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

[Bunnykid68]

Oh don't worry. They shot him full of beanbags and let the dog feast on his leg while he was laying there motionless and dying.

I kind of wondered about the bean bags. Why didnt the guy with the beans bags unload all of those about one minute earlier?

 

[Baditude]

Today I learned from lawyers and cops that shooting a guy in the back as he turns away and crouches towards the ground is Ok as long as he is holding a knife and is within 10 feet of me.

Nope, only applies to police officers not your average Joe

 

[Shadow8088]

I kind of wondered about the bean bags. Why didnt the guy with the beans bags unload all of those about one minute earlier?

^^^ THIS!!!

They also had the new tazer shotgun.... didn't see them use it either...

 

[MTubbs1]

I see American Indians facepalming at use of 'Native Americans'.

Oh the politically correctness. I'll take Native American over American Indiana any day thanks.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is there info in the stories about the land?

The mountain is National Forest. The strips of land in front of the mountains are city parks. One must have a permit to camp in the city park.

Boyd was violating the property rights of the subdivision which borders the city park so the property owners called the police to enforce their sacred right to their property.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That's ok, we'll skip the discussion of self defense at your home. Let's all remember that the police were victimized, after they literally woke up their attacker in his bed.

Correct. Don't pull deadly weapons on your fellow human beings and threaten to kill them. If you pull deadly weapons on your fellow human beings, they get to shoot you. This is the essence of Liberty.

If the police are lawfully placed and giving lawful commands you have no legal standing to present them with a deadly force threat. The courts are pretty clearly on the side of law enforcement on this.
Well if you want to talk about justice there is no point bringing up B.S. permits and court decisions. They are irrelevant unless you are attempting to garner emotional responses with an appeal to authority.

No. The police giving lawful commands demonstrates that Boyd had no right to be where he was thus Boyd no right to self-defense.

That's why you repeat "violent felon" and "lawful orders" over and over and write that the cops were "forced" to shoot the man.

Boyd was violent. Boyd was a criminal. The police had the authority to do what they were doing.

The police needed to shoot Boyd so he was shot.

If you wish to avoid being shot, don't break the law. Don't brandish deadly weapons at your fellow human beings. Don't threaten to kill your fellow human beings. Your boy did all these things and needed to be shot.

They take their camping permits very seriously.

Boyd was shot because he threatened to inflict serious bodily injury or death.

 

[Shadow8088]

Correct. Don't pull deadly weapons on your fellow human beings and threaten to kill them. If you pull deadly weapons on your fellow human beings, they get to shoot you. This is the essence of Liberty.

who had the deadly weapons pointed at who? perhaps you should watch that video again...

 

[steveh_131]

How do I go about obtaining sacred rights to adjoining properties?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

who had the deadly weapons pointed at who?

Boyd had knives. You can plainly see them.

Boyd had no right to be where he was, thus he waived his right to self-defense.

How do I go about obtaining sacred rights to adjoining properties?

You earn them by buying property in the subdivision that borders the city park.

The stew bums usually camp by the river where it is illegal but tolerated as they are not near homes.

This case is about property rights. Boyd did not respect them.

 

[steveh_131]

this case is not about property rights.

Even if he set up camp in my front yard and took a dump in my goldfish pond, I would be in jail if I had shot him in the back while he was turning away and attempting to leave. Period.

 

[rambone]

Boyd had no right to self-defense.

Why do you hate liberty and self-defense?

 

[TMU317]

who had the deadly weapons pointed at who? perhaps you should watch that video again...

Who pulls a knife when multiple police officers are pointing firearms in your direction? Sad to think this entire incident could have easily been avoided if the individual would have made the decision to cooperate with the responding officers. Instead he chose to threaten to kill the officers, and then pulls a knife. At any point during the three hour ordeal he could have made the decision to cooperate.

 

[steveh_131]

Who pulls a knife when multiple police officers are pointing firearms in your direction? Sad to think this entire incident could have easily been avoided if the individual would have made the decision to cooperate with the responding officers. Instead he chose to threaten to kill the officers, and then pulls a knife. At any point during the three hour ordeal he could have made the decision to cooperate.

He did make the decision to cooperate. He picked up his stuff to leave. So they threw a grenade at him.

 

[Shadow8088]

at what point were they going to use the less than lethal options they had with them?? i counted TWO tazer shotguns, and apparently one of them had beanbag rounds... guess it was easier to fire 6 rounds of the cheaper stuff.. i mean, he WAS just a homeless guy...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

this case is not about property rights.

This case is only about property rights, which are the essence of Liberty.

Boyd hated property rights. The police are acting as the Guardians of our sacred property rights.

Boyd had no right to be where he was, thus he had no right to self-defense.

 

[TMU317]

this case is not about property rights.

Even if he set up camp in my front yard and took a dump in my goldfish pond, I would be in jail if I had shot him in the back while he was turning away and attempting to leave. Period.

How is the incident in the OP even remotely similar to someone defecating on your property and then walking away?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why do you hate liberty and self-defense?

Boyd had no right to self-defense as he had no right to be where he was.

The police, faced with deadly weapons brandished by a violent man, had every right to self-defense.

You want the Rule of Man. You want the law to be with who is most sympathetic, most likely to be a victim. You want anarchy; you won't get it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

This case is only about property rights, which are the essence of Liberty.

Boyd hated property rights. The police are acting as the Guardians of our sacred property rights.

Boyd had no right to be where he was, thus he had no right to self-defense.

I am not questioning this guy was loco but where did he have a right to be? He obviously has no home and technically none of us do.

 

[TMU317]

at what point were they going to use the less than lethal options they had with them?? i counted TWO tazer shotguns, and apparently one of them had beanbag rounds... guess it was easier to fire 6 rounds of the cheaper stuff.. i mean, he WAS just a homeless guy...

I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure, but according to the video in the OP all less lethal options available on scene were used.

What makes you think they were Taser shotguns in the video, as opposed to shotguns loaded with less lethal rounds?

 

[Shadow8088]

I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure, but according to the video in the OP all less lethal options available on scene were used.

yeah, they used them beanbag rounds real effectively.... after he had 6 holes through him...