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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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…
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.