Posted on 01/12/2015 12:09:23 PM PST by Enlightened1
(Reuters) - Prosecutors in New Mexico are seeking murder charges against two Albuquerque police officers in connection with the 2014 shooting death of a homeless man, which sparked protests in the city, police said on Monday.
Former Albuquerque police detective Keith Sandy and current officer Dominique Perez could face murder charges linked to the March 16 killing of mentally ill homeless man James Boyd, police spokesman Tanner Tixier said.
That shooting prompted protests sharply critical of the Albuquerque police department, which the federal government found has used excessive, even deadly, force against civilians. It is now facing reforms and is under federal monitoring.
Sandy and Perez both face murder charges, Second Judicial District Attorney Kari Brandenburg said in a statement provided through her office. The statement provided no further information on the details of the charges.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
To drop the knifes.
Emotions rule you rather than facts?
My son was in a shoot and yelled yee-haw when he fired. . .excitement you know. . .a clean shoot, cleared in 3-days.
“As he lays there, shot to pieces, they give commands to drop the knife. (doubtful he could comply as he fell incapacitated with it in his hands still)”
It was one body, not pieces.
Commanding to drop the weapon is what you do. You don’t KNOW if he is still a threat or not. . .that is why they followed up with less lethal rounds when situation allowed.
Less lethal rounds can kill you (Brian Terry, RIP).
I believe there are people in this country and on this forum who think cops should be able to kill a guy for being an a hole.
As for cops, if they scream at you and treat you like dirt and you tell them to go eff themselves, you’re being an a hole. If you don’t start jumping when they say “Frog!” you’re being an a hold. Bang!
Not quite. You are referring to the Tueller Drill obviously. But that is a matter of how much ground an attacker could before you can use your holstered weapon. It does not apply to a group of cops all pointing guns.
Not on that terrain.
Guy was slow and clumsy as well.
*sniff* *sniff*
What is that I smell on your breath? Why, I believe that's jackboot polish!
None of which justifies shooting him.
You are correct.
Cops don't get to shoot anyone because they are "potentially dangerous". Maybe that's where you are confused.
Well yes. They do have to wait until he's close enough, among other things, to be a threat. Why should they shoot when he's not a threat? Think about it.
Having a knife, being armed, is not enough to shoot someone. Not for self-defense and not for cops. In many places it's perfectly legal to be armed. Are cops allowed to go around shooting legally armed people? Of course not. There's more involved than being armed.
Because of cops and gun laws, all of the armed men that I have had to disarm, I had to do it while unarmed myself, except for a pool stick once, that was for a knife, with guns, it was always barehanded.
There are a number of freepers that have been around violence a lot, and we marvel at the cowardice and incompetence of some of these jokers that are cops, for instance in this video, where they managed to turn a little run in with a homeless guy, into an expensive killing.
We don’t really need to run through all the details, the fact is that all of these cops should have been able to figure out some way to handle this little situation without turning it into a deadly killing circus.
Cops can’t keep making expensive and deadly mountains out of such interactions with people, this wasn’t the taking of the London Embassy, or hostages in a bank, if they can’t handle this dinged out homeless guy then they are are in the wrong line of work, in their job they should be the experts at handling situations, not the worst at it, a couple of bouncers or bikers would have handled this situation better and the guy would have survived it.
The criminal was armed and refused commands to get on the ground and did not drop his weapons. He needed to be shot. Failing to do so would put the officers and the public at risk.
I am shocked at how many pro-criminal FReepers we have.
He was just “armed” he was brandishing the knives at the officers and resisted arrests and disobeyed their repeated commands at gunpoint.
If the cops didn’t shoot, the likelihood us that one or more of them would have been stabbed to death. Only a VERY deranged and dangerous individual continues to brandish weapons at officers, when ordered to stop at gunpoint.
“Less lethal rounds”
Is that what you load in your home defense gun?
Less lethal = less stopping power. They should only be used against unarmed individuals. Using them against an armed man is just short of suicide.
He turned as the officers started firing. He was facing them when they began to fire.
Can you explain why the scumbag defied their commands to get on the ground and refused to drop HIS weapons?
He was armed and refused commands, but neither of those things is an imminent deadly threat. He didn't actually try to attack anyone with that knife. Nothing in that video shows that he needed to be shot. He needed to be dealt with, yes. Nobody suggests they should let him walk away. But shooting him is not justified because he didn't follow orders.
"I am shocked at how many pro-criminal FReepers we have."
Only when the criminals wear police uniforms apparently.
That is not a valid argument for deadly force. I don't think you understand when deadly force is justified.
“The homeless, ARMED scumbucket had the cops in a 4 hour standoff...”
You’d think they could have found some beanbag rounds in that amount of time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.