Massey was shot and killed in her home in Springfield, Illinois on July 6th after she called police to report a burglary. Bodycam video released by the Illinois State Police on Monday shows a confused and somewhat disoriented Massey conversing with the arriving officers at the front door of her home before the trio moved inside the residence. 

Inside the house, deputies seemed exasperated as she sat on her couch and went through her purse as they asked for identification to complete a report before leaving. Then [Deputy Sean] Grayson pointed out a pot sitting on a flame on the stove. 

“We don’t need a fire while we’re here," he said.

Massey immediately got up and went to the stove, moving the pot near a sink. She and Grayson seemed to share a laugh over her pan of “steaming hot water” before she unexpectedly said, “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus."

“You better (expletive) not or I swear to God I’ll (expletive) shoot you in your (expletive) face.” He then pulled his 9mm pistol and demanded she drop the pot.

Massey said, “OK, I'm sorry.” In Grayson’s body camera footage, he pointed his weapon at her. She ducked and raised her hands.

Grayson was still in the living room, facing Massey and separated by a counter dividing the living room and kitchen. Prosecutors have said the separation allowed Grayson both “distance and relative cover” from Massey and the pot of hot water. 

After Grayson shot her, Grayson discouraged his partner from grabbing a medical kit to save her.

"You can go get it, but that’s a headshot,” he said. "There’s nothing you can do, man."

He added: "What else do we do? I’m not taking hot (expletive) boiling water to the (expletive) face”

You can view the bodycam footage in the video window below.

After seeing the footage, I agree with the prosecutors who argue that Massey did not pose a legitimate threat to Grayson's safety when she was killed. I even agree with the first half of Brady's post on X that sought to tie her death to an act of "gun violence".

Sonya Massey should be alive today. She called the police because she feared there was an intruder in her home. Instead the responding police officer fatally shot her.

Police violence is gun violence. We must end gun violence and the racist systems that perpetuate such violence. pic.twitter.com/cNXtg5jZG4

— Brady | United Against Gun Violence (@bradybuzz) July 23, 2024

Which once again begs the question that gun control groups like Brady refuse to answer. If "police violence is gun violence", then why does Brady, Everytown, Giffords, and the rest of the gun control lobby believe that law enforcement should be exempt from their gun control laws? 

In Illinois, law enforcement is specifically allowed to be able to purchase and possess so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines under the Protect Illinois Communities Act; the rule, not the exception when it comes to police and gun control laws. In California, police can even purchase "off-roster" handguns not available for sale to the general public, as well as being exempt from the state's "assault weapon" and magazine bans and 10-day waiting period on firearm transfers. 

It's not like legislators refused to bow to the gun control lobby's request to include police in these provisions. No, these bills were crafted with the help of gun control organizations that were perfectly fine with exempting law enforcement from their edicts. 

YOU
ARE
THE
ONES
WHO
WANT
ONLY
POLICE
TO
HAVE
GUNS

— Archie (802indy.bsky.social) (@802_indy) July 23, 2024

If police violence is "gun violence", then why doesn't the gun control lobby demand that law enforcement be subjected to the same restrictions as everyday gun owners? Conversely, if "gun violence" committed by the police can be addressed without subjecting them to the laundry list of infringements groups like Brady want to put in place nationwide, why can't acts of "gun violence" committed by non-law enforcement be addressed the same way; leaving the right to keep and bear arms intact? 

For too long, the gun control lobby has tried to have it both ways, even though their position is inherently at odds with itself. Groups like Brady need police to enforce the gun laws they're able to put in place, but they also need the support of the "all cops are bastards" crowd in order to enact those gun control laws in the first place, which is why they're bitterly clinging to their incompatible positions. It'd be great to see media outlets grill Brady and other anti-gun groups on their inconsistency, but honestly, there's probably a better chance that Shannon Watts comes out in favor of Constitutional Carry than the legacy media asking tough questions of the anti-2A organizations fighting to turn our right to keep and bear arms into a privilege doled out by the state.