- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
this MFer right here. Sorry but I am so angry right now. If he were any more full of 
it would be leaking out of his eyeballs.
it would be leaking out of his eyeballs.
IL - Sonya Massey Shot To Death In Her Own Home by Sangamon County Deputy After Calling to Report a Prowler, Springfield 6 July 2024
- Thread starter tlcya
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
from anther reporter's perspective from inside the courtroom:
10:02am Re-direct exam. Grayson did ask to review body-worn camera. Didn’t think he needed to put everything in the report because it was on the body camera. Wrote it’s a “summary” of his action. Never went to state police to change report (reference to Farley doing so).
9:56am: Cross-examination by SA John Milhiser. Says it’s new that she was going forward. “I didn’t put that in my report,” said Grayson. Milhiser than goes through Grayson’s report. FOP rep, and a sergeant, watching over me as I wrote the report. Says it’s important to put all accurate information in the report.
Grayson admits that he didn’t write “I will shoot you in your f***ing face” in the report, but think he did reference threatening to shoot. Just stated that he drew his weapon, nothing else. No one would have heard that if Farley’s body cam wasn’t on. “I was in imminent fear” he wrote in this report. Says FOP didn’t give him that language. Wrote that he asked Farley if he got hit with the liquids. Stated he did not get hit. Watched video several times. In the video, it’s 50 seconds after the shot that he asked Farley, “you good?” Wasn’t right away.
“New information,” Milhiser says, that I was approaching forward to put Massey in handcuffs. None of that is in Grayson’s written report, he admits.
9:52am: I approached her because she was on the ground making movements behind the counter. I was going to secure her in handcuffs, and if I had done that, she would have been okay. She would have been arrested for aggravated assault on a police officer. Trying to gain a direct line of sight on her. When Grayson told her he was going to shot, she had said “I’m sorry.” She then put her hands in the air, which is why I approached. It wasn’t until I got closer to the cabinets that she jumped up and grabbed the pot, raised it above her head. As she was throwing the pot at me, that’s when I fired the gun.
9:40am: Attempts to get contact information for Sonya. Under a direct order that any time I went to a call I needed to get contact information. She was generally being cooperative, but “scatter-brained.” I never got any identifying information. Stack of cards were in hand, but that’s when I heard popping and cracking coming from the kitchen.
I observed the pot turning red, suggesting it had been own for awhile. Told Farley to go to the stove to turn it off. Farley was closest to the stove. I was inbetween Massey and the baseball bat.
Then Massey jumps up, goes in to the kitchen, and I wasn’t sure why she jumped up from the couch. Maybe she had an “oh crap” moment, but I was concerned that she went in behind Farley. I didn’t see any food or other cooking material out, so that was also a concern. Sonya did turn off the burner. She picks up the pot, starts to walk towards me. I was six feet away from her, then she started going toward our directions. I wasn’t quite sure what she was going to do. Rested pot on the counter, turned on the water, but never filled it or did anything else. She was wearing oven mitts. It made me believe she knew the pot was very hot. Walking toward me and the sink. We started to backstep, she asked where we were going. I said “away from your hot steaming pot of water.” She said “this pot of steaming water…I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.” It came out of nowhere, so I took it as a threat. She’s standing, holding the pot, raised a lot of concern for me when she said she’d rebuke me, making me think she was going to throw the pot of water on me.
We were trained to use force that was going to gain compliance. In this situation, “I matched the threat level.” The only thing that could stop the treat was his gun. She was being very stern, no joking, meaning what she was saying. When someone repeats themselves (“I rebuke you in the name of Jesus”), they’re serious. Thought that’s when she would throw the boiling water, I drew my duty weapon.
Not every deputy carries a taser. Deputies have to know what it feels like before they can carry it. I decided not to use taser because of what she was wearing. I had an older model of taser. I didn’t want to take the chance of it not functioning. It has happened before. She could possibly have thrown the water even if using a taser. “It’s not 100 percent effective,” said Grayson.
I did warn her multiple times, and she did comply.
9:31am: I wasn’t worried, but more concerned. Lots of things could have been going on inside the house, said Grayson. After four minutes, Massey later answered. She said “please don’t hurt me,” I said we were going to help you. She would say “nothing” when asked what she needed after saying “I need help.” I didn’t know if she had taken meds, drinking, used drugs, etc. Behavior was “pretty typical” for the type of people we dealt with at midnights. Said some random person had dropped off the car, had dispatch run the vehicle. I’m talking to her, she kept saying she needed help, or if she was going to say someone was inside the residence. Said he’d come inside, but we need to get your name. When asked about the car, she said it wasn’t her car. I asked her about the damage, if there was any prior damage (there was a dent), and she said “Oh yeah, it happened earlier” when asked about the smashed windshield. Farley said the vehicle had come back to being registered to Massey. Didn’t know “why she was lying” about the vehicle. Said we needed to get her name then we would leave.
I stepped into the living room of the home. All the lights were on, TV was on, a bible and a baseball bat on the couch of the home. I believed she was scared, and maybe it was self-defense if someone came into the home.
9:25am: The damage to the car made it a different call to Grayson. Didn’t know who it belonged to or how it got there. Because there was a brick inside the car and smashed windows, that was a concern.
Grayson started searching the south side of the property, while Farley went to the north. Farley and I communicated via radio as we searched. We decided to approach the front door after we cleared the yard and found no trace. Farley knocked, I walked up as he was knocking. Says he knocked louder than Farley did. We could see someone moving in the house, but no one responding. Dispatched called, we heard ringing, but still no one answered. Could hear loud voices, but no one answering. Says concern was raising the longer we didn’t get inside.
9:20am: Grayson had been called to the “Cabbage Patch” area of Springfield previously — a lot of calls for serious crimes in that area — drugs, alcohol, guns, other violence. “The east side of Springfield is kind of a high crime area,” said Grayson. Both arrived at the Massey home at almost the same time. Farley searched the north side of the property, Grayson the south.
Says a “prowler” is a sort of lower priority, depends on what information is given. It’s a little higher priority if someone tries to enter a residence versus just walking around the outside of the residence.
Says we are not always required to write a report on a call. Anyone wants to file charges a report will written. It’s up to the complainant. Will write a narrative for the ticket, but not always a full report.
Has seen both body-worn camera videos. Policy of when camera is on: when “something is not civil.” “When she answered the door…I should have turned my body cam on,” said Grayson, when he started investigated damage with the car. No cameras on if you’re just serving papers. Anything civil, with no report, no camera on.
Said sometimes you have to hit the button two or three times to get the camera to turn on. It can make an audible noise, but we usually mute it at night shift so it’s not lit up and people can see us coming.
9:16am: Grayson was on a traffic stop near 2nd and Spruce Hills prior to the call at Massey’s Hoover Ave. home. Farley responded to the same traffic stop after he did, just to see if help is needed. Not upset about anything, except that he was having problems with his computer system in his patrol car.
Then, a female called dispatch saying someone was outside her home. Grayson got to call just after Farley did in the “Cabbage Patch” area of unincorporated Springfield, 2868 Hoover Ave.
9:10am: Grayson says the most difficult calls come in during his shift, the “midnight shift.” Says dealing with the public at that time involved a lot of people who were under the influence. He generally patrolled “North Town” — north of Cook Street, but was in “South Town” the night of the incident. Two deputies generally assigned to that area. Deputies generally assigned to calls based on who’s closer. Says he did not know Deputy Dawson Farley outside of the shift. Maybe five or six times tops, and a less-experienced deputy works with one more-experienced. Farley started after Grayson.
9:05am: Defense attorney Dan Fultz questions Grayson. Grayson is a native of Virden.
He’s been a police officer for four years. Hired part-time in 2020. Was with Sangamon Co. Sheriff’s Department over a year. Started May 1, 2023. Completed 14 week training in Decatur, followed by two weeks in the department going over policies and documents.
Sean Grayson Trial: Day 6 Blog - Capitol City Now
10:02am Re-direct exam. Grayson did ask to review body-worn camera. Didn’t think he needed to put everything in the report because it was on the body camera. Wrote it’s a “summary” of his action. Never went to state police to change report (reference to Farley doing so).
9:56am: Cross-examination by SA John Milhiser. Says it’s new that she was going forward. “I didn’t put that in my report,” said Grayson. Milhiser than goes through Grayson’s report. FOP rep, and a sergeant, watching over me as I wrote the report. Says it’s important to put all accurate information in the report.
Grayson admits that he didn’t write “I will shoot you in your f***ing face” in the report, but think he did reference threatening to shoot. Just stated that he drew his weapon, nothing else. No one would have heard that if Farley’s body cam wasn’t on. “I was in imminent fear” he wrote in this report. Says FOP didn’t give him that language. Wrote that he asked Farley if he got hit with the liquids. Stated he did not get hit. Watched video several times. In the video, it’s 50 seconds after the shot that he asked Farley, “you good?” Wasn’t right away.
“New information,” Milhiser says, that I was approaching forward to put Massey in handcuffs. None of that is in Grayson’s written report, he admits.
9:52am: I approached her because she was on the ground making movements behind the counter. I was going to secure her in handcuffs, and if I had done that, she would have been okay. She would have been arrested for aggravated assault on a police officer. Trying to gain a direct line of sight on her. When Grayson told her he was going to shot, she had said “I’m sorry.” She then put her hands in the air, which is why I approached. It wasn’t until I got closer to the cabinets that she jumped up and grabbed the pot, raised it above her head. As she was throwing the pot at me, that’s when I fired the gun.
9:40am: Attempts to get contact information for Sonya. Under a direct order that any time I went to a call I needed to get contact information. She was generally being cooperative, but “scatter-brained.” I never got any identifying information. Stack of cards were in hand, but that’s when I heard popping and cracking coming from the kitchen.
I observed the pot turning red, suggesting it had been own for awhile. Told Farley to go to the stove to turn it off. Farley was closest to the stove. I was inbetween Massey and the baseball bat.
Then Massey jumps up, goes in to the kitchen, and I wasn’t sure why she jumped up from the couch. Maybe she had an “oh crap” moment, but I was concerned that she went in behind Farley. I didn’t see any food or other cooking material out, so that was also a concern. Sonya did turn off the burner. She picks up the pot, starts to walk towards me. I was six feet away from her, then she started going toward our directions. I wasn’t quite sure what she was going to do. Rested pot on the counter, turned on the water, but never filled it or did anything else. She was wearing oven mitts. It made me believe she knew the pot was very hot. Walking toward me and the sink. We started to backstep, she asked where we were going. I said “away from your hot steaming pot of water.” She said “this pot of steaming water…I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.” It came out of nowhere, so I took it as a threat. She’s standing, holding the pot, raised a lot of concern for me when she said she’d rebuke me, making me think she was going to throw the pot of water on me.
We were trained to use force that was going to gain compliance. In this situation, “I matched the threat level.” The only thing that could stop the treat was his gun. She was being very stern, no joking, meaning what she was saying. When someone repeats themselves (“I rebuke you in the name of Jesus”), they’re serious. Thought that’s when she would throw the boiling water, I drew my duty weapon.
Not every deputy carries a taser. Deputies have to know what it feels like before they can carry it. I decided not to use taser because of what she was wearing. I had an older model of taser. I didn’t want to take the chance of it not functioning. It has happened before. She could possibly have thrown the water even if using a taser. “It’s not 100 percent effective,” said Grayson.
I did warn her multiple times, and she did comply.
9:31am: I wasn’t worried, but more concerned. Lots of things could have been going on inside the house, said Grayson. After four minutes, Massey later answered. She said “please don’t hurt me,” I said we were going to help you. She would say “nothing” when asked what she needed after saying “I need help.” I didn’t know if she had taken meds, drinking, used drugs, etc. Behavior was “pretty typical” for the type of people we dealt with at midnights. Said some random person had dropped off the car, had dispatch run the vehicle. I’m talking to her, she kept saying she needed help, or if she was going to say someone was inside the residence. Said he’d come inside, but we need to get your name. When asked about the car, she said it wasn’t her car. I asked her about the damage, if there was any prior damage (there was a dent), and she said “Oh yeah, it happened earlier” when asked about the smashed windshield. Farley said the vehicle had come back to being registered to Massey. Didn’t know “why she was lying” about the vehicle. Said we needed to get her name then we would leave.
I stepped into the living room of the home. All the lights were on, TV was on, a bible and a baseball bat on the couch of the home. I believed she was scared, and maybe it was self-defense if someone came into the home.
9:25am: The damage to the car made it a different call to Grayson. Didn’t know who it belonged to or how it got there. Because there was a brick inside the car and smashed windows, that was a concern.
Grayson started searching the south side of the property, while Farley went to the north. Farley and I communicated via radio as we searched. We decided to approach the front door after we cleared the yard and found no trace. Farley knocked, I walked up as he was knocking. Says he knocked louder than Farley did. We could see someone moving in the house, but no one responding. Dispatched called, we heard ringing, but still no one answered. Could hear loud voices, but no one answering. Says concern was raising the longer we didn’t get inside.
9:20am: Grayson had been called to the “Cabbage Patch” area of Springfield previously — a lot of calls for serious crimes in that area — drugs, alcohol, guns, other violence. “The east side of Springfield is kind of a high crime area,” said Grayson. Both arrived at the Massey home at almost the same time. Farley searched the north side of the property, Grayson the south.
Says a “prowler” is a sort of lower priority, depends on what information is given. It’s a little higher priority if someone tries to enter a residence versus just walking around the outside of the residence.
Says we are not always required to write a report on a call. Anyone wants to file charges a report will written. It’s up to the complainant. Will write a narrative for the ticket, but not always a full report.
Has seen both body-worn camera videos. Policy of when camera is on: when “something is not civil.” “When she answered the door…I should have turned my body cam on,” said Grayson, when he started investigated damage with the car. No cameras on if you’re just serving papers. Anything civil, with no report, no camera on.
Said sometimes you have to hit the button two or three times to get the camera to turn on. It can make an audible noise, but we usually mute it at night shift so it’s not lit up and people can see us coming.
9:16am: Grayson was on a traffic stop near 2nd and Spruce Hills prior to the call at Massey’s Hoover Ave. home. Farley responded to the same traffic stop after he did, just to see if help is needed. Not upset about anything, except that he was having problems with his computer system in his patrol car.
Then, a female called dispatch saying someone was outside her home. Grayson got to call just after Farley did in the “Cabbage Patch” area of unincorporated Springfield, 2868 Hoover Ave.
9:10am: Grayson says the most difficult calls come in during his shift, the “midnight shift.” Says dealing with the public at that time involved a lot of people who were under the influence. He generally patrolled “North Town” — north of Cook Street, but was in “South Town” the night of the incident. Two deputies generally assigned to that area. Deputies generally assigned to calls based on who’s closer. Says he did not know Deputy Dawson Farley outside of the shift. Maybe five or six times tops, and a less-experienced deputy works with one more-experienced. Farley started after Grayson.
9:05am: Defense attorney Dan Fultz questions Grayson. Grayson is a native of Virden.
He’s been a police officer for four years. Hired part-time in 2020. Was with Sangamon Co. Sheriff’s Department over a year. Started May 1, 2023. Completed 14 week training in Decatur, followed by two weeks in the department going over policies and documents.
Sean Grayson Trial: Day 6 Blog - Capitol City Now
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
So far, Grayson claims he wasn't telling Sonya to go deal with the pot, he meant that directive for Deputy Farley because he was closer to the kitchen area. When Sonya went to pick the pot up from the stove instead, he spoke, and she turned away from stove sink and moved toward the counter between them. He decided that couple with her statement "I rebuke you" was a threat and intended to arrest her for for aggravated assault on a police officer.
So he blames Farley and Sonya basically for his ridiculous actions. Farley was supposed to go check on the pot per his thinking and should have known his comment was meant for him not Sonya. Sonya said I rebuke you and moved toward her counter so she was committing agg assault on officer by those actions. Got it.
What a joke.
So he blames Farley and Sonya basically for his ridiculous actions. Farley was supposed to go check on the pot per his thinking and should have known his comment was meant for him not Sonya. Sonya said I rebuke you and moved toward her counter so she was committing agg assault on officer by those actions. Got it.
What a joke.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
just bringing forward the video of the shooting. Watch at your own discretion.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,399
- Reaction score
- 12,193
Self-licking ice cream cone? What the heck did he mean by that? Something about him using this appearance to somehow self-promote? Which wouldn't even make sense to call him that if so... I don't get it.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
yeah, he thought he was being clever insinuating the state's experts appearances at trial were motivated by self promotion, book sales, and greed. It seems to have fallen flat.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
kindof makes me want Milhiser to ask defense expert currently testifying that same question tho - if only to highlight how ridiculous the question was.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,399
- Reaction score
- 12,193
Sounds like he did... "Sangamon County State's Attorney John Milhiser began his re-direct examination by saying 'I can't believe I'm using the words self-licking ice cream cone.'" (from your post above)
Oh wait, you said the defense witness, nm!
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2015
- Messages
- 595
- Reaction score
- 8,249
‘Grayson saw Massey grab the pot, raise it above her head, and throw the pot at him. Grayson said he only discharged his weapon when he saw Massey throw the pot at him.’
Right except the rest of us watched the video and also have eyes, dude.
Right except the rest of us watched the video and also have eyes, dude.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
Today's testimony has me heated, but I keep reminding myself. The jury has seen the same video I have. I hope the judge allows them to view it in the jury room when deliberating if the request that. Because to me it cannot be any clearer. I must believe the jury will see what we see and will come to the correct verdict.
If they do not I have genuine fears that violence will result in my city and I do not want to see that. Very proud of my community so far and I don't want to see all that work towards unity besmirched by division and harm.
If they do not I have genuine fears that violence will result in my city and I do not want to see that. Very proud of my community so far and I don't want to see all that work towards unity besmirched by division and harm.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
Defense expert Corett:
11;34am: Analysis has to be done unbiased, objectively, and at times with hindsight.
Recess for lunch until 1pm.
11:27am: If some of the procedures were deemed inappropriate, that doesn’t necessarily mean everything that follows would also be inappropriate, said Corbitt.
11:23am: Pulling the trigger was the tactically-sound thing to do, said Corbitt. Farley not being able to turn off the water was what started down the path. Massey’s intentions with the pot of water do not matter, he said. Only the officer’s perception is what matters, not Massey’s intentions.
11:22am: Corbitt says based on generally-accepted principals, etc., what Grayson did, the use of force against Massey was appropriate, based on the “totality of the circumstances.”
Sean Grayson Trial: Day 6 Blog - Capitol City Now
RE the BBM, I soundly disagree. His perception is not all that matters, what matters is, was his perception REASONABLE? and it was not IMO. A woman with a pot of water she just removed form the stove saying "I rebuke you" after clearly making statements indicating she was mentally confused should never be met with a raised weapon and "I will shoot you in your F*$&ing face" Period.
11;34am: Analysis has to be done unbiased, objectively, and at times with hindsight.
Recess for lunch until 1pm.
11:27am: If some of the procedures were deemed inappropriate, that doesn’t necessarily mean everything that follows would also be inappropriate, said Corbitt.
11:23am: Pulling the trigger was the tactically-sound thing to do, said Corbitt. Farley not being able to turn off the water was what started down the path. Massey’s intentions with the pot of water do not matter, he said. Only the officer’s perception is what matters, not Massey’s intentions.
11:22am: Corbitt says based on generally-accepted principals, etc., what Grayson did, the use of force against Massey was appropriate, based on the “totality of the circumstances.”
Sean Grayson Trial: Day 6 Blog - Capitol City Now
RE the BBM, I soundly disagree. His perception is not all that matters, what matters is, was his perception REASONABLE? and it was not IMO. A woman with a pot of water she just removed form the stove saying "I rebuke you" after clearly making statements indicating she was mentally confused should never be met with a raised weapon and "I will shoot you in your F*$&ing face" Period.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
IV.A. General Concepts IV.A.6. Officers may utilize an appropriate response based on the reasonable perception of the subject’s threat and are not required to wait for an attack or injury to occur.
IV.A.7. When the use of force by an officer causes injury to another, the officer will evaluate the subject’s physical condition, render first aid, and request emergency medical assistance as soon as practical and safe to do so.
https://police.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/transparency/300UseForce.pdf
IV.A.7. When the use of force by an officer causes injury to another, the officer will evaluate the subject’s physical condition, render first aid, and request emergency medical assistance as soon as practical and safe to do so.
https://police.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/transparency/300UseForce.pdf
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2021
- Messages
- 1,382
- Reaction score
- 13,905
How many times has the defendant been able to watch this video? Because I've seen it a few times and IMO he is not describing the video I saw. MOO that pot was never raised above Massey's head.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
back from lunch more defense expert testimony:
2:14pm: It’s now possible closing arguments could be had Tuesday at 9am, but that will be taken up after the current witness is done, after a recess.
2:09pm: Davis says his still-frame analysis found what Illinois State Police did in terms of throwing the pot toward Grayson. We couldn’t know what was going through Massey’s mind. Only Grayson’s mind matters at this point.
“Officer-created jeopardy” is not widely accepted, but it’s a construct that’s been developed by academics of shifting the responsibility from the subject to the officer. It’s an “academic construct — in other words…it’s something somebody felt.” You won’t find that in Davis’ tenure as an officer, and not accepted in police training. “Some sort of novel police concept,” said Mark Wykoff, defense attorney. (Earlier prosecution witnesses, at least one, worked in academia but was a former police officer.)
2:07pm: Davis says the body-worn camera, even if perfectly placed, would not perfectly show what an officer sees. In other words, no one really knows what the officer saw except for the officer himself. The lens is a fisheye lens, and can make things look distorted, people look farther away, etc. The video doesn’t tell the whole story, he says. “Sometimes some things can be missed” watching things in real-time, said Davis. It’s not a continuous picture — the audio is, but the picture isn’t, not a 30 frames per second.
As he looked frame by frame, after she put the pot on the counter, she dropped down to the ground, but sprang back up, threw the contents of the pot. That’s what Grayson’s report says happened.
2:01pm: Davis says you can be sanctioned for policy violations but be okay because you didn’t violate lethal force policy.
1:57pm: A defense witness list shows only five people, outside of Grayson. We are on the third of five of those witnesses now.
1:52pm: We tell officers to maintain distance, but law enforcement “is a contact sport” and sometimes closing distance is needed depending on the circumstance.
Grayson changed positions to look at Massey was “completely reasonable” and less obscured. No tactical error there. Where to stand in a situation is discretionary and generally-accepted.
1:49pm: “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus” was perceived as a threat before throwing it in the direction of Grayson. The officer fired, and the use of force stops.
Defines de-escalation as a “concept that has gathered steam within law enforcement over the last few years.” Have to have subjects that will cooperate. Can take the form of deadly force being used. Says a lot more training that has come out since he was retired, but de-escalation can be intertwined with use of force.
Grayson made attempts to de-escalate with “put the pot down” are warnings based on warnings of his perception of a potential threat. If she put the pot down and not picked it up again, she would have been taken into custody at least for investigation.
Lethal force is a de-escallation, “you’re stopping the person.”
1:34pm Sangamon County’s use of force policy is deemed generally-accepted police standards. Says Grayson’s use of lethal force was warranted based on county policy and generally-accepted standards.
1:32pm: When he examines a case, he wants “everything I can get my hands on.” He wanted curriculum from the state on use of force, but never received it.
1:22pm: Says with Akron Police, he also supervised the installation and use of body-worn police cameras.
1:11pm: Next witness is Kevin Davis, retired law enforcement officer, formerly with Akron, Ohio police, now an expert and police trainer. Says he received “thousands of hours of training” on use of force, after being very successful in narcotics investigations. Says he became “the trainer of the trainers” regarding use of force. Now runs his own consulting firm after retiring.
1:10pm: Under re-direct, says while he doesn’t speak to generally-accepted principles in report, they’re taught and practiced every day.
1:05pm: Wrote that entire encounter must be examined in the first of two reports. Also says that “everything coupled with the totality of circumstances” is included. Wrote “[Massey’s] actions comprised the totality of circumstances that make up this incident.” It was “apparent” that Massey was having a mental health episode. So it made sense for Grayson to use de-escalation techniques. But he defines “slightly different than anyone else.” Can’t teach outcomes, but teach techniques that lead to outcomes. Said de-escalation would have been achieved if she had put down pot of boiling water, in his opinion. Communication is first and foremost, and both a sender and a receiver. That’s ideal for de-escalation.
Mentions generally-accepted principles zero times in his reports. But Grayson achieved de-escalation by shooting Massey.
Sean Grayson Trial: Day 6 Blog - Capitol City Now
expert basically says doesn't matter what we saw or heard on the videos because the videos aren't the same as what Grayson saw. They distorted what happened. 
and he did de-escalate the situation, by "stopping" Sonya.
2:14pm: It’s now possible closing arguments could be had Tuesday at 9am, but that will be taken up after the current witness is done, after a recess.
2:09pm: Davis says his still-frame analysis found what Illinois State Police did in terms of throwing the pot toward Grayson. We couldn’t know what was going through Massey’s mind. Only Grayson’s mind matters at this point.
“Officer-created jeopardy” is not widely accepted, but it’s a construct that’s been developed by academics of shifting the responsibility from the subject to the officer. It’s an “academic construct — in other words…it’s something somebody felt.” You won’t find that in Davis’ tenure as an officer, and not accepted in police training. “Some sort of novel police concept,” said Mark Wykoff, defense attorney. (Earlier prosecution witnesses, at least one, worked in academia but was a former police officer.)
2:07pm: Davis says the body-worn camera, even if perfectly placed, would not perfectly show what an officer sees. In other words, no one really knows what the officer saw except for the officer himself. The lens is a fisheye lens, and can make things look distorted, people look farther away, etc. The video doesn’t tell the whole story, he says. “Sometimes some things can be missed” watching things in real-time, said Davis. It’s not a continuous picture — the audio is, but the picture isn’t, not a 30 frames per second.
As he looked frame by frame, after she put the pot on the counter, she dropped down to the ground, but sprang back up, threw the contents of the pot. That’s what Grayson’s report says happened.
2:01pm: Davis says you can be sanctioned for policy violations but be okay because you didn’t violate lethal force policy.
1:57pm: A defense witness list shows only five people, outside of Grayson. We are on the third of five of those witnesses now.
1:52pm: We tell officers to maintain distance, but law enforcement “is a contact sport” and sometimes closing distance is needed depending on the circumstance.
Grayson changed positions to look at Massey was “completely reasonable” and less obscured. No tactical error there. Where to stand in a situation is discretionary and generally-accepted.
1:49pm: “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus” was perceived as a threat before throwing it in the direction of Grayson. The officer fired, and the use of force stops.
Defines de-escalation as a “concept that has gathered steam within law enforcement over the last few years.” Have to have subjects that will cooperate. Can take the form of deadly force being used. Says a lot more training that has come out since he was retired, but de-escalation can be intertwined with use of force.
Grayson made attempts to de-escalate with “put the pot down” are warnings based on warnings of his perception of a potential threat. If she put the pot down and not picked it up again, she would have been taken into custody at least for investigation.
Lethal force is a de-escallation, “you’re stopping the person.”
1:34pm Sangamon County’s use of force policy is deemed generally-accepted police standards. Says Grayson’s use of lethal force was warranted based on county policy and generally-accepted standards.
1:32pm: When he examines a case, he wants “everything I can get my hands on.” He wanted curriculum from the state on use of force, but never received it.
1:22pm: Says with Akron Police, he also supervised the installation and use of body-worn police cameras.
1:11pm: Next witness is Kevin Davis, retired law enforcement officer, formerly with Akron, Ohio police, now an expert and police trainer. Says he received “thousands of hours of training” on use of force, after being very successful in narcotics investigations. Says he became “the trainer of the trainers” regarding use of force. Now runs his own consulting firm after retiring.
1:10pm: Under re-direct, says while he doesn’t speak to generally-accepted principles in report, they’re taught and practiced every day.
1:05pm: Wrote that entire encounter must be examined in the first of two reports. Also says that “everything coupled with the totality of circumstances” is included. Wrote “[Massey’s] actions comprised the totality of circumstances that make up this incident.” It was “apparent” that Massey was having a mental health episode. So it made sense for Grayson to use de-escalation techniques. But he defines “slightly different than anyone else.” Can’t teach outcomes, but teach techniques that lead to outcomes. Said de-escalation would have been achieved if she had put down pot of boiling water, in his opinion. Communication is first and foremost, and both a sender and a receiver. That’s ideal for de-escalation.
Mentions generally-accepted principles zero times in his reports. But Grayson achieved de-escalation by shooting Massey.
Sean Grayson Trial: Day 6 Blog - Capitol City Now
expert basically says doesn't matter what we saw or heard on the videos because the videos aren't the same as what Grayson saw. They distorted what happened.
and he did de-escalate the situation, by "stopping" Sonya.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
3:01 p.m. Wykoff brings up a book Davis wrote and asks him to count how many times he cites himself, referring to Expert witness Seth Stoughton. Wykoff: "Is it safe to say that because you didn't cite yourself in your report, you're not here to generate book sales?"
2:58 p.m. Davis says he followed generally accepted practices and wrote his report neutrally, dispassionately, and without bias or preconceived notions.
2:55 p.m. The State is through with questioning. Wykoff redirects.
2:54 p.m. More from Davis's report: “An officer under attack by a female subject with a pot of boiling water.” Milhiser emphasizes that the statement sounds pretty bad, and that it's a good thing there's body-cam footage of it.
2:50 p.m. Milhiser reads quotes from Davis's report: “We must examine Massey's manifested intent by way of her actions.” “His [Grayson's] small movements did not create the jeopardy that led to the shooting.”
2:43 p.m. Milhiser asks Davis about the report he wrote on the case and notes that there is a lot of cut-and-paste from other professionals' reports.
2:36 p.m. Milhiser questions Davis about his blog and different blog entries. Milhiser argues that Davis's blog advocates for the use of force in policing. Davis disagrees.
2:31 p.m. Judge Cadagin and the jury have returned to the courtroom. Milhiser begins cross-examination.
Day 6: Live updates of Sean Grayson's trial; Grayson takes the stand
2:58 p.m. Davis says he followed generally accepted practices and wrote his report neutrally, dispassionately, and without bias or preconceived notions.
2:55 p.m. The State is through with questioning. Wykoff redirects.
2:54 p.m. More from Davis's report: “An officer under attack by a female subject with a pot of boiling water.” Milhiser emphasizes that the statement sounds pretty bad, and that it's a good thing there's body-cam footage of it.
2:50 p.m. Milhiser reads quotes from Davis's report: “We must examine Massey's manifested intent by way of her actions.” “His [Grayson's] small movements did not create the jeopardy that led to the shooting.”
2:43 p.m. Milhiser asks Davis about the report he wrote on the case and notes that there is a lot of cut-and-paste from other professionals' reports.
2:36 p.m. Milhiser questions Davis about his blog and different blog entries. Milhiser argues that Davis's blog advocates for the use of force in policing. Davis disagrees.
2:31 p.m. Judge Cadagin and the jury have returned to the courtroom. Milhiser begins cross-examination.
Day 6: Live updates of Sean Grayson's trial; Grayson takes the stand
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
Report inserts six still images of Massey holding the pot above her face. “This is the attack sequence,” said Davis. Luckily we have the body cam, said Milhilser. He says Davis doesn’t have evidence of when she put the pot down or when she apologized. Davis says that’s not when the attack happened.
2:43pm: Milhiser: How many times do you say “Massey attacks” in this report? Davis: I didn’t count. Writes that Massey’s rebuke statement “I will not attempt to dissect an obviously mentally ill Massey’s thought process…readied weapon delivery system.”
References Massey’s “manifested intent”.
As an aside, the witness seems to have trouble reading or following his own report when Milhiser cites it.
Sean Grayson Trial: Day 6 Blog - Capitol City Now
and with the BBM and UBM Davis loses whatever small shred of credibility he entered this trial with JMO
2:43pm: Milhiser: How many times do you say “Massey attacks” in this report? Davis: I didn’t count. Writes that Massey’s rebuke statement “I will not attempt to dissect an obviously mentally ill Massey’s thought process…readied weapon delivery system.”
References Massey’s “manifested intent”.
As an aside, the witness seems to have trouble reading or following his own report when Milhiser cites it.
Sean Grayson Trial: Day 6 Blog - Capitol City Now
and with the BBM and UBM Davis loses whatever small shred of credibility he entered this trial with JMO
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2025
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 1,555
“Readied weapon defense system”?
JMO
JMO
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
Defense rested, tomorrow closing statements, then jury instruction and then probably to the jury by tomorrow afternoon. 
3:40pm: Both sides have submitted full jury instructions. We’ll only focus on if there’s an objection, if needed. It would appear in the instructions that there is a possibility of conviction of Second Degree Murder as well as first. That carries a much lesser sentence, if the jury finds that.
3:00pm: The defense rests. Judge says we’ll wrap up today. Closing arguments tomorrow at 9am. There will be a conference on jury instructions at 3:30pm.
Sean Grayson Trial: Day 6 Blog - Capitol City Now
3:40pm: Both sides have submitted full jury instructions. We’ll only focus on if there’s an objection, if needed. It would appear in the instructions that there is a possibility of conviction of Second Degree Murder as well as first. That carries a much lesser sentence, if the jury finds that.
3:00pm: The defense rests. Judge says we’ll wrap up today. Closing arguments tomorrow at 9am. There will be a conference on jury instructions at 3:30pm.
Sean Grayson Trial: Day 6 Blog - Capitol City Now
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,399
- Reaction score
- 12,193
Whoa, hold on, whaaaat?
That is not what de-escalation means! Or not what it's supposed to mean. If he's right, then they've redefined the term to mean something completely different, something that takes into account exclusively the officer's point of view, as well as only the officer's safety, totally disregarding the civilian in every way that matters.
De-escalation, imo, and what I thought was the long-held commonly accepted definition, can only happen BEFORE the use of lethal force. Once the officer fires at the person, de-escalation in no longer a useful concept. At that point, the only thing that matters is the use of life-saving efforts (and triage in the case of multiple persons).
De-escalation is only needed in the part of the events leading up to lethal force, but of course, if de-escalation is successful, the event would end without the use of lethal force. Shooting the subject is not a way to de-escalate things! It's a way to bring the event to an end, yes, but that is not what de-escalation means, and I thought everyone knew that. Like I said, if that's how they're using the term, then they've re-defined it only from the officer's view. So yes, he can shoot the person and end the episode, and I'm sure the officer himself feels a de-escalation, a release of tension, a reversal of the direction things seemed to be heading. But de-escalation involves more than just the officer and what's good for him. There's the other person in the scene, and if de-escalation truly happened, not only the officer would be in a better place, but the other person would too. Using lethal force as a form of "de-escalation" obviously forgets about the other person's well-being entirely. It in no way satisfies the criteria required to properly call it de-escalation.
De-escalation means you do things to stop the events from getting worse. You see they're heading in a bad direction, and you de-escalate by doing things that reverse that direction, bring down the level of tension, stabilize the situation, MAKE IT BETTER somehow! For all involved. A sure sign that de-escalation was not achieved is the use of lethal force. That is exactly what they are trying to avoid by de-escalation.
So there's no way that he's using that term properly, if he said that lethal force de-escalated the situation by stopping the person! That's not the goal of de-escalation.
OK, all of that is imo, using my own words to define the term, but here's an official (part of the) definition from the National Policing Institute:
"De-escalation in police encounters involves a range of communication and tactical strategies used to stabilize a situation, reduce tension, and gain voluntary compliance to minimize or avoid the use of force."
De-escalation - National Policing Institute
Discover NPI’s de-escalation programs, research projects (ICAT, DTC), and best practices to support safer police-community responses.
www.policinginstitute.org
So yeah, that's what I was trying to say... you can't de-escalate (or use tactics to avoid the use of lethal force) by using lethal force! By definition, that's not possible! Ooh, that makes me so mad. I can't believe he said that.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,936
- Reaction score
- 405,960
9:36 a.m. Sean Grayson watches Fultz while he delivers the defense's closing statement. He leans forward in his seat.
9:34 a.m. Fultz says he doesn't care if the Jury doesn't like Sean Grayson as a person, and that that isn't what they are here to decide.
9:33 a.m. Fultz explains that every witness who has testified has been paid, citing what Rodgers said in the State's closing statement.
9:32 a.m. Fultz emphasizes that the question the jury must answer is whether Sean Grayson was legally justified in shooting Sonya Massey under Illinois law.
9:28 a.m. Fultz reiterates to the jury that what happened to Sonya Massey was a tragedy, but not a crime. Fultz: "The thing you cannot do is let your emotions dictate the outcome of this case."
9:27 a.m. Rodgers: "When you threaten to shoot someone in the face, and you do? That's first-degree murder." Rodgers is done with the People's closing statements. Daniel Fultz, Grayson's defense attorney, begins the Defense's closing statements.
9:25 a.m. Rodgers goes over the second-degree murder charge, saying that Grayson made a promise to shoot and kill Sonya Massey.
9:23 a.m. Rodgers says that Sonya Massey was not the initial aggressor. "He [Grayson] has no right to follow her and shoot her." Rodgers goes over the three propositions the jury will have to agree upon to convict Sean Grayson of first-degree murder.
9:18 a.m. Rodgers emphasizes the definition of the 'totality of circumstances' to the jury. Rodgers provides an example of 'officer-created jeopardy.
9:15 a.m. Rodgers: "The biggest lie he [Grayson] has been telling is that there was nothing he could do. He had no choice." Rodgers talked about how the defense got two paid witnesses who had eerily similar testimonies.
9:13 a.m. We see a photo of Massey on the monitor with her hands up. Rodgers: "For the first time ever, the defendant wants you to believe that he was going to arrest Sonya."
9:12 a.m. Rodgers: “She [Sonya Massey] wasn’t threatening him; she was complying.”
9:11 a.m. Rodgers: "He wants you to believe that he was scared. But you don’t have to believe that because it’s not true." Rodgers says Grayson continued to lie over and over again on the stand, including when he said he attempted to turn his body camera on after seeing Massey's car.
9:08 a.m. The monitor shows a photo of Grayson and Massey standing outside her home. Rodgers emphasizes that Grayson was much larger than Massey and most likely had to stoop down to get into her house.
9:06 a.m. Photos of Sonya Massey's driver’s license at the scene are shown on the monitor. Rodgers: "The defendant knew how to slow things down. But he didn’t. He knew how to treat her with kindness and respect. But he didn’t. Because the defendant didn’t care."
9:06 a.m. "I'm sorry!" Rodgers exclaims with her hands up. A gun appears on the monitor. Rodgers says those are the last words Massey spoke. Rodgers knocks on the podium three times to demonstrate how Grayson treated Sonya Massey when he knocked on her door.
9:02 a.m. Judge Cadagin has re-entered the courtroom. He says good morning to Sean Grayson. The jury has entered the courtroom. Mary Beth Rodgers, assistant state's attorney, is presenting the closing argument on behalf of the people.
9:00 a.m. Ben Crump, a civil rights attorney, is entering the courtroom. He greets the Massey family and takes a seat with them.
8:55 a.m. Donna Massey, Sonya Massey's mother, was escorted out of the courtroom by family in tears during the break. She has now re-entered, still crying. Milhiser, the Sangamon County State's Attorney, walked into the gallery to hug her.
8:46 a.m. We have finished going through the jury instructions. Judge Cadagin says that if the jury wants to review the video again, they would have to return to the courtroom and watch it in silence. Closing statements will begin at 9 a.m.
Day 7: closing arguments, jury deliberation in Sean Grayson trial for July 2024 murder
9:34 a.m. Fultz says he doesn't care if the Jury doesn't like Sean Grayson as a person, and that that isn't what they are here to decide.
9:33 a.m. Fultz explains that every witness who has testified has been paid, citing what Rodgers said in the State's closing statement.
9:32 a.m. Fultz emphasizes that the question the jury must answer is whether Sean Grayson was legally justified in shooting Sonya Massey under Illinois law.
9:28 a.m. Fultz reiterates to the jury that what happened to Sonya Massey was a tragedy, but not a crime. Fultz: "The thing you cannot do is let your emotions dictate the outcome of this case."
9:27 a.m. Rodgers: "When you threaten to shoot someone in the face, and you do? That's first-degree murder." Rodgers is done with the People's closing statements. Daniel Fultz, Grayson's defense attorney, begins the Defense's closing statements.
9:25 a.m. Rodgers goes over the second-degree murder charge, saying that Grayson made a promise to shoot and kill Sonya Massey.
9:23 a.m. Rodgers says that Sonya Massey was not the initial aggressor. "He [Grayson] has no right to follow her and shoot her." Rodgers goes over the three propositions the jury will have to agree upon to convict Sean Grayson of first-degree murder.
9:18 a.m. Rodgers emphasizes the definition of the 'totality of circumstances' to the jury. Rodgers provides an example of 'officer-created jeopardy.
9:15 a.m. Rodgers: "The biggest lie he [Grayson] has been telling is that there was nothing he could do. He had no choice." Rodgers talked about how the defense got two paid witnesses who had eerily similar testimonies.
9:13 a.m. We see a photo of Massey on the monitor with her hands up. Rodgers: "For the first time ever, the defendant wants you to believe that he was going to arrest Sonya."
9:12 a.m. Rodgers: “She [Sonya Massey] wasn’t threatening him; she was complying.”
9:11 a.m. Rodgers: "He wants you to believe that he was scared. But you don’t have to believe that because it’s not true." Rodgers says Grayson continued to lie over and over again on the stand, including when he said he attempted to turn his body camera on after seeing Massey's car.
9:08 a.m. The monitor shows a photo of Grayson and Massey standing outside her home. Rodgers emphasizes that Grayson was much larger than Massey and most likely had to stoop down to get into her house.
9:06 a.m. Photos of Sonya Massey's driver’s license at the scene are shown on the monitor. Rodgers: "The defendant knew how to slow things down. But he didn’t. He knew how to treat her with kindness and respect. But he didn’t. Because the defendant didn’t care."
9:06 a.m. "I'm sorry!" Rodgers exclaims with her hands up. A gun appears on the monitor. Rodgers says those are the last words Massey spoke. Rodgers knocks on the podium three times to demonstrate how Grayson treated Sonya Massey when he knocked on her door.
9:02 a.m. Judge Cadagin has re-entered the courtroom. He says good morning to Sean Grayson. The jury has entered the courtroom. Mary Beth Rodgers, assistant state's attorney, is presenting the closing argument on behalf of the people.
9:00 a.m. Ben Crump, a civil rights attorney, is entering the courtroom. He greets the Massey family and takes a seat with them.
8:55 a.m. Donna Massey, Sonya Massey's mother, was escorted out of the courtroom by family in tears during the break. She has now re-entered, still crying. Milhiser, the Sangamon County State's Attorney, walked into the gallery to hug her.
8:46 a.m. We have finished going through the jury instructions. Judge Cadagin says that if the jury wants to review the video again, they would have to return to the courtroom and watch it in silence. Closing statements will begin at 9 a.m.
Day 7: closing arguments, jury deliberation in Sean Grayson trial for July 2024 murder
Guardians Monthly Goal
Our goal for the month is 50 new Guardians members to sign up. Have you been thinking about becoming a member?
Click here to find out how!
Online statistics
- Members online
- 96
- Guests online
- 1,521
- Total visitors
- 1,617