? We don't do that because it would be abhorrent if anyone did. Just as it is in this case.

 

[MollyDDD]

It won’t be Sean Grayson’s job anymore. Thankfully.

jmo

That’s true, many lose their jobs or quit. I hear the pay’s not that great anyway.

 

[georgiajean]

<modsnip - personalizing> I don't think we really need to come up with hypotheticals as to why he acted the way he did. What matters is that he murdered someone and we should all be able to side with the VICTIM here.

I believe it is important to try to decipher what happened in his sick mind, so that departments can better assess officers. So the warning signs are clear, and such hot-head reactionary individuals are not allowed to jump through so many departments and jobs. These individuals should NOT be allowed to keep working. Let this case be the one that puts some hard lines that stop such individuals from being in positions of authority with weapons.

Do officers report each other, or not? In other professions, like nursing, people report dangerous behavior. It is expected, for patient care and safety. Why not law enforcement?