View Full Version : Albuquerque LEOs charged with murder in shooting
This is not what LE needs at this time, but as much I always give LE the benefit of the doubt, this looks bad. Charges seem justified and let a jury decide on the fate of these officers. It's not an easy job, and mistake are made, and decisions made in miliseconds, but I was not there.
"Police said SWAT team member Dominique Perez and former detective Keith Sandy fatally shot James Boyd, a mentally ill homeless man who had frequent violent run-ins with law enforcement. Video from an officer's helmet camera showed Boyd appearing to surrender when officers opened fire, but a defense lawyer characterized him as an unstable suspect who was "unpredictably and dangerously close to a defenseless officer while he was wielding two knives."
http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Lawyers-Albuquerque-officers-to-face-charges-in-6009611.php
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DngOL6LokN4#t=63
SilverBullet432
01-17-15, 14:35
i saw that earlier this week, but i couldnt find the thread on it here.
I'm not seeing "dangerously close to a defenseless officer" anywhere, and I don't know why the officer with the non-lethal stuff didn't engage way prior to the others going to guns on him (maybe he did but it looked like the 2 guys with carbines). However, it didn't look like he was doing much in the way of cooperating, and he was moving his hands around his waistline quite a bit. You can hear the officers talking about having a knife in each hand once he was in the dirt.
Now, in my mind, the actual shooting doesn't seem to be necessarily out of line, provided the dude was reaching for knives, etc. The thing that I'm wondering about is what prompted the cops to go out and get him, and were the cops trying to provoke a response?
Taken by itself I think it could go either way, and I don't think that single video is enough to base a judgement. The article makes it seem like they are going after these guys for a pattern of behavior within the Albuquerque justice system, not necessarily this specific incident.
I'm not seeing "dangerously close to a defenseless officer" anywhere, and I don't know why the officer with the non-lethal stuff didn't engage way prior to the others going to guns on him (maybe he did but it looked like the 2 guys with carbines). However, it didn't look like he was doing much in the way of cooperating, and he was moving his hands around his waistline quite a bit. You can hear the officers talking about having a knife in each hand once he was in the dirt.
Now, in my mind, the actual shooting doesn't seem to be necessarily out of line, provided the dude was reaching for knives, etc. The thing that I'm wondering about is what prompted the cops to go out and get him, and were the cops trying to provoke a response?
Taken by itself I think it could go either way, and I don't think that single video is enough to base a judgement. The article makes it seem like they are going after these guys for a pattern of behavior within the Albuquerque justice system, not necessarily this specific incident.
This is a good read on the event that does it least put some things in perspective with the extensive attempts to take him without violence, hours negotiation, etc.
"At this point—and as is evident on the video—Boyd has two knives in his hand. As the K-9 approaches he raises his right hand with a knife in it and takes a step forward. The K-9 officer is within a few feet of Boyd holding the dog’s leash and is therefore empty-handed with his weapon in a holster. The officers, whose job it is to protect the K-9 officer had to make a split-second decision based on the totality of what they have witnessed and experienced over the past hour with Boyd, decided that their partner was in imminent danger."
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/lifeline-training/do-cops-want-kill-people
I saw this last week. Our previous threads on this were locked down. I usually take the officers' side on these type of things, but the behavior of a couple of the officers in this vid really disturbed me.
Averageman
01-17-15, 15:59
We need a better system for keeping guys like this somewhere they can be helped and managed.
I have less of an issue with my tax dollars doing that than going to the FSA.
I have questions, but I am certain more information will come out as people on both sides of the issue release information.
1) From the information on the news link and other sources, it appeared the officers had been on scene with Boyd for one hour. It also appeared from the officer's use of flashlights and the illuminated street lights in the background when the officers checked his campsite that they were losing daylight. Did a supervisor instruct them to take him into custody without delay and what measures to take to do it?
2) Where is the less than lethal shotgun round on their use of force continuum and is it considered a higher level of force than the K-9? If it is higher on the continuum, that could explain why they used the dog initially and placed the K-9 handler so close to Boyd.
Several years back, we had a mental subject armed with a knife in each hand and the local police did not have a less than lethal option. The incident ended when the mental subject was shot and killed.
It is a balancing act between treating mentally disturbed subjects and interfering with their freedoms. There is no question more needs to be done to help them to avoid situations like this one. Unfortunately, funds for mental health treatment are one of the first things that get cut when public funds are in short supply.
As long as this thread remains respectful, constructive questions are asked, constructive comments are made and it does not turn into a LEO bashing/worshiping thread, it may not get closed. Let's keep it civil please.
I remember this from a while back. Would love to see more angles, especially from those closer. Just looking at the video it appears that he was grabbing his stuff and walking out down the trail. Then the flash bang and dog go. Not sure what prompted the flash bang and the dog, but I can see how a GJ might see it as the officers escalating the situation to the point of no return. If he was walking out and the bang/dog scared him he could have reached for the knives to drop them or engage what he felt was a threat. Crappy situation for sure.
I've watched this numerous times on my computer, so I haven't looked frame by frame. Mr. Boyd is standing on a hillside, it looks to me as if, due to that, he came forward slightly as he turned to move up the hill. In the totality of the circumstances, if the officer perceived that movement as being the initiation of an attack on the K-9 officer, he may have decided he needed to use lethal force to protect the K-9 officer. I can also understand him unable to get off the trigger before his shots were fired as the man turned away.
Edited to add: This isn't meant to be trite, it is merely an accurate statement - the officers involved did not have to be 'right' when they fired, they just have to be objectively reasonable. From my professional knowledge, watching the video, I would have a hard time saying the officer who was closest actions were unreasonable.
My gut feeling is that many folks will think the second (far) officer fired in response to the first officers gun shots. Although it has nothing to do with the charges and guilt/no guilt, I didn't like his angle, in essence firing over/around a team mate.
They are charged with first degree murder, I doubt a judge will toss it at preliminary, but I don't believe there is enough there to convict the officers.
That being said, I'm sure Boyd's family will bring suit and I'd be surprised if there isn't a settlement or an award. While some will think the officers' demeanor after the shooting was clinical/professional, just as many will believe they were cold-blooded in their response to the shooting of this man, their demeanor will not be to their advantage at civil trial. I believe the less-lethal shots after he was down are also going to be an issue in the suit for damages. While New Mexico is in the 10th Circuit, the 9th Circuit has, in several cases, ruled that application of follow-on force simply because a subject does not follow commands is unreasonable.
JMO FWIW
I believe the less-lethal shots after he was down are also going to be an issue in the suit for damages. While New Mexico is in the 10th Circuit, the 9th Circuit has, in several cases, ruled that application of follow-on force simply because a subject does not follow commands is unreasonable.
I was curious about this as well, but I don't know enough about the procedural stuff to form any sort of educated opinion. However, my gut feeling would be that, after the first one, if he's not responding to a point blank bean bag, he's not going to respond to two more.
Eurodriver
01-17-15, 20:29
Edited to add: This isn't meant to be trite, it is merely an accurate statement - the officers involved did not have to be 'right' when they fired, they just have to be objectively reasonable. From my professional knowledge, watching the video, I would have a hard time saying the officer who was closest actions were unreasonable.
These are my thoughts.
I watched the video. Cops were kind of douches, but I didn't find any justification for murder charges! Can someone summarize, in a sentence or two, why exactly the need for murder charges?
Voodoo_Man
01-17-15, 20:55
This will be an interesting case to see in court.
Specifically because, as others have mentioned, their actions were reasonable.
Mauser KAR98K
01-17-15, 20:58
These are my thoughts.
I watched the video. Cops were kind of douches, but I didn't find any justification for murder charges! Can someone summarize, in a sentence or two, why exactly the need for murder charges?
Black lives matter all of a sudden?
Issues I have are them hitting the man repeativly with the bean bag rounds after lethal force had been used, and not calling for medical assistance, or checking the man's vitals after securing him. That is going to bite them.
Overall, I would have shot, too.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-17-15, 21:30
To me, the dog screwed it all up. They release the dog, it goes after the blue bag and starts to thrash it. The handler goes forward. Sure seems to me that the dog/handler screwed the pooch, so to say. Why even have a dog if the handler has to be that close, in front of the shooters.
Half the rounds look like they impacted him from the rear. That will not look good either. (Watching it again a few times, I'm not sure more than one round impacted him from the front.)
You've got a dog, flash bangs, Less than lethal - and you shoot a guy 6 times or so?
Murder doesn't seem right. I don't think that they are going to be showing this in Academies as a good shoot and the correct way to do it.
SilverBullet432
01-17-15, 21:32
Why murder? From what i saw they killed him then beanbagged/doggy. Kind of like shoot first ask questions later. Like the walmart guy.
A murder charge in this instance will be easier for the officers to defend than a manslaughter charge. That may be why the Grand Jury was asked to indict for murder.
I've gotten into plenty of arguments with my more liberal acquaintances because I defended LEO shootings in the last year like the Mike Brown incident... This one not so much..
The cops had a huge disparity of force and numbers, plenty of armor protection, a K9, non lethal weapons, lethal weapons and there was no clear imminent danger to any bystanders or even particularly the LEOs... In fact up until the Flahbang goes off (WTF was that for BTW) it seems like the fat guy decided to pack his shit up and cooperate in moving on.... So why escalation with the banger???
Bigger picture - and - I don't want to make too big deal out of it but one of the cops with the Carbine was seriously "Tactical" it seemed like he even had a helmet and full operator gear, painted gun etc etc. I think this speaks to his mindset, he was kitted up to take down bin laden, and not to get a fat crazy dude to walk done a hill... Same thing with the beanbags after fat crazy guy was shot and downed, what the **** were they so afraid of at that point... I'd argue that They were ready for something big, blew the incident out of proportion in their minds and viola, they got something big...
Not everything needs to be a critical incident, and I think maybe these LEO just may have created one....
SilverBullet432
01-17-15, 22:46
I agree with you 100%. ^ others may not feel the same way though. He was using some serious kit there too.
I believe that they were charged with murder to make an acquittal easier. Manslaughter would most likely have been the correct charge. What I am not sure about, is whether or not the judge can offer a lesser charge of manslaughter to the jury in the jury instructions.
In my mind the flash bang didn't help the situation and may have contributed to his confusion. I didn't see where he was going at the officers and it appeared to me as if he was tying to turn away when he was shot. I am also confused why he wasn't engaged with the LTL shotgun first. It's also a good thing that the one officer didn't step to the left a little, or he would have been shot in the back by his own people.
The officer uttering "boo yah" after the shoot doesn't help a bit either. It's certainly not illegal, but it sure sounds bad.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-18-15, 01:58
I know the terrain is not a flat parking lot, but how common is it to have people and muzzles arrayed like that? The head cam shooter is shooting really close to his dog handler, the guy with the 14.5/JP-tube gun sweeps the head of the dog handler at least once while the dog handler is kneeling in front of him.
I think someone mentioned how dark it actually was because of how bright the flashlights are. Was this perceptually a lot darker. The other thing I was trying to figure out was how far away the subject was from the handler. The wide angle of the body cam could make it look like they were farther apart than they actually were. The dog is bounding back and forth, but with the sloping terrain its hard to really tell.
I know the terrain is not a flat parking lot, but how common is it to have people and muzzles arrayed like that? The head cam shooter is shooting really close to his dog handler, the guy with the 14.5/JP-tube gun sweeps the head of the dog handler at least once while the dog handler is kneeling in front of him.
I think someone mentioned how dark it actually was because of how bright the flashlights are. Was this perceptually a lot darker. The other thing I was trying to figure out was how far away the subject was from the handler. The wide angle of the body cam could make it look like they were farther apart than they actually were. The dog is bounding back and forth, but with the sloping terrain its hard to really tell.
It was probably brighter in real life than you see on camera because small cameras don't do a great job capturing full light - it looks darker on camera.
I'm a civilian so I only speak from studying this a lot and training, but staggered shooters are very common factor in has to be accounted for in real world situations . I was in a Ken a Hackathorn class and he said so that there is NO single firing line in the real world - just deal with it, do your best to watch muzzle and trigger finger.
The video definitely doesnt look good. I could definitely see how people feel it was a bad shoot and how people would feel it was a good shot.
From watching the video he definitely had two knives in his hands. My hunch is when he started to turn the officers thought he was attacking and decided to fire. They say perception to action takes about 1/2 to 3/4 of a second and by the time they were firing he was already turned.
As for the bean bags being used... After he went down his legs were still moving and he was still holding the knives. In my experience using bean bag rounds on suspects they rarely comply with the first shot. It usually takes 3 or 4 before they comply. From watching the video the man was probably still conscious when they bean bagged him but died/went unconscious right after.
As to medical aid. If they work anything like the departments around here the fire department was on scene staging. However they wont come up to the scene until it is secured. That could be a reason why you see the officers clearing the area after the shooting.
Does anyone know how many times he was actually shot?
I tend to agree with the assessment that the murder charge was brought in hopes of getting a no bill or make it easier to defend.
From the video my question is the same today as when I first saw it. Why flash bang the guy when he appears to be grabbing his junk to come down. Why release a K9 and then rush in to stop it before the suspect is subdued. From a Joe blow standpoint those things make it seem like the LEO purposefully aggravated the situation. The "booya" hillbilly act after also makes the cop look bad. I can see why a GJ would want to see more.
It will be interesting if the judge offers lesser crimes to the jury or just murder.
Homeless mentally disturbed guy that's "illegally camping" turns around and gets shot in the back by two different "Operators", one of whom had previously "joked" about shooting the Perp..... keep up the Good Work. Booyah!
Cost of 6 rounds of 5.56 Duty Ammo? - Approx. $6
Cost of Deploying Less-Lethal after Lethal? - Priceless
MountainRaven
01-18-15, 15:39
I've gotten into plenty of arguments with my more liberal acquaintances because I defended LEO shootings in the last year like the Mike Brown incident... This one not so much..
The cops had a huge disparity of force and numbers, plenty of armor protection, a K9, non lethal weapons, lethal weapons and there was no clear imminent danger to any bystanders or even particularly the LEOs... In fact up until the Flahbang goes off (WTF was that for BTW) it seems like the fat guy decided to pack his shit up and cooperate in moving on.... So why escalation with the banger???
Bigger picture - and - I don't want to make too big deal out of it but one of the cops with the Carbine was seriously "Tactical" it seemed like he even had a helmet and full operator gear, painted gun etc etc. I think this speaks to his mindset, he was kitted up to take down bin laden, and not to get a fat crazy dude to walk done a hill... Same thing with the beanbags after fat crazy guy was shot and downed, what the **** were they so afraid of at that point... I'd argue that They were ready for something big, blew the incident out of proportion in their minds and viola, they got something big...
Not everything needs to be a critical incident, and I think maybe these LEO just may have created one....
Yeah, with all that kit, he must be a member of M4Carbine.net.
:jester:
Seriously, though, I don't understand anyone who believes that "kit speaks to mindset". That's like saying that because you carry a LAV Glock that you want to kill people and think you're a Delta-CAG-DEVGRU SEAL Sniper Scout. Carry a Glock 19, a spare magazine, a little folding knife while dressed like a normal joe? You must think you're OGA. Or you have an ALG Six-Second Mount on your Glock and that means you think you're gonna be retaking a hijacked airliner. If you're carrying a little mouse gun, you must think you're 007! See how ridiculous this is? It's utter bollocks.
FFS, Pat Rogers and EAG Tactical primarily train LEOs and private individuals and as anyone who has been on BCM's website can attest he both wears full Multicam and camos his long gun. And recommends that one camo their long guns and wear subdued or camouflage colors, too.
I saw nothing about that carbine that was not sensible. And if I'm a SWAT/ESU/SRT guy, when I get a call, I'm getting kitted-up - I'm not just going to grab my carbine and stuff a spare magazine in my back pocket. Armor, helmet, carbine, out the door; whether it's a fat vagrant, a bust on some cartel crap in the middle of the desert, or zombie Osama bin Laden marching down Main Street with half of ISIS. It's called 'SOP' for a reason.
I honestly could care less about the kit as I do about the unprofessional and idiotic Booya comment. To me that made the cop sound like a doofus. I certainly hope the GJ didn't make their decision based on the painted gun or amount of stuff hanging off of it. That would be retarded. Far better questions arise from that video aside form colors and accessories and I hope their decision to call for a trial is based on something more relevant than that.
Were they escalating it or trying the arrest him? Was he giving up or was he saying F off Im leaving?
One thing I want to know is why the SWAT team was there? You dont dispatch the SWAT team and K9 for a trespasser on a hill side. Did the dude pull a knife on the initial responding officers and thats how this all came about?
SWATcop556
01-19-15, 00:14
I've worked around K9 for most of the past 10 years and I believe that the "boo-yah" that people are hearing is the K9 handler. Our dogs are trained to Chech commands so that someone else can't give the dog commands. Many dogs in our surrounding area are as well. Some are other languages. Very rarely will you find LEO K9s trained to common English commands. The command for "no" or "loose (let go)" sounds very similar to "boo-yah" especially when spoken fast. FWIW I don't believe they were saying "boo-yah" after the shoot.
SWATcop556
01-19-15, 00:19
One thing I want to know is why the SWAT team was there? You dont dispatch the SWAT team and K9 for a trespasser on a hill side. Did the dude pull a knife on the initial responding officers and thats how this all came about?
APD has a tactical team specifically trained for rural operations. I'm sure the call went out for an armed individual. The area they are in is rural but not far from town. I backpack through there regularly. I believe they were called out due to the location and armed individual. Also not all SWAT officers are full time. They work other duties and can be utilized if needed. When I was on patrol I always had my full kit with me if needed. I responded to many calls that turned into call outs and I had my gear there.
The news also likes to call/say SWAT too quickly when it's just officers with PCs and such. Sounds sexier for the news bites. I know one of the officers involved is a SWAT officer but it may not have been a full team call out as portrayed. This is all speculation on my part based on my training and experiences.
sandsunsurf
01-19-15, 00:33
A couple of observations, just based on my viewing this video, with no other data.
1) I believe it's the deceased guy saying "I could kill you" because he goes on to say "I'm not a murderer," etc... Listen to the words used- the officer is the one the responds "we won't."
2) I don't think an officer says "boo yah." Just before the shots the k-9 officer says "phooey" when outing the dog from the bag, and after the shots you hear it again, more loudly.
I can say that my concern stems mostly from the decision to use the flashbang. But I wasn't there and I can't see hands or possible weapons. From just the video, he seems fairly compliant, just verbally a dick.
True. But what Im saying is if they have the guys suited up and the K9 out there then this guy probably has already done something that he is going to jail for. They are not using that level of force to trespass some guy from a hill.
Which brings me back to my other question. Was he giving up or trying to leave? Giving up.... yeah the flash bang and dog were unneeded. But if he already threatened officers with the knives and said Im leaving then they are not going to just let him walk away.
MountainRaven
01-19-15, 01:14
I've worked around K9 for most of the past 10 years and I believe that the "boo-yah" that people are hearing is the K9 handler. Our dogs are trained to Chech commands so that someone else can't give the dog commands. Many dogs in our surrounding area are as well. Some are other languages. Very rarely will you find LEO K9s trained to common English commands. The command for "no" or "loose (let go)" sounds very similar to "boo-yah" especially when spoken fast. FWIW I don't believe they were saying "boo-yah" after the shoot.
I believe I heard the K9 officer giving commands in German. Although it would surprise me if there aren't at least some common German-Czech cognates.
im sorry, but the one thing they drill into us here is "reasonably justifiable"...
any civilian sitting on a jury will see this and immediately call it excessive force... and i would have to agree.
back when this video first came out we all watched it and agreed back then these officers were in big trouble...
the one thing that will get them is the poor escalation of force... period...
you cant explain to a jury why you shot this guy in the back after he took a submissive/surrender posture and looked to be lying down....
what do you see in that video?
i see a K9, which should have been used before he deployed his knives!
i see multiple Less lethal pump guns, and i missed it but no where in the video or original report did it state they attempted to utilize bean bag rounds??? when did policies get changed to go lethal before less lethal?
im sorry but these guys screwed the pooch on this one...
Voodoo_Man
01-19-15, 05:42
Videos are not the end all be all of evidence.
People were and still are up in are with the "chokehold" which only looked bad on video but in reality was not even a choke hold. Jurors heard testimony, scientific evidence, and so forth and then made their decision.
I doubt this will be different.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-19-15, 07:27
As to why SWAT, wasn't this guy well known to the cops as being mentally ill and combative? Not saying that justifies the outcome, but SWAT would be a rational response someone like that.
The tac latch on the helmet cam guy's gun is the bigger crime here.
Homeless mentally disturbed guy that's "illegally camping" turns around and gets shot in the back by two different "Operators", one of whom had previously "joked" about shooting the Perp..... keep up the Good Work. Booyah!
Lots of people ignore that part of the equation. Is that known as premeditation?
http://youtu.be/xZewm1dVRzI
APD's been raked over the coals by the Feds due to their unconstitutional uses of force (http://krqe.com/2014/04/10/justice-dept-investigative-findings-on-apd/).
Following a comprehensive investigation, today the Justice Department announced its findings that the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) has engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force that violates the Constitution and federal law.
Keith Sandy was fired by New Mexico State Police only to be hired by APD.
http://youtu.be/jiCB40z5NCw
I've worked around K9 for most of the past 10 years and I believe that the "boo-yah" that people are hearing is the K9 handler. Our dogs are trained to Chech commands so that someone else can't give the dog commands. Many dogs in our surrounding area are as well. Some are other languages. Very rarely will you find LEO K9s trained to common English commands. The command for "no" or "loose (let go)" sounds very similar to "boo-yah" especially when spoken fast. FWIW I don't believe they were saying "boo-yah" after the shoot.
You're right. After I listened to it at full volume a couple of times I can tell a difference between the voice of the guy coming up the hill and the "boo-ya" guy. I'll eat crow on the hillbilly boo-ya comment.
Still not sure why an escalation to deadly force was needed. They had bean bags, and a K9. It's kind of odd that they went lethal force then tried the less than lethal.
Also not entirely sure why the K9 handler went after the dog before the suspect became compliant or was down and placed himself at risk. Isn't that the whole pointing the K9??
That looks bad. And on watching it a 2nd time, it looks really, really bad. It looks like murder.
I can't understand why they didn't just keep cracking that guy with bean bags until he submitted. It's like everyone was gripped with fear, and had no confidence they could handle the situation without instantly going to lethal force.
And yeah, the camera guy is waaaaaay too kitted-up.
WickedWillis
01-19-15, 12:50
That looks bad. And on watching it a 2nd time, it looks really, really bad. It looks like murder.
I can't understand why they didn't just keep cracking that guy with bean bags until he submitted. It's like everyone was gripped with fear, and had no confidence they could handle the situation without instantly going to lethal force.
And yeah, the camera guy is waaaaaay too kitted-up.
It is murder.
Whoa whoa whoa! hold the phone! stop the press!
I thought Police were never held accountable for their actions?????
I have no issue with this decision, life is about choices.
SWATcop556
01-19-15, 13:38
Irish, first time I'd seen that video. Thanks.
Sounds like a problem officer. While I don't think it speaks to premeditation it was way out of line. You can joke all you want just remember you may be accountable for those words later. I think we can all agree we are glad that cameras don't catch every last off color comment we make throughout the day.
SWATcop556
01-19-15, 13:42
That looks bad. And on watching it a 2nd time, it looks really, really bad. It looks like murder.
I can't understand why they didn't just keep cracking that guy with bean bags until he submitted. It's like everyone was gripped with fear, and had no confidence they could handle the situation without instantly going to lethal force.
And yeah, the camera guy is waaaaaay too kitted-up.
What Law Enforcement background do you have to show use of force training and what experience do you have to speak to what is "needed" on a call such as this?
I personally do not agree with how this situation was handled but I'm getting tired of the "kitted-up" crowd.
And yeah, the camera guy is waaaaaay too kitted-up.
Totally!
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?96389-ARs-in-Action&highlight=action
While you're at it, tell that to all the of the dumppouchshemaghtacticalkneepadmulticam wearing crowd that enjoy posting selfies in the above linked thread.
Because in both situations (incident in OP and above linked thread), the people look like clowns.
Voodoo_Man
01-19-15, 13:51
All of this talk about being "kitted-up" is pretty sad. So people want to wear kit, what's the issue?
Are we going to piss on guys for having pick up trucks because they are lacking? How about guys who carry more than one magazine - not to rehash the convo just pointing out the obvious misconceptions.
If cops are not supposed to wear "kit" .... who is exactly?
If cops are not supposed to wear "kit" .... who is exactly?
Just internet dudes.
MountainRaven
01-19-15, 14:01
Totally!
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?96389-ARs-in-Action&highlight=action
While you're at it, tell that to all the of the dumppouchshemaghtacticalkneepadmulticam wearing crowd that enjoy posting selfies in the above linked thread.
Because in both situations (incident in OP and above linked thread), the people look like clowns.
Everybody knows that all you need to take a carbine course is a carbine and a spare magazine shoved in the back pocket of your bluejeans. Anything more than that is totally unneeded and only proves a sociopathic, militant mindset in which the individual is clearly just begging for an opportunity to kill.
:sarcastic:
All of this talk about being "kitted-up" is pretty sad. So people want to wear kit, what's the issue?
Are we going to piss on guys for having pick up trucks because they are lacking? How about guys who carry more than one magazine - not to rehash the convo just pointing out the obvious misconceptions.
If cops are not supposed to wear "kit" .... who is exactly?
Tactical YouTube celebrities. And bonafide Tier 1 Operators.
Voodoo_Man
01-19-15, 14:06
Dang, I forgot about YT celebs...
Irish, first time I'd seen that video. Thanks.
Sounds like a problem officer. While I don't think it speaks to premeditation it was way out of line. You can joke all you want just remember you may be accountable for those words later. I think we can all agree we are glad that cameras don't catch every last off color comment we make throughout the day.
You're welcome. His statement just prior to the incident is what set the ball rolling with quite a few people. I also don't think his comment wouldn't have been an issue if it hadn't actually occurred either. We all say shit off the cuff.
Everybody knows that all you need to take a carbine course is a carbine and a spare magazine shoved in the back pocket of your bluejeans.
I've done exactly that just for s'n'g's. It was actually lots of fun! And much more difficult than running with even little things like mags on the belt.
I believe the "kit" is important because it should be in proportion to the the expected threat and the job at hand - and so it does reflect mindset and expectations...
If you disagree, please tell me why all patrol LEO aren't going around wearing rifle plates and approaching every traffic stop all super tactical and armed with carbines that they carry in many cruisers... It would be a safer SOP wouldn't it - just in case something really bad happened... Right?
But we know why that isn't the case, because it would be overkill and out of proportion to the job at hand... Not everything is a darn SWAT situation! sometimes it really just is getting a crazy dude to walk off of a hill....
That's the big picture point I'm getting at....
But if the responding non kitted out patrol officers were threatened by the crazy dude on the hill then its no longer a get the crazy dude off the hill. Its now arrest crazy dude on the hill.
Voodoo_Man
01-20-15, 06:09
I believe the "kit" is important because it should be in proportion to the the expected threat and the job at hand - and so it does reflect mindset and expectations...
If you disagree, please tell me why all patrol LEO aren't going around wearing rifle plates and approaching every traffic stop all super tactical and armed with carbines that they carry in many cruisers... It would be a safer SOP wouldn't it - just in case something really bad happened... Right?
But we know why that isn't the case, because it would be overkill and out of proportion to the job at hand... Not everything is a darn SWAT situation! sometimes it really just is getting a crazy dude to walk off of a hill....
That's the big picture point I'm getting at....
Spoken like someone who has not worn kit for hours each day for years.
I have, it sucks and I would not want to do it. LEO kit is based on public perception and comfort nothing more. Seeing an officer wewring full kit constantly will make you wonder if its safe to go outside. It will also tire that officer out extremely quick.
Point is, crazy dude on a hill can turn into anything very quickly. Does he have a gun? How sure do you want to be? Would you risk your life on it by coming under prepared?
Eurodriver
01-20-15, 06:30
Spoken like someone who has not worn kit for hours each day for years.
I have, it sucks and I would not want to do it. LEO kit is based on public perception and comfort nothing more. Seeing an officer wewring full kit constantly will make you wonder if its safe to go outside. It will also tire that officer out extremely quick.
Point is, crazy dude on a hill can turn into anything very quickly. Does he have a gun? How sure do you want to be? Would you risk your life on it by coming under prepared?
I'm beginning to understand that you cannot win these arguments.
If you come wearing gear, and live, they scream it is a dangerous job and you signed up for it.
If you don't wear gear, and die, they scream it is a dangerous job and you signed up for it.
Might as well take option A
Voodoo_Man
01-20-15, 07:50
I'm beginning to understand that you cannot win these arguments.
If you come wearing gear, and live, they scream it is a dangerous job and you signed up for it.
If you don't wear gear, and die, they scream it is a dangerous job and you signed up for it.
Might as well take option A
That whole argument is weak, if you call policdwork dangerous work then you should not be surprised when LEO show up to the party looking like they just came out of the teams. You cant have your cake and eat it too with this argument.
Voodo, you are making my argument for me by saying full kit would be unnecessary and a PITA for a regular LEO to use all the time. People put on full gear and sling a carbine when the threat level is higher. My argument is all about proportion and mindset. As you said Wearing full kit conveys danger and higher threat posture.
The voice recording of one of the LE guys before the event who shot also backs up my argument, he was ready and eager to shoot the crazy guy.... He was visualizing something big and he got it.
And then back to the general theme..
I think this one specific event was a bad shooting, and it was created by some missteps and aggressive mindset of the few of the LE guys involved... That's OK, nobody is perfect... This is kind of a reverse of the Mike Brown shooting, where the death was caused by a few missteps and aggressive mindset on the part of Mike Brown... It's no more so condemnation of all LE, then is holding mike brown accountable is so condemnation of all young black men...
Insisting that the LE guys did nothing wrong here to escalate the situation Is like being one of mike browns relatives and screaming "my baby dindo nuffin wrong"
Voodoo_Man
01-20-15, 08:58
Voodo, you are making my argument for me by saying full kit would be unnecessary and a PITA for a regular LEO to use all the time. People put on full gear and sling a carbine when the threat level is higher. My argument is all about proportion and mindset. As you said Wearing full kit conveys danger and higher threat posture.
The voice recording of one of the LE guys before the event who shot also backs up my argument, he was ready and eager to shoot the crazy guy.... He was visualizing something big and he got it.
And then back to the general theme..
I think this one specific event was a bad shooting, and it was created by some missteps and aggressive mindset of the few of the LE guys involved... That's OK, nobody is perfect... This is kind of a reverse of the Mike Brown shooting, where the death was caused by a few missteps and aggressive mindset on the part of Mike Brown... It's no more so condemnation of all LE, then is holding mike brown accountable is so condemnation of all young black men...
Insisting that the LE guys did nothing wrong here to escalate the situation Is like being one of mike browns relatives and screaming "my baby dindo nuffin wrong"
I can see the point you are making (on both ends) and I do agree, only in part.
Having personal experience with similar circumstances I can say that you get in the mindset, sort of like psyching yourself and your team up before a football game; you want people to be in that specific mindset, one which is extremely important in a life or death interaction, which this was.
These guys jock'in up and talking the talk is no different, they were getting ready to get into a physical confrontation with someone who would only respond to violent confrontation; remember they were there for hours before this happened trying to talk him down until he displayed blades in an aggressive manner.
Lastly, if you look at the video, without knowing anything else other than what you are given visually, then sure it is most definitely not a good shoot, but it is not a bad shoot in that it would warrant murder charges against the officers.
Did you read what lead up to it? Did you read about how long everything took to develop? This was not a first officer on scene was in full kit an shot the dude because he was crazy and no other reason type of situation we see sometimes occur. They tried to talk him down, they tried less than lethal, they did all that. The police are not paid to give up and just allow people to do whatever they want, that guy was getting arrested one way or another and they exhausted their use of force pyramid up until the end.
Comparing this situation to Ferguson and that POS that attacked the officer is like comparing apples to oranges. The only thing similar is the fact the police used deadly force.
Please keep this thread about the specific events in ABQ. There is no need for yet another militarization-of-police debate from either side of the issue.
...remember they were there for hours before this happened trying to talk him down until he displayed blades in an aggressive manner....
From watching the linked video it appears that he's empty handed, getting his belongings together and being mostly compliant, until they pop off what appears to be a flash bang type device and sic a dog on him. You're dealing with a nut, why light the fuse? Would you expect a different outcome by initiating a confrontation with Captain Wingnut? From my limited perspective and knowledge of the situation I'd say it was handled very poorly.
Voodoo_Man
01-20-15, 11:27
From watching the linked video it appears that he's empty handed, getting his belongings together and being mostly compliant, until they pop off what appears to be a flash bang type device and sic a dog on him. You're dealing with a nut, why light the fuse? Would you expect a different outcome by initiating a confrontation with Captain Wingnut? From my limited perspective and knowledge of the situation I'd say it was handled very poorly.
Do some searching for other videos - he had two blades, one in each hand and was most definitely NOT compliant.
If he was compliant he would still be alive.
Do some searching for other videos - he had two blades, one in each hand and was most definitely NOT compliant.
If he was compliant he would still be alive.
When did he have the blades in his hands? When he was collecting his belongings, being compliant by any normal person's definition, and they initiated a violent encounter by tossing a flash bang at an obviously mentally ill person and then loosed a K9 on him? Or, did he arm himself after having had a grenade lobbed at him?
Crazy man arms himself after thinking he's being attacked... weird.
When did he have the blades in his hands? When he was collecting his belongings, being compliant by any normal person's definition, and they initiated a violent encounter by tossing a flash bang at an obviously mentally ill person and then loosed a K9 on him? Or, did he arm himself after having had a grenade lobbed at him?
Crazy man arms himself after thinking he's being attacked... weird.
1+ to this. Maybe there is longer video where he has knives in his hands during the conversation with the cops, but I don't see them in his hands when he is picking his stuff up. To me it appears that he arms himself after being attacked by a grenade and dog. Unless there is more accurate video or from different views that clearly show the guy being a threat to the officers I'll stick with my impression. They handled this situation poorly and ended up killing a guy.
Maybe I'm crazy, but the bean bag or even a taser should have come before the grenade, dog and bullets not after. Why risk a good dog before trying a stand off device? Is the escalation of force anywhere such that a less than lethal is higher on the chain than a dogs teeth???
Voodoo_Man
01-20-15, 12:34
Guess you guys have selective reading.
Do your research and post accordingly, I wont spoon feed you info you should learn yourself.
Even if he had knives, I don't know if the crime (squatting) was worth risking his life, their lives (you know since guys had rounds zipping over their shoulders it would appear). If it was really that big of a deal, bust out the pepper ball gun (im sure they have a couple), and lay waste with the thing until he has enough.
Hindsight is 20/20, but I don't know that ratcheting up the intensity of force was worth it.
And no, if you are close enough for a taser to work, and the hobo did have a knife....taser is a huge no go.
Even if he had knives, I don't know if the crime (squatting) was worth risking his life, their lives (you know since guys had rounds zipping over their shoulders it would appear). If it was really that big of a deal, bust out the pepper ball gun (im sure they have a couple), and lay waste with the thing until he has enough.
Hindsight is 20/20, but I don't know that ratcheting up the intensity of force was worth it.
And no, if you are close enough for a taser to work, and the hobo did have a knife....taser is a huge no go.
Completely agree with you.
RancidSumo
01-20-15, 16:22
Given some of the discussion in this thread, I expected the video to be a little less black and white. After watching it, I'm surprised anyone is defending the officers involved (and given my interactions in previous discussions, I'd have thought myself pretty hard to surprise). Murder is a good charge in this case and with the officer's record, first degree might also be a good choice. If some massive smoking gun that we haven't seen yet doesn't come out then I hope he spends the rest of his life behind bars.
Given some of the discussion in this thread, I expected the video to be a little less black and white. After watching it, I'm surprised anyone is defending the officers involved (and given my interactions in previous discussions, I'd have thought myself pretty hard to surprise). Murder is a good charge in this case and with the officer's record, first degree might also be a good choice. If some massive smoking gun that we haven't seen yet doesn't come out then I hope he spends the rest of his life behind bars.
These are my feelings as well. How anyone could review that video and think- "yeah that was a justified killing" is beyond ludicrous.
I watched it about 20 times trying to see what some here are debating as justifiable; it ain't there.
sandsunsurf
01-21-15, 11:48
Either you guys are listening to a different video that had something about an officer talking about killing OR you're assuming the "I could kill you right now if we were at the bus station..." statement is coming from a cop, but it's from the dead guy..
Am I not hearing something and/or is there a different video that has this? Grunz?
Either you guys are listening to a different video that had something about an officer talking about killing OR you're assuming the "I could kill you right now if we were at the bus station..." statement is coming from a cop, but it's from the dead guy..
Am I not hearing something and/or is there a different video that has this? Grunz?
Irish linked a separate video on page 5 or 6 where the officers says he would "shoot the guy in the penis with his shotgun".
There is a separate recording where one of the LEO who is charged mentions shooting the perp. This happend while they were on the way to the incident.
My sticking point particular to this incident is the last second escalation where they blast the guy with a falshbang when he seemed to be cooperating and moving his stuff. At this time his hands were full of bags, he was moving off the hill and cooperating. I'm pretty sure Tthis ends very differently and better for all if the LEOs didnt do that.
There is a separate recording where one of the LEO who is charged mentions shooting the perp. This happend while they were on the way to the incident.
My sticking point particular to this incident is the last second escalation where they blast the guy with a falshbang when he seemed to be cooperating and moving his stuff. At this time his hands were full of bags, he was moving off the hill and cooperating. I'm pretty sure Tthis ends very differently and better for all if the LEOs didnt do that.
It does seem he was cooperating finally so it would be interesting to know what the thought process was to initiate as they did with the FB and K9. No doubt that will come out in the proceedings
Mistrial declared. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mistrial-declared-mexico-police-shooting-case-42739242)
The case against two former New Mexico police officers charged in the death of a homeless man ended in a mistrial Tuesday when jurors told the judge they were hopelessly deadlocked on the counts of second-degree murder.
Judge Alisa Hadfield declared the mistrial after more than two days of deliberations in the case against Keith Sandy and Dominique Perez. Nine jurors wanted to acquit the men, and three were holding out for a guilty verdict...
Sandy and Perez shot mentally ill, homeless camper James Boyd in 2014 after receiving complaints he was acting erratically on a rocky hillside. They were among 19 officers who swarmed the area with rifles, tactical gear, flash grenades, stun guns and K-9 units, a show of force that the prosecutor questioned throughout the trial.
The defendants, who are no longer on the force, said they opened fire because Boyd had two pocket knives and they believed he posed a deadly threat to a K-9 handler who had lost control of his police service dog and chased the animal, bringing him within 9 to 12 feet of Boyd...
El Pistolero
10-16-16, 02:05
This whole case was a cluster. I for one am glad James Boyd is dead as we are better off without him. The incoming DA has discretion in whether or not to re-try the case and I hope he does not, for the sake of the taxpayer.
I just watched the shooting part of the video over and over. It looks like the man is turning away from the officers when shot at several times by the closest officer. The officer with the camera looks like he shoots twice. The dog did not seem effective at all, was the dog sent on purpose r did it just release at the sound of the explosion? I know they're trained to attack on gunfire, the dog looked confused. A FB would do that. It would be helpful to read their reports to see what they said and felt at the time. It is a CF for sure.
From the article Irish linked earlier: The defendants said they opened fire because Boyd had two pocket knives and they believed he posed a deadly threat to a K-9 handler who had lost control of his police service dog and chased the animal, bringing him within 9 to 12 feet of Boyd.
I just watched the shooting part of the video over and over. It looks like the man is turning away from the officers when shot at several times by the closest officer. The officer with the camera looks like he shoots twice. The dog did not seem effective at all, was the dog sent on purpose r did it just release at the sound of the explosion? I know they're trained to attack on gunfire, the dog looked confused. A FB would do that. It would be helpful to read their reports to see what they said and felt at the time. It is a CF for sure.
From the article Irish linked earlier: The defendants said they opened fire because Boyd had two pocket knives and they believed he posed a deadly threat to a K-9 handler who had lost control of his police service dog and chased the animal, bringing him within 9 to 12 feet of Boyd.
So people with schizophrenia don't get patted down?!?! "He drew the knives after they tried to pat him down, something the prosecutor said is known to agitate people with schizophrenia."
On a side note why is one officer carrying what look like two less lethal shotguns? Different rounds in each gun? Impact VS Gas?
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-17-16, 13:28
I tend to agree with the assessment that the murder charge was brought in hopes of getting a no bill or make it easier to defend.
...
...
It will be interesting if the judge offers lesser crimes to the jury or just murder.
So, did the jury have the option for lesser charges? Winner, winner, chicken dinner for TAZ.
The family got $5 million. (http://krqe.com/2015/07/10/james-boyd-family-city-of-albuquerque-reach-5m-settlement/)
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-17-16, 13:55
The family got $5 million. (http://krqe.com/2015/07/10/james-boyd-family-city-of-albuquerque-reach-5m-settlement/)
http://www.koat.com/article/documents-james-boyd-s-family-got-into-legal-battle-over-settlement-money/5070172
Looks like the crazy is strong in the family.
$1.25 million for each of them?
sniperfrog
10-18-16, 18:07
I had a lot of info on this case when it happened. Basically, don't talk about shooting a suspect before you pull up to the scene. That was pretty much what got these guys in trouble when they ended up having to shoot him. DA said it was premeditated.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.