Well articulated piece sir. I disagree slightly that he should be charged at all though. He likely violated enough policy to be fired, but I don't think anything he did would be a crime.
He warned her not to try to harm him with the boiling water (can easily cause GBH) and when she tried to, he shot her in the face like he warned her he would if she threw it.
He might be an asshole, he might have used better tactics, he also probably should have rendered aid, but all those don't mean in that moment it was a bad shoot. She presented a deadly threat, and he dealt with a deadly threat.
I don’t know about “deadly” but the pot of boiling water was definitely a threat.
The fact that he closed distance - instead of creating distance just before the OIS - will be included in even a conservative reading of Graham. Do you think that borders on “officer induced jeopardy”?
- I could imagine an attorney arguing, “he knew she was mentally unstable, he was afraid of the pot, she did not immediately throw it at him, he had an opportunity to create distance or exit the home. He didn’t. Instead - he moved closer and away from the barrier between them. Thus making the situation more dangerous - for no reason and in violation of training.”
If I was prosecuting this case, I think officer induced danger is the cherry on top of my argument that bad tactics caused a preventable critical incident. I would look for police experts to discuss the call. I would want to show: (1) a pattern of Grayson escalating things that began at initial citizen contact, (2) the decision to enter the home was completely unnecessary, (3) to completely tear apart the need to further investigate any mental health concerns.
I think it would be fairly easy to mark out significant deviations from best practices in all three of those areas. I don't think the shooting rises to murder 1. Maybe murder 2 or what some states call "voluntary manslaughter."
If I'm defending Grayson. I want to focus on the moment the trigger was pressed. I would show the video from his cam, where she clearly was throwing the pot.
I think there's room to work with him stepping forward, because she is acting erratic and drops out of his view. He arguably moves forward to determine if she is either arming herself or even collapsed into a medical emergency. He could have pied the corner, or moved to better view while trying to keep distance... but you could also argue he didn't want to step in front of his partner's line of fire.
I think his work history creates issues. He does have a pattern of poor decisions. Does that extend into previous field training notes, other disciplinary write ups? His prior DWIs and the OTH discharge from Army suggest a pattern of reckless behavior. I don't know how much of that would be admitted at trial, but any would be bad for him.
there are good facts for him, it's clearly very hot water. she clearly threw at him. she was behaving very erratic.
there are a lot of bad facts for him. he had room to back up safely. his language. his prior documented poor decision-making. that he really had zero need to go into the home to resolve the reason for the CFS.
I would be interested to learn whether he could go to bench trial without prosecutor agreeing. I would not want to be in front of a jury with the press attention this has received. And I think with the real question being about whether he was justified when trigger was presses, a judge deciding it "as a matter of law" may be preferable to an emotional jury.
I like the piece. I think you're a little conclusory in the analysis (for instance, you say if he'd been employed by most agencies he'd have been terminated for multiple policy violations. I agree. I just think it could have been expanded on, especially for people with no police background).
I agree that if a person isn't a suspect, they typically aren't restricted from moving about. even still, as a practice I tended to redirect folks subtly or in this instance if I was assist I'd probably have said "I'll get that for you dear, you keep working with Deputy Grayson." it's not a command. and I wouldn't fight her to keep her out, but subtle and typically you can persuade people or redirect them away from things. I've used the same tactic to shuffle witnesses away from violent scenes without them melting down or fighting bc they have to see.
personally, I think this is 80% on the agency at least. it seems a bad hire, was followed by insufficient training, and if he was off FTI, I would bet my last dollar people had voiced concerns to supervisors.
Both of you have offered very valuable commentary on this case which is being exploited as 'another racially motivated police murder.' I've mentioned before to those crying for justice, the deputy has been fired and arrested for murder. That is what justice should look like to them.
My question involves tactical mistakes that are inevitable when you are trying to determine what is going on. In other cases, I've mentioned that standing in front of a car while you are figuring out what is a threat or not is not inducing jeopardy like standing in front of a speeding car and commanding it stop. So, first, how do sincere tactical mistakes factor into Graham v. Conner and second, did the deputy make a tactical mistake when he thought pointing his gun at Massey in her altered state would result in her compliance?
This right here, “did the deputy make a tactical mistake when he thought pointing his gun at Massey in her altered state would result in her compliance?”
Excellent point.
A show of force can de-escalate even though it is not technically a “de-escalation” tactic.
If he gives a statement - that’s how I would phrase his defense.
I think thats a question that is increasingly being asked. Bad tactics are supportive of a finding of negligence. At what point does negligent conduct cross the line from solely civil liability intl criminal liability.
For a long time, driving impaired was viewed more as a civil problem than criminal. My FIL, was runover by a drunk in the late '60s or early '70s. The cops took the drunk's insurance and drove him home. Today, that's a pretty serious felony.
police use of force that was acceptable in the '90s or early '00s will get officers disciplined or even charged today. this case may start to draw the line on that.
personally, I think agencies should have more vicarious liability for officer's acts. I think cops should be indemnified for official acts from personal civil liability. this would put more pressure on leadership to train and supervise. in the current situation, agencies find ANY policy violation then discipline the cop and argue away the agency's liability.
police are vastly undertrained or poorly trained. and, at least in my experience, police supervisors are more concerned with safeguarding their own pensions than supervising their subordinates
I was chasing my daughter so I hope the tone wasn't overly critical. to the extent I was terse was me typing on a phone and chasing a 1 y/o and not any intention of being rude. You're thoughtful on here and Twitter/X.
Well articulated piece sir. I disagree slightly that he should be charged at all though. He likely violated enough policy to be fired, but I don't think anything he did would be a crime.
He warned her not to try to harm him with the boiling water (can easily cause GBH) and when she tried to, he shot her in the face like he warned her he would if she threw it.
He might be an asshole, he might have used better tactics, he also probably should have rendered aid, but all those don't mean in that moment it was a bad shoot. She presented a deadly threat, and he dealt with a deadly threat.
Thanks bro!
Just curious.
I don’t know about “deadly” but the pot of boiling water was definitely a threat.
The fact that he closed distance - instead of creating distance just before the OIS - will be included in even a conservative reading of Graham. Do you think that borders on “officer induced jeopardy”?
- I could imagine an attorney arguing, “he knew she was mentally unstable, he was afraid of the pot, she did not immediately throw it at him, he had an opportunity to create distance or exit the home. He didn’t. Instead - he moved closer and away from the barrier between them. Thus making the situation more dangerous - for no reason and in violation of training.”
If I was prosecuting this case, I think officer induced danger is the cherry on top of my argument that bad tactics caused a preventable critical incident. I would look for police experts to discuss the call. I would want to show: (1) a pattern of Grayson escalating things that began at initial citizen contact, (2) the decision to enter the home was completely unnecessary, (3) to completely tear apart the need to further investigate any mental health concerns.
I think it would be fairly easy to mark out significant deviations from best practices in all three of those areas. I don't think the shooting rises to murder 1. Maybe murder 2 or what some states call "voluntary manslaughter."
If I'm defending Grayson. I want to focus on the moment the trigger was pressed. I would show the video from his cam, where she clearly was throwing the pot.
I think there's room to work with him stepping forward, because she is acting erratic and drops out of his view. He arguably moves forward to determine if she is either arming herself or even collapsed into a medical emergency. He could have pied the corner, or moved to better view while trying to keep distance... but you could also argue he didn't want to step in front of his partner's line of fire.
I think his work history creates issues. He does have a pattern of poor decisions. Does that extend into previous field training notes, other disciplinary write ups? His prior DWIs and the OTH discharge from Army suggest a pattern of reckless behavior. I don't know how much of that would be admitted at trial, but any would be bad for him.
there are good facts for him, it's clearly very hot water. she clearly threw at him. she was behaving very erratic.
there are a lot of bad facts for him. he had room to back up safely. his language. his prior documented poor decision-making. that he really had zero need to go into the home to resolve the reason for the CFS.
I would be interested to learn whether he could go to bench trial without prosecutor agreeing. I would not want to be in front of a jury with the press attention this has received. And I think with the real question being about whether he was justified when trigger was presses, a judge deciding it "as a matter of law" may be preferable to an emotional jury.
I like the piece. I think you're a little conclusory in the analysis (for instance, you say if he'd been employed by most agencies he'd have been terminated for multiple policy violations. I agree. I just think it could have been expanded on, especially for people with no police background).
I agree that if a person isn't a suspect, they typically aren't restricted from moving about. even still, as a practice I tended to redirect folks subtly or in this instance if I was assist I'd probably have said "I'll get that for you dear, you keep working with Deputy Grayson." it's not a command. and I wouldn't fight her to keep her out, but subtle and typically you can persuade people or redirect them away from things. I've used the same tactic to shuffle witnesses away from violent scenes without them melting down or fighting bc they have to see.
personally, I think this is 80% on the agency at least. it seems a bad hire, was followed by insufficient training, and if he was off FTI, I would bet my last dollar people had voiced concerns to supervisors.
Thanks for the feedback.
I agree with you. I could have expanded on policy. You are 100% right.
And also. Yes. I would have offered to turn off the burner. Or just do it and say, “I’m going to get this for you.”
Both of you have offered very valuable commentary on this case which is being exploited as 'another racially motivated police murder.' I've mentioned before to those crying for justice, the deputy has been fired and arrested for murder. That is what justice should look like to them.
My question involves tactical mistakes that are inevitable when you are trying to determine what is going on. In other cases, I've mentioned that standing in front of a car while you are figuring out what is a threat or not is not inducing jeopardy like standing in front of a speeding car and commanding it stop. So, first, how do sincere tactical mistakes factor into Graham v. Conner and second, did the deputy make a tactical mistake when he thought pointing his gun at Massey in her altered state would result in her compliance?
Thoughtful as always.
This right here, “did the deputy make a tactical mistake when he thought pointing his gun at Massey in her altered state would result in her compliance?”
Excellent point.
A show of force can de-escalate even though it is not technically a “de-escalation” tactic.
If he gives a statement - that’s how I would phrase his defense.
I think thats a question that is increasingly being asked. Bad tactics are supportive of a finding of negligence. At what point does negligent conduct cross the line from solely civil liability intl criminal liability.
For a long time, driving impaired was viewed more as a civil problem than criminal. My FIL, was runover by a drunk in the late '60s or early '70s. The cops took the drunk's insurance and drove him home. Today, that's a pretty serious felony.
police use of force that was acceptable in the '90s or early '00s will get officers disciplined or even charged today. this case may start to draw the line on that.
personally, I think agencies should have more vicarious liability for officer's acts. I think cops should be indemnified for official acts from personal civil liability. this would put more pressure on leadership to train and supervise. in the current situation, agencies find ANY policy violation then discipline the cop and argue away the agency's liability.
police are vastly undertrained or poorly trained. and, at least in my experience, police supervisors are more concerned with safeguarding their own pensions than supervising their subordinates
I was chasing my daughter so I hope the tone wasn't overly critical. to the extent I was terse was me typing on a phone and chasing a 1 y/o and not any intention of being rude. You're thoughtful on here and Twitter/X.
I appreciate your insights.