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

[ChatteringBirds]

Oh, wow, I was expecting he would be convicted of 1st degree. But perhaps the jurors could only all agree to 2nd degree. IMO.

 

[Weki]

I just saw a news alert about this case. I don't know how I never heard about this one. For some reason I thought it was about the Atatiana Jefferson case where the officer shot Jefferson through a window after a neighbor saw her front door open and called the police. That officer got manslaughter.

The facts and the video are pretty damning for this officer. He was standing so far back from the victim and the pot of boiling water for him to be in fear of his life at the point that he fired. That is insane! And the other officer said the victim didn't say or do anything to cause him to fear for his life.

1st degree murder carries a big burden. It's premeditated malice. There has to be evidence of that to get that conviction. So I kinda get the 2nd degree conviction. But I didn't watch the trial and I'm just going off of news reports.

JMO

 

[CityKid]

Guilty of 2nd degree murder

I'm disappointed, not gonna lie. I'm glad it was neither NG nor a hung jury.

 

[PrairieWind]

I just saw a news alert about this case. I don't know how I never heard about this one. For some reason I thought it was about the Atatiana Jefferson case where the officer shot Jefferson through a window after a neighbor saw her front door open and called the police. That officer got manslaughter.

The facts and the video are pretty damning for this officer. He was standing so far back from the victim and the pot of boiling water for him to be in fear of his life at the point that he fired. That is insane! And the other officer said the victim didn't say or do anything to cause him to fear for his life.

1st degree murder carries a big burden. It's premeditated malice. There has to be evidence of that to get that conviction. So I kinda get the 2nd degree conviction. But I didn't watch the trial and I'm just going off of news reports.

JMO

I agree with this. The video tells a strange story. An officer responding, talking calmly with the person, everything seems to be going ok, until it doesn't and he kills her. I still don't understand his actions. Very odd situation here. But I think 1st degree was a stretch and the 2nd degree better applied. Really, most states need to enact better homicide laws to address police shootings.

 

[crussell821]

Hopefully he gets the max sentence. He is a menace.

 

[PrairieWind]

Hopefully he gets the max sentence. He is a menace.

I agree. This man went from talking to shooting in the blink of an eye for what? I just don't understand what he was thinking. He and his partner were NOT in immediate danger.

 

[tlcya]

9.6K views · 215 reactions | #BREAKING: Former deputy #SeanGrayson was convicted of second-degree murder in the shooting death of #SonyaMassey, a Black woman who called 911. #CourtTV What do YOU think? | COURT TV

 

[Izzylizzy]

Oh, wow, I was expecting he would be convicted of 1st degree. But perhaps the jurors could only all agree to 2nd degree. IMO.

I was hoping for the 1st degree but the 2nd degree isn't surprising considering he was a cop etc.
I would like to know the jury make-up and what was the vote on 1st degree.
imo

 

[DS2021]

With the cancer diagnosis whatever he is sentenced to might be a life sentence

 

[mickey2942]

I saw this differently. The officer asked her to move away from the boiling water, as he saw that as a threat. She refused. She seemed to be defiant in the response.

I think that the officer should have retreated at that point. There was no danger in the apartment. They cleared it. They should have left at that point. But the officer escalated the situation.

That was the problem. Is the type of person who applies to be a police officer, the person who gets hired, trained, and the training they received. Response to threat, rather than de-escalation. And the "demand" that police should be "obeyed". In an instant, they expect compliance, without even giving the recipient time to comprehend the demands. There is such a thing as "central processing disorder", where people have to take time to understand what is being said to them.

It is a problem with hiring, and training. Over and over we see this...

 

[Bodhi]

I agree. This man went from talking to shooting in the blink of an eye for what? I just don't understand what he was thinking. He and his partner were NOT in immediate danger.

He not only shot the person who called for assistance without provocation, he then considered and decided not to render aid. He told the junior officer that he wouldn't waste his medical supplies trying to save her life. His statement and inaction are documented on video. Beyond callous indifference.

As a trained police officer, he had a duty to act. He had plenty of time to reconsider and rendering aid to his victim--right up until EMTs arrived. An expert testified her wounds may have been survivable. It feels he like killed her 2 different ways: shooting her, then by refusing to render aid he was well trained for and duty-bound to provide.

I have not been able to follow the trail closely. I relied on extensive posts by @tlcya and others to bring me up to date. Thank you!!! I agree with all the WSers saying they're pleased the trial didn't end in a not guilty verdict or mistrial. The shooter was convicted of murder.

And yet I am uneasy. I share @tlcya's concern about sentencing. If his sentence could be short, with good behavior and time served, he could serve little time after being convicted of murder. I'm hoping he does significant time for shooting someone he had a duty to protect and letting her bleed to death. I'm hoping he gets a sentence that ensures it.

 

[iamshadow21]

He not only shot the person who called for assistance without provocation, he then considered and decided not to render aid. He told the junior officer that he wouldn't waste his medical supplies trying to save her life. His statement and inaction are documented on video. Beyond callous indifference.

As a trained police officer, he had a duty to act. He had plenty of time to reconsider and rendering aid to his victim--right up until EMTs arrived. An expert testified her wounds may have been survivable. It feels he like killed her 2 different ways: shooting her, then by refusing to render aid he was well trained for and duty-bound to provide.

I have not been able to follow the trail closely. I relied on extensive posts by @tlcya and others to bring me up to date. Thank you!!! I agree with all the WSers saying they're pleased the trial didn't end in a not guilty verdict or mistrial. The shooter was convicted of murder.

And yet I am uneasy. I share @tlcya's concern about sentencing. If his sentence could be short, with good behavior and time served, he could serve little time after being convicted of murder. I'm hoping he does significant time for shooting someone he had a duty to protect and letting her bleed to death. I'm hoping he gets a sentence that ensures it.

Yeah, the comparison between his behaviour and the officer who took down the Bondi Junction attacker are so far apart.

The Bondi attacker was in crisis, but he was a clear and present threat who'd already killed multiple people. The officer took him down because she had to, then immediately began life-saving measures.

There isn't anything about Sonya that warranted a lethal response, and even if she had, they should have tried their best to save her. He treated her with contempt, like she was less than human. Nobody like that should wear a badge or carry a gun.

MOO

 

[Bodhi]

I saw this differently. The officer asked her to move away from the boiling water, as he saw that as a threat. She refused. She seemed to be defiant in the response.

I think that the officer should have retreated at that point. There was no danger in the apartment. They cleared it. They should have left at that point. But the officer escalated the situation.

That was the problem. Is the type of person who applies to be a police officer, the person who gets hired, trained, and the training they received. Response to threat, rather than de-escalation. And the "demand" that police should be "obeyed". In an instant, they expect compliance, without even giving the recipient time to comprehend the demands. There is such a thing as "central processing disorder", where people have to take time to understand what is being said to them.

It is a problem with hiring, and training. Over and over we see this...

Almost anyone unexpectedly dealing with law enforcement will have processing delays or deficits, difficulty hearing, and therefore difficulty complying instantly. In the fight-or-flight response, the brain and body respond differently than in ordinary situations. The law enforcement officer and the civilian are both in the fight-or-flight mode. Many law enforcement agencies now provide training in de-escalation techniques, conflict management, and crowd control.

You are spot on about the type of person who applies to be a police officer, IMO. Ideally, management of law enforcement agencies work to weed out applicants and officers who do not meet the strict standards of policing. Recruits are trained for months on the law and constitutional rights, effective policing tactics, safe gun handling, de-escalation and crowd control, etc., at a police academy. Then new officers go through on-the-job training. The 2nd officer at the scene in this case, for example, had completed formal training at a police academy and was in his probationary period on the job. Experienced officers attend mandatory in-service trainings and qualify at gun ranges throughout their careers.

Things can go sideways quickly in law enforcement. The impact of poorly managed police action can be irreversible. A federal agency is IMO now bucking the system that ensures police actions in the US are targeted and lawful. ICE is offering huge sign-on bonuses, hiring people least suited for positions of authority, arming them, and sending them out to perform legitimate functions without adequate training or oversight. IMO. They're encouraged to act indiscriminately, impacting everyone in the vicinity of the action needlessly.

Here's why the discussion of proper law enforcement action is appropriate in this case: it is a microcosm of what is happening presently with ICE actions. Here, the abuse of a person's constitutional rights was an aberration, a single officer acted unlawfully and rightfully faced legal consequences. The guilty verdict won't bring Sonya Massey back, though. She was murdered by a well-trained, experienced local police officer. But her death speaks to the improper use of police force happening at scale now, the unchangeable harm it causes. and the legal consequences for officers who act outside the law. IMO. The rule of law applies to everyone, including law enforcement officers.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1983774139732095345

 

[steeltowngirl]

Grayson faces four to 20 years in prison for second-degree murder. Under state law, he would most likely be eligible to get day-for-day credit for good behavior in prison, meaning he could end up serving only half his sentence.

Massey's father, James Wilburn, said he hopes the judge gives Grayson the maximum sentence.

“He showed no remorse. He was so cocky throughout this whole trial,” until he was convicted, Wilburn said. “Yeah, that knocked the smirk off.”

Sean Grayson found guilty of murder in the death of Sonya Massey

Sean Grayson, a former Illinois sheriff’s deputy, was on trial in the 2024 killing of Massey, a Black mother of two who had called 911 about a possible prowler.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Marantz4250b]

Grayson faces four to 20 years in prison for second-degree murder. Under state law, he would most likely be eligible to get day-for-day credit for good behavior in prison, meaning he could end up serving only half his sentence.

Massey's father, James Wilburn, said he hopes the judge gives Grayson the maximum sentence.

“He showed no remorse. He was so cocky throughout this whole trial,” until he was convicted, Wilburn said. “Yeah, that knocked the smirk off.”

Sean Grayson found guilty of murder in the death of Sonya Massey

Sean Grayson, a former Illinois sheriff’s deputy, was on trial in the 2024 killing of Massey, a Black mother of two who had called 911 about a possible prowler.

www.nbcnews.com

I totally agree - anything less than 20 years would be a disgrace, quite frankly.

 

[Weki]

Almost anyone unexpectedly dealing with law enforcement will have processing delays or deficits, difficulty hearing, and therefore difficulty complying instantly. In the fight-or-flight response, the brain and body respond differently than in ordinary situations. The law enforcement officer and the civilian are both in the fight-or-flight mode. Many law enforcement agencies now provide training in de-escalation techniques, conflict management, and crowd control.

You are spot on about the type of person who applies to be a police officer, IMO. Ideally, management of law enforcement agencies work to weed out applicants and officers who do not meet the strict standards of policing. Recruits are trained for months on the law and constitutional rights, effective policing tactics, safe gun handling, de-escalation and crowd control, etc., at a police academy. Then new officers go through on-the-job training. The 2nd officer at the scene in this case, for example, had completed formal training at a police academy and was in his probationary period on the job. Experienced officers attend mandatory in-service trainings and qualify at gun ranges throughout their careers.

Things can go sideways quickly in law enforcement. The impact of poorly managed police action can be irreversible. A federal agency is IMO now bucking the system that ensures police actions in the US are targeted and lawful. ICE is offering huge sign-on bonuses, hiring people least suited for positions of authority, arming them, and sending them out to perform legitimate functions without adequate training or oversight. IMO. They're encouraged to act indiscriminately, impacting everyone in the vicinity of the action needlessly.

Here's why the discussion of proper law enforcement action is appropriate in this case: it is a microcosm of what is happening presently with ICE actions. Here, the abuse of a person's constitutional rights was an aberration, a single officer acted unlawfully and rightfully faced legal consequences. The guilty verdict won't bring Sonya Massey back, though. She was murdered by a well-trained, experienced local police officer. But her death speaks to the improper use of police force happening at scale now, the unchangeable harm it causes. and the legal consequences for officers who act outside the law. IMO. The rule of law applies to everyone, including law enforcement officers.

This is an interesting perspective.

If a civilian calls the cops, it usually means the civilian is already in a flight-fight mode. Something has made them feel fearful. Once the cops arrive, the civilian should feel less fearful. The cops have guns and they are there to protect the civilian. But for the cops, they can never lower their guard. They have no idea what they will be dealing with once they arrive so they have to remain vigilant at all times. Especially in our current times where there's a strong anti-LE sentiment among the public. I think the public needs to be mindful of this whenever they are dealing with law enforcement. In this instance, if you assume the victim does not feel threatened by the cops it should be easy for the victim to follow a simple instruction from them.

If the civilian is threatened just by the mere presence of law enforcement due to some perception or mental illness, then the situation is volatile like you said. Both parties are in a flight-fight mode. Yes, the cops should always try to de-escalate before resorting to shooting someone. This incident seems like a bad example for this discussion though because this cop just went waaaaay overboard. She immediately said I'm sorry and cowered. That was a de-escalation by her. And he shot her anyway. Geez!

JMO

 

[Marantz4250b]

This is an interesting perspective.

If a civilian calls the cops, it usually means the civilian is already in a flight-fight mode. Something has made them feel fearful. Once the cops arrive, the civilian should feel less fearful. The cops have guns and they are there to protect the civilian. But for the cops, they can never lower their guard. They have no idea what they will be dealing with once they arrive so they have to remain vigilant at all times. Especially in our current times where there's a strong anti-LE sentiment among the public. I think the public needs to be mindful of this whenever they are dealing with law enforcement. In this instance, if you assume the victim does not feel threatened by the cops it should be easy for the victim to follow a simple instruction from them.

If the civilian is threatened just by the mere presence of law enforcement due to some perception or mental illness, then the situation is volatile like you said. Both parties are in a flight-fight mode. Yes, the cops should always try to de-escalate before resorting to shooting someone. This incident seems like a bad example for this discussion though because this cop just went waaaaay overboard. She immediately said I'm sorry and cowered. That was a de-escalation by her. And he shot her anyway. Geez!

JMO

There is no way that Grayson had any cause to fear her in any way whatever at the point at which he murdered her. She posed no threat at all to him or his colleague. She had a pot of water - which I think he asked her to move off the stove - yet the danger to him was virtually nil as he was far enough away, and behind a counter, and could easily have put more space between the two of them even if she had the intention of throwing it, which I very much doubt she did.

Yes, I completely agree that a cop can never truly be "off guard" when dealing with anyone, but the danger to him from her was absolutely minimal at best. Realistically, it was non-existent. It's a while ago now since I saw the video but wasn't it the case that she was crouching down and in no position to do anything with the pot of water?

I am still firmly of the opinion that he was simply looking for an excuse to shoot someone because he's just a psychopath, quite honestly. I don't know whether police departments record each time an officer draws their firearm but my betting is that he'll be right up near the top of the list.

 

[Cryptic]

I'm disappointed, not gonna lie. I'm glad it was neither NG nor a hung jury.

Well said. I am now hoping for the 20 years maximum sentence for Murder 2.

 

[sunspun]

I agree. This man went from talking to shooting in the blink of an eye for what? I just don't understand what he was thinking. He and his partner were NOT in immediate danger.

Yes, and I never got the feeling, when watching the bodycam footage, that Grayson felt anything especially dangerous was happening either, until suddenly, it was. Remember when she first moved to pick up the pot of water, both officers took a step back. Sonya asked, lightheartedly I thought, "Where are you going?" And wasn't it Grayson who replied, in a kind of joking manner I thought, "Away from your pot of boiling hot water!" And they all sort of chuckled at that moment of (what I felt was) a bit of humor.

So that was the mood at that moment. But was the very next thing Sonya saying, "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus"? And it should be emphasized that she did just SAY it, she never screamed it, or raised her voice at all. She didn't yell it crazily. I would almost say she murmured it even.

But that, imo, was all it took to change Grayson's mood in a flash, from casually watching to over the top violent, as if he were suddenly transported into the most threatening of situations. But not exactly that, not like he felt truly threatened/in danger. But more like ANGRY. All of a sudden. Like CHALLENGED. (Trying to think of the right descriptive words here.) Yes, I'd say he seemed to suddenly feel challenged which made him angry. (As in, who was she to challenge HIM?)

In fact, when she said it (I'll rebuke you...), wasn't his instant response, "You better not!" I think that's correct. And I'm still baffled that he said that right then. She better not rebuke him? Or was the rest of it what she better not do.... was he mad at the rebuking alone, or only because it was in the name of Jesus? Either way (although that does seem like an important point!) but either way, it makes me seriously wonder what he thinks "rebuke" means. Because he did seem to take that a lot worse than anybody ever should have.

I wonder if he had any particular kind of religious upbringing. Maybe that phrase or ones like it have a certain meaning or association to them, for him. Something bad. Something he does not like at all.

Do we know if he is a religious man at all (or at least thinks he is)? And even if he's not especially religious, he could still find real personal truth in some concepts of Christianity, and that phrase she used may have meant something to him more than what it may mean to others. Like I would GUESS that he really truly believes in a heaven and a hell, not unusual to believe in, but also not unusual to not believe in, even if you're a "true Christian." I think a lot of Christians are ok with heaven and hell being metaphorical concepts (for lack of a better word). But I would (again) just guess that he believes they're real. And he may think the phrase she said has some power behind it (and maybe it does, who knows), and that he may have taken it more as her "cursing" him. I don't mean cussing at him. I mean, like putting a (real) curse on him. If so (all a guess, remember), but if so, this sounds to me like a guilty conscience on his part! Like he knows the life he's been leading isn't the road to heaven, and what she said to him may have just been the clincher that could be his eventual damnation for all eternity. Ok, that may be a little extreme, and I don't think I explained what I'm thinking well anyway, but maybe someone can get a sense of what I mean anyway!

To me, it's all in the "You better not!" that he said when she "rebuked" him. I'd like to tear that apart some more and see what really comes out of it upon closer inspection, but that's probably getting too off topic.

When will he find out his sentence?