Homeless man shot to death by police while “illegally camping” in NM foothills

[Woobie]

The video seemed damning, but I'll wait for a jury to decide that. Making a tactical decision to attempt to disable with a pelvis shot, while arguably not necessary in this shoot, is generally accepted as an acceptable option. "Shooting in the pecker" is not the same thing. I suppose we could chalk this up to dark humor, but that joke is pretty irreverent, and seems to me to be a cavalier attitude toward the life of a citizen, a human being, and (if the guy were fortunate enough to have a home) a neighbor. That is concerning coming from anyone, but particularly a sworn LEO.

 

[rambone]

Always happy to educate. You can read about it here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=j...nepage&q=use of pelvis shot by police&f=false

When you claim that homicidal thugs represent an example for others to follow, it makes us all look a bit ridiculous. This is a public forum. I hope the readers understand that not all gun owners think this kind of sadistic behavior is acceptable.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I hope the readers understand that not all gun owners think this kind of sadistic behavior is acceptable.

It is not sadistic to defend yourself or others. It is your right.

Look, you hate rights. We get it, you loathe Liberty to your soul as it allows people who you openly hate to exercise their right to Life. We all get that.

However, even the police have the right to defense of self and others. I'll defend their Liberty. You keep attacking Liberty.

 

[ATM]

Seems like this ruthless gang of enforcers just couldn't restrain themselves when it looked like it was going to end without bloodshed, so they stepped it up and attacked the guy.

 

[poptab]

I see Kirk is still ****ting in this thread. I guess some things never change.

 

[steveh_131]

Please explain which B.S. was written, which 'INGOtarian' wrote it, and how it qualifies as a 'stalking horse'.

Let's hear it, Kirk. Or were you just making things up again?

 

[steveh_131]

It is not sadistic to defend yourself or others. It is your right.

Let's get this straight. Perfect clarity.

This cop was verbally planning to shoot this homeless man in 'the pecker' two hours before the shooting took place, while he was still in the car.

You're aware of this, right? You still going to pretend like that statement had anything to do with self defense?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Something about a ham sandwich goes here.

A prosecutor in political trouble attempts to distract the voters from her problems by hanging some innocents?

Gee, I wonder if that has ever happened before?

#homeless lives matter

 

[foszoe]

#homeless lives matter

What aboUT people with homes? Apartments? Condos? Trailers?

I find this post highly discriminatory

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I see Kirk is still ****ting in this thread. I guess some things never change.

I am still defending Liberty that others are attacking endlessly.

I am the only True Guardian of Liberty.

This cop was verbally planning to shoot this homeless man in 'the pecker' two hours before the shooting took place, while he was still in the car.

You're aware of this, right? You still going to pretend like that statement had anything to do with self defense?

So, you are prosecuting him for what he said now? Perfect, go with that.

Maybe it's relevant and I am certain that the prosecution will attempt to use it. If that is relevant then so is The Trespasser's announcements that he would kill everyone.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am still defending Liberty that others are attacking endlessly.

I am the only True Guardian of Liberty.



So, you are prosecuting him for what he said now? Perfect, go with that.

Maybe it's relevant and I am certain that the prosecution will attempt to use it. If that is relevant then so is The Trespasser's announcements that he would kill everyone.

Kirk, I can understand your point, especially considering that the bum was mouthing some serious threats, but to what extent were the bum's threats, as you would say, 'teeth talk'? It is a hard sell to consider the officer's action a clean self-defense shoot in the knowledge that he, well in advance, declared that he was going to shoot 'little richard'. I seem to recall that when the nonsensical argument about shooting extremities rather than center mass when officers are being attacked is dismissed as pure nonsense, how can we make a rational argument out of doubling back on our standard path and arguing that shooting the smallest extremity on the man's body, planned hours in advance, is a proper act of self-defense?

 

[indiucky]

I am still defending Liberty that others are attacking endlessly.

I am the only True Guardian of Liberty.

I thought you were the Guardian of the Galaxy??? You need to update your profile on Angie's List...

 

[steveh_131]

I am still defending Liberty that others are attacking endlessly.

Logical fallacies galore. All of us support the right of self defense. We are simply arguing that this is not a good example of self defense.

So, you are prosecuting him for what he said now? Perfect, go with that.

Maybe it's relevant and I am certain that the prosecution will attempt to use it. If that is relevant then so is The Trespasser's announcements that he would kill everyone.

Of course it's relevant. Think about the context, Kirk. They didn't roll up to the situation, then the cop said "According to chapter 12, section 3 of Ayoob's manual, it is permissible for me to shoot this man in the pelvic girdle. So if this situation becomes one of self defense, I believe I will aim for that area." This is what you're implying Kirk. Do you understand how ridiculous this is?

They rolled up and he was pissed off that the other agencies were being involved in this. Pissed off enough that he voiced an intention to shoot the man in the pecker. And yes, statements of intended violence are certainly relevant when someone is afterwards going to claim self defense. It certainly doesn't prove that he is guilty, by itself, but it is most certainly relevant.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to explain this 'stalking horse' accusation. Should I just assume that it was nonsense when you wrote it and that no explanation will be forthcoming?

Please explain which B.S. was written, which 'INGOtarian' wrote it, and how it qualifies as a 'stalking horse'.

 

[poptab]

I am still defending Liberty that others are attacking endlessly.

I am the only True Guardian of Liberty.



So, you are prosecuting him for what he said now? Perfect, go with that.

Maybe it's relevant and I am certain that the prosecution will attempt to use it. If that is relevant then so is The Trespasser's announcements that he would kill everyone.

troll harder.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

but to what extent were the bum's threats, as you would say, 'teeth talk'?

If The Trespasser were known to have been violent in the past (and he had) then the threats issued by The Trepasser go to the reasonableness of shooting The Trespasser.

All of us support the right of self defense. We are simply arguing that this is not a good example of self defense.

Laughable. You are letting your hatred of the police cloud your perception of the Rule of Law. As always, you are putting politics above the law. Whether it is beating judges with clubs or imprisoning your fellow man without cause, you want a result and will destroy Liberty to get it.

Do you understand how ridiculous this is?

He wanted the textbook and I educated him. Shooting people in the pelvic girdle is a tactic that is widely taught in law enforcement. Just because you are ignorant of it does not mean it does not exist.

You do not understand this as you have not studied and thus saying that it is perfectly reasonable to shoot The Trespasser in the pelvic girdle or to plan to do so enrages you.

They rolled up and he was pissed off that the other agencies were being involved in this.

Speculation to say the least.

It certainly doesn't prove that he is guilty, by itself, but it is most certainly relevant.

We shall see. If that is relevant so are the statements of The Trespasser.

 

[steveh_131]

Laughable. You are letting your hatred of the police cloud your perception of the Rule of Law. As always, you are putting politics above the law. Whether it is beating judges with clubs or imprisoning your fellow man without cause, you want a result and will destroy Liberty to get it.

Nonsense. I don't hate the police. I think they deserve the same rights of self-defense as the rest of us. I would deny this shooting as self defense from a civilian just as I would an officer of the law.

He wanted the textbook and I educated him. Shooting people in the pelvic girdle is a tactic that is widely taught in law enforcement. Just because you are ignorant of it does not mean it does not exist.

You do not understand this as you have not studied and thus saying that it is perfectly reasonable to shoot The Trespasser in the pelvic girdle or to plan to do so enrages you.

He didn't say 'pelvic girdle'. He said 'pecker'. The penis is not the pelvic girdle. It may be in the pelvic girdle, but they are not the same thing. Regardless, it is outrageous to claim that he was plotting such obscure tactics before he even left the car.

Speculation to say the least.

No it's not. It's in the article. He said it all within earshot of the dashcam.

If that is relevant so are the statements of The Trespasser.

Nobody said they weren't.

 

[poptab]

Yea because pecker = pelvic amiright???

 

[KG1]

Maybe he was going for center mass of the pelvic girdle.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Since the OP ran away from this, the trial of the police ended in a hung jury. It is unknown at this time whether New Mexico will re-file.

https://www.abqjournal.com/864931/jury-in-pere-zsandy-murder-trial-resume-deliberations.html

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yea because pecker = pelvic amiright???

Correct.

Shooting someone in the dick, with a long gun, is a fantastic way to stop a threat (may not end fight, but can stop him).

Shooting someone in the genitals with a pistol may kill someone (last PAS in Lafayette was dick shot), but may not stop them.