• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 Albuquerque Officers Charged With Murder

Lethargic Aptitude

Political Parties = Corruption
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
20,860
Reaction score
7,045
Location
New Mexico, USA
Gender
Male
This should be interesting.

2 Albuquerque Officers Charged With Murder in March Shooting - ABC News

"Two Albuquerque police officers were charged with murder Monday in the shooting death of a knife-wielding homeless man that led to violent protests and brought new scrutiny to the police department amid a federal investigation.

The decision to bring murder charges occurred at a time when police tactics are under intense review nationwide, fueled by the fatal shooting of an unarmed 18-year-old in Ferguson, Missouri, and the chokehold death of another unarmed man in New York City. Grand juries declined to charge officers in those cases, leading to large protests.

Acknowledging the frustration over the secrecy of the proceedings in those cases, the Albuquerque district attorney said she would bypass the grand jury process and instead present the murder case to a judge at a preliminary hearing that will be open to the public.

"Unlike Ferguson and unlike in New York City, we're going to know. The public is going to have that information," District Attorney Kari Brandenburg said."

boyd1.jpg
 
Been following this one since it happened. I always thought what they did was unnecessary. The guy was turning and moving away, not attacking. I can understand the police officer's frustration but that is no excuse to kill somebody.

Here's a video of the incident if anyone is interested.

LiveLeak.com - Police Shoot Homeless Man During Camping Arrest - **KILL HIM DEAD****

I have watched the video a lot and while the guy had knives in his hands, like you said when he was shot his back was turned. But I dont think that the judge will go with the murder charges.

That video has been all over the local news for months now. But thanx.
 
What did he die from? It doesnt seem like they used real bullets. He was yelling he couldnt move, they were yelling 'bean bag' alot. I also heard them yell 'gun' (erroneously) immediately before or after the flashbang.

Overkill (no pun intended) IMO. The public was not in immediate danger from his escape and the cops were not in immediate danger....they could have used more time and distance.
 
As far as this case, some of it will come down to if the suspect had bullet holes in him.
If only non-lethal rounds were used, this may just be a case of overzealous police,
but not murder. That the DA chose not to take this in front of a grand jury is saying something.
The larger concern would be the use of the body camera data to prosecute the Police.
The police have a ugly job to do, and yes it can be violent.
Outsiders watching a video, may not comprehend the level of danger in an
incident, and therefore may conclude it is an over reaction.
 
Hmmm

The criminal charges were the first Brandenburg has brought against officers in a shooting. She is in her fourth term as district attorney and is waging a fight with the Albuquerque Police Department over allegations that she committed bribery while intervening on behalf of her son in a burglary case.

Police believe she should be charged with bribery because, they say, she offered to pay a victim not to press charges. The attorney general's office is handling the matter.

Brandenburg said the charges against police had nothing to with the agency's investigation into her and that her office got the case long before the bribery claims came to light.


That's a bit of a wrinkle.

I can't watch any of the videos on the shooting itself on this computer but I've read all the posts in here so far and it seems that most posters think this was overkill or overreaction by the police? It will be interesting to see what happens here. Murder? Highly unlikely, but I'll bet the officers will be charged with something.
 
This does add another twist to the story, that some of the cops intended to escalate
ahead of time, it also could have been talking smack, with their peers.
The question remains, did the man die from bullet holes, or was the cause of death
from falling after the non lethal impacts?
 
Gosh, I feel so much safer knowing that the cops are on the job protecting me from some homeless guy camping out in the hills. Oh, and I no longer fear for my life over someone selling cigarettes on the street! And that nonagenerian WWII vet is no longer a threat to society either.

The problem is, this sort of thing gets conflated with the Brown case, and with the case of the nutter trying to run over cops. The issue is not some imaginary war between cops and civilians, but cops who misuse their authority.

Was the homeless man black? He must not have been, or race would have been made out to be the core of the issue, rather than a few cops who use deadly force where it is not necessary.
 
So much hardware for a man sleeping in a park. What's up with that?

The dude went for his knives AFTER the cops shot the flashbang at him. Why did they do that at all?

Sorry, but the cops came to the scene looking for violence, escalated it and as a result someone is dead.

Murder seems appropriate to me.
 
This does add another twist to the story, that some of the cops intended to escalate
ahead of time, it also could have been talking smack, with their peers.
The question remains, did the man die from bullet holes, or was the cause of death
from falling after the non lethal impacts?

Exactly...where is the autopsy? This didnt just happen.
 
Best I can tell from the story and the video, this was murder. The charges seem appropriate and it looks clear enough that the "if he just did what the officers were commanding" defense is not strong enough in this case. I do not see how the case can be made that the intent of the officers was to deescalate that when they did plenty to ensure they shot someone.
 
Best I can tell from the story and the video, this was murder. The charges seem appropriate and it looks clear enough that the "if he just did what the officers were commanding" defense is not strong enough in this case. I do not see how the case can be made that the intent of the officers was to deescalate that when they did plenty to ensure they shot someone.
We need an autopsy. They clearly didn't think the guy was dead since they cuffed him immediately and no one appeared to check for a pulse. Plus I didn't see any blood. But it does seem like an awful lot of heavily armed officers for what looks like a guy camping in the hills.
 
We need an autopsy. They clearly didn't think the guy was dead since they cuffed him immediately and no one appeared to check for a pulse. Plus I didn't see any blood. But it does seem like an awful lot of heavily armed officers for what looks like a guy camping in the hills.

What will the autopsy reveal about the shooting that isn't clearly on display in the video?
 
does someone say "boooyah" at the 1.03-1.05 mark???
WTF?

It was like a feeding frenzy, they were all feeding off of each other's testosterone. Because none of them were actually afraid at all. They just fed off each other like they were at a keg party.
 
Golly gee how will I ever sleep tonight?
 
We need an autopsy. They clearly didn't think the guy was dead since they cuffed him immediately and no one appeared to check for a pulse. Plus I didn't see any blood. But it does seem like an awful lot of heavily armed officers for what looks like a guy camping in the hills.

Brief search revealed this: Autopsy: James Boyd was shot in the back and arms | New Mexico News - KOAT Home

Edit: link to autopsy http://www.kob.com/kobtvimages/repository/cs/files/jamesboydautopsy.pdf

He was shot twice - (bullets, not beanbags), in the back and upper arm, with the shot that entered his lower back the fatal one. The arm had to be amputated.

Video looks like a bunch of Rambo wannabees who mistook a homeless, mentally ill person for a dangerous criminal they daydream about taking out.
 
Last edited:
We need an autopsy. They clearly didn't think the guy was dead since they cuffed him immediately and no one appeared to check for a pulse. Plus I didn't see any blood. But it does seem like an awful lot of heavily armed officers for what looks like a guy camping in the hills.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment...

Best I can tell from the video 6-7 (2 of the shots were right on top of each other) shots were fired and all at his torso. I am not sure the argument can be made that the officers thought he was alive, or conscious, or in control enough to obey new commands after being shot like that. Not checking for a pulse could go either way on helping the officers case or be used against them.

I am still back to the same conclusion. *After* firing several times they then shot him with beanbags with no response, then they sent the dog in and got no response, then said "he's good," but still said right after "step on that hand real hard," then they moved in to cuff him once motionless, looked for the knife (knives, there may have been another thrown,) and told each other "good job." The video ends but I heard no calls for medical aid, that could be construed as they knew he was dead and it was congratulations time. BTW, there is blood on his back and the rock next to the body.

In this case I see enough evidence to charge these officers with murder. Granted the suspect did not drop all his knives (or the one remaining) but he also did not charge them, seems to me the beanbag shots and perhaps use of the dog would have been the way to deescalate the situation. But, they decided to fire first. This is going to be a tough one for the officers to defend.
 
Playing devil's advocate for a moment...

Best I can tell from the video 6-7 (2 of the shots were right on top of each other) shots were fired and all at his torso. I am not sure the argument can be made that the officers thought he was alive, or conscious, or in control enough to obey new commands after being shot like that. Not checking for a pulse could go either way on helping the officers case or be used against them.

I am still back to the same conclusion. *After* firing several times they then shot him with beanbags with no response, then they sent the dog in and got no response, then said "he's good," but still said right after "step on that hand real hard," then they moved in to cuff him once motionless, looked for the knife (knives, there may have been another thrown,) and told each other "good job." The video ends but I heard no calls for medical aid, that could be construed as they knew he was dead and it was congratulations time. BTW, there is blood on his back and the rock next to the body.

In this case I see enough evidence to charge these officers with murder. Granted the suspect did not drop all his knives (or the one remaining) but he also did not charge them, seems to me the beanbag shots and perhaps use of the dog would have been the way to deescalate the situation. But, they decided to fire first. This is going to be a tough one for the officers to defend.

I heard him speak while on the ground: "I cant move, I cant move" while they were screaming at him to drop the knives. And he moved his feet a little so he wasnt dead while they were screaming at him, at least not the whole time.
 
I heard him speak while on the ground: "I cant move, I cant move" while they were screaming at him to drop the knives. And he moved his feet a little so he wasnt dead while they were screaming at him, at least not the whole time.

That might help their case... there seems to be enough to charge the officers and let the courts determine what happened with evidence offered. Until then, a quick "the officers were justified" statement tells me that we should all be concerned out there. The bar for officers to kill someone is getting lowered the further we go.
 
Brief search revealed this: Autopsy: James Boyd was shot in the back and arms | New Mexico News - KOAT Home

Edit: link to autopsy http://www.kob.com/kobtvimages/repository/cs/files/jamesboydautopsy.pdf

He was shot twice - (bullets, not beanbags), in the back and upper arm, with the shot that entered his lower back the fatal one. The arm had to be amputated.

Video looks like a bunch of Rambo wannabees who mistook a homeless, mentally ill person for a dangerous criminal they daydream about taking out.

Thanks. Shot in the back. I understand how that can legitimately happen in a self-defense situation but he never came toward them and at that point I think he was even past Tueller distance of 21 feet, over very rough ground. IMO real bullets were not needed.
 
That might help their case... there seems to be enough to charge the officers and let the courts determine what happened with evidence offered. Until then, a quick "the officers were justified" statement tells me that we should all be concerned out there. The bar for officers to kill someone is getting lowered the further we go.

Too late. Apparently, as JasperL just posted, he had already been hit with live rounds.
 
Back
Top Bottom