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

[churchmouse]

Good corn Huh...interesting thread too....

 

[JMoses]

The effectiveness of a flashbang is greatly reduced when it is used outdoors in the open so that its effects are not concentrated and confined.

As I stated in an earlier post, when you are dealing with an individual whose thought processes are already gravely impaired by chronic paranoia, INCREASING the subject's paranoid delusions is child's play. Just a few words, a gesture, even a look can easily provoke such an individual to launch an assault. The key to succeeding without resorting to violence lies in REDUCING the subject's stress and level of paranoia.

I had many such confrontations over the years, many of them long before the advent of the taser. I won more than I lost. I claim no special abilities in this. I merely employed patience and understanding of the problem I was dealing with.

I offer a story from my past to illustrate that having the RIGHT to do something doesn't make it a good idea to do it.

A call was received from one of our nice downtown hotels. A woman was behaving erractically and the hotel had requested assistance in removing her. I arrived at the hotel room. Several officers had arrived before me and were confronting the lady in question.

It was evident that the lady was indeed suffering from significant mental problems. The officers in front of me were informing her that she would have to leave. She had dug in her heels and made it apparent that she had no intention of going anywhere. The situation was deteriorating rapidly, and was about to become physical. We had the right to use force to remove the woman, as well as to take her into custody and take her in for a mental evaluation, authorized under Ohio law.

As the lady spoke I noticed that she had an unmistakable accent from one of the Scandinavian countries. Her clothing and general appearance suggested a genteel upbringing. I decided to try something. If I failed we'd be no worse off than we were.

I shouldered my way to the front. I swept my hat off and placed it under my arm. I bowed slightly and said, "Madame, please excuse this intrusion. It seems some irregularities have developed concerning your accomodations here, and unfortunately you must vacate this room. We have arranged alternative lodgings for you. I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused you. May I escort you to your car?"

I held out my arm and got ready to duck. The woman look at me quizzically for a moment. She visibly relaxed, smiled at me and said, "Why yes, of course you may." She then took my arm. I turned to my brother officers and said, "Gentlemen, would you be so good as to bring the lady's bags?"

We stepped out of the room and down the hallway toward the elevators, followed by a couple of my brother cops with her suitcases. I took her out to the street and placed her in the back of one of our cars, and she was taken to our University Hospital for evaluation.

Did the law give us the right to employ force against that lady? Yes, it did.

That doesn't mean that we HAD to do it.

The officers in New Mexico had no expectation that the flashbang would disorient their suspect, nor did they intend that it should. Its purpose was to destablize the suspect and provoke him into attacking them.

LOL!!!

 

[gunsisgood]

A mentally ill homeless man shot in the back and murdered by a gang of thugs.
Case closed.

 

[lucky4034]

Sandy was never prosecuted. For the past five (5) years he has been APD and Albaquirky City Council has done jack about it and this shows . . . what exactly?

If you want to disregard Sandy's testimony, which has not been revealed as of yet, fine. The video shows your boy disrespecting the sacred property rights of others, making threats to the officers and then brandishing deadly weapons. That will get you shot by a reasonable person.



Self-defense is an essential Liberty interest. Why do you hate Liberty, ram?

They decided to close the distance and put themselves in danger and even then, its debatable. They threw a flashbang... the dog was yanked away and then... before they pulled the trigger... he turned to get away.

The worst part of the entire scene is that they had NON LETHAL WEAPONS ON SCENE. They didn't use bean bags until officer happy trigger pumped 8 rounds of .223 into his ass. What kind of sense does that make?

This was a failure on the part of the police force. They could have spent the time needed to get a better result and they chose the most lethal.

This was a tragedy and handled poorly.... anyone defending this is either taking up the defensive because of years of arguing on INGO or just plain out dishonest... but I hope none of the officers on here would handle a situation like this so reckless. We have the resources to handle situations like these better and instead, we are excusing abuse of power.

 

[lucky4034]

1. Boyd had the height advantage and could have been on the officers very quickly even though he is tubby. The officers approached Boyd and closed the distance.... not the other way around. Stop making it sound like Boyds intentions were to attack the cops. Had the cops stayed stationary and Boyd closed the distance, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

2. Did you watch the video? It was two knives, one in each hand. So

3. There was more than enough of a threat to justify shooting him. Debatable... but there wasn't any threat until they decided to close the distance and get within striking range.

I'm sure these dirtbags will be easy to defend in court.... but we are not in court. As citizens we have expectations on how our police officers handle their duties. Why are you so content to have police officers handle situations with the maximum lethality that is defensible in a courtroom? This was wrong...

 

[wally05]

This thread is full of many reasons why police will never turn over use of force investigations to just a citizen panel. The force used is what is reasonable to another law enforcement officer... not a keyboard commando sitting in his underwear watching a playback.

1. You NEVER answer deadly force with less lethal. Tazers do not work on everyone and if one prong doesn't hit, it's useless until you use a contact stun. He had knives.

2. Just because he was leaving doesn't mean he was cooperative. He was obviously having mental problems and still served as a threat to others. Even if he was leaving, it's not like "golly gee, I guess we'll just go back to station". This was a 3 hour standoff, folks.

3. He was shot for presenting a threat to officers, not b/c he was camping... nice try, Rambone.

I don't know what was used before the video started up. But, just so you know, beanbags can be lethal also if you hit the wrong spot.

I'm not reading all 27 pages b/c I'd rather spend time with my family than read a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks speaking about how they would do it.

 

[rambone]

3. He was shot for presenting a threat to officers, not b/c he was camping... nice try, Rambone.

The genesis of the entire confrontation was because the government cannot stand to have a homeless person sleep on rocks without their bloody permission.

 

[mrjarrell]

I think this event turned out just the way the officers wanted it to. They made all the right moves to get it to that point and got what they wanted.

 

[remauto1187]

Uh, wow. For one, you sure make quite a few assumptions. I can tell you I have yet to meet an officer who draws his firearm simply because someone has their hands in their pockets. That really doesn't make sense. Using this logic, I guess all winter long officers are constantly drawing their firearms on almost every person they encounter outside? I mean really, a lot of people keep their hands in their pockets when it's cold outside. It really isn't that odd.

You may not have acted like a 12 year old after you pointed a firearm at a man in your driveway for having his hands in his pockets when it was cold outside, I wasn't there so I don't know. However, you did act like a teenage girl when you ran to your computer to post about it on the internet.

Another thing that really has me confused, is what in the world you are talking about with the GI Joe collection. Even more confusing, is what their wives have to do with any of this. What about them is "paramilitary"? The semi-automatic rifles?

Do you know the guys involved, or just hate cops in general and enjoy making crazy assumptions that really make no sense at all? Just curious.

Before you respond about me "spewing sh*t out of your mouth too" like you did the last guy, I really don't care. I am thoroughly enjoying reading your posts. They are awesome.

Yours just arent so amusing and Im not gonna hold your hand and explain everything for you. But I will say once again....HAND WAS IN COAT. The word "pocket" was not even used by me. Atleast try to make a crude attempt at comprehending. You are a fool if you think a cop will not have his/her gun drawn on you while you have your hand inside your COAT (Not pocket). As for "Cop Hater"...its only the ones that abuse their authority and flat out murder people that I have a problem with.

 

[public servant]

Yours just arent so amusing and Im not gonna hold your hand and explain everything for you. But I will say once again....HAND WAS IN COAT. The word "pocket" was not even used by me. Atleast try to make a crude attempt at comprehending. You are a fool if you think a cop will not have his/her gun drawn on you while you have your hand inside your COAT (Not pocket). As for "Cop Hater"...its only the ones that abuse their authority and flat out murder people that I have a problem with.

You'll excuse us if we don't take your advise on self defense.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It seems to me that the issues under debate, while significant, are not the root of the problem. Let me approach the matter from a different direction.

First, let's consider the homeless:

1. They are not allowed to loiter, camp, or otherwise occupy public property.
2. They are not allowed to loiter, camp, or otherwise occupy private property without permission of the owners, which is rare.
3. Most are mentally deficient in some regard, many seriously so.
4. Many are capable of engaging in significant antisocial behavior, more so when being goaded by someone who is talented at goading people into offering defensible cause for 'self-defense'.

Now, let's consider the police:

1. Some are among the most dedicated, honorable, and downright good people you will ever meet.
2. Some of them need a long fall with a short rope, preferably five-stranded hemp.
3. Both groups are afforded immunity and presumption of truthfulness in court not afforded to any other citizens, which virtually begs for abuse.

I am left with two questions:  First, what are we going to do with the homeless, given that only a scant few of them find places where they are allowed to be?  It seems to me that the only two options are to establish places for them to be or else start executing them on sight since they have been given an absolutely conflicting set of requirements with which they are required to comply.

Second, what are we going to do with thugs with badges other than form vigilance committees? As Wally said, we are NOT going to see the day that the police will be subject to citizen review of their actions. Given the uneven presumption of integrity faced in court when opposing the police and the general lack of accountability, something needs to change. I understand that most of the lawmen present are members of departments which make great efforts to enforce integrity internally, but this is far from universal. Unfortunately, we cannot operate from the expectation of all acting this way.

In both cases, I see an impasse which does not appear to offer a viable solution which has any realistic chance of actually being used.

When we get done with this, we can move onward to the problem of there being nowhere a person can go to be left alone without adequate financial resources to both purchase property and make the installments of tribute to the .gov to keep that property.

 

[lucky4034]

I don't know what was used before the video started up. But, just so you know, 5.56 can be NON-lethal also if you hit the wrong spot.

Fixed it for ya... if you are going to make pretentious arguments... you might as well do it right.

 

[lucky4034]

I think this event turned out just the way the officers wanted it to. They made all the right moves to get it to that point and got what they wanted.

Unfortunately....this

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

It seems to me that the issues under debate, while significant, are not the root of the problem. Let me approach the matter from a different direction.

First, let's consider the homeless:

1. They are not allowed to loiter, camp, or otherwise occupy public property.
2. They are not allowed to loiter, camp, or otherwise occupy private property without permission of the owners, which is rare.
3. Most are mentally deficient in some regard, many seriously so.
4. Many are capable of engaging in significant antisocial behavior, more so when being goaded by someone who is talented at goading people into offering defensible cause for 'self-defense'.


When we get done with this, we can move onward to the problem of there being nowhere a person can go to be left alone without adequate financial resources to both purchase property and make the installments of tribute to the .gov to keep that property.

Reading your post, I started thinking that one thing I'm not sure anybody brought up is that the Camper had apparently been in his spot for some time and if you saw the longer version of the clip, you saw the police officers going over his stash of stuff that he'd carefully stored under a piece of clear plastic sheeting. One reason for his reluctance to go with the officers almost had to be his knowledge that if he did, he'd almost surely loose everything he owned. You can debate how he acquired his stuff, but it must be a real bummer for most homeless people in those situations to not only get run off from their place, but to also most likely loose all their possessions in the process. We don't think about things like that because if we ever got run out of a place by the police, we still have our homes to go back to, with all our stuff still there. For the police, it's a blip in their day to run off a homeless person, but for the homeless person, it can be a pretty nasty disruption of their life.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[Kutnupe14]

Reading your post, I started thinking that one thing I'm not sure anybody brought up is that the Camper had apparently been in his spot for some time and if you saw the longer version of the clip, you saw the police officers going over his stash of stuff that he'd carefully stored under a piece of clear plastic sheeting. One reason for his reluctance to go with the officers almost had to be his knowledge that if he did, he'd almost surely loose everything he owned. You can debate how he acquired his stuff, but it must be a real bummer for most homeless people in those situations to not only get run off from their place, but to also most likely loose all their possessions in the process. We don't think about things like that because if we ever got run out of a place by the police, we still have our homes to go back to, with all our stuff still there. For the police, it's a blip in their day to run off a homeless person, but for the homeless person, it can be a pretty nasty disruption of their life.

Solution: Don't be homeless

 

[Tombs]

The thing that changes the situation for me was not that they shot the man, but what they did following that.

1.)If the man was still a threat, why switch to "less lethal" and dog attacks after already having used lethal force?
2.)If there was a risk presented for the dog, why send the dog in while the man was still wielding a weapon?

I suppose I don't understand the purpose of beating a human corpse with bean bags with the expectation of them following an order.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok, my opinion on this. The legal right to engage with deadly force was there. However, (and at least from the brief clip I saw) it appears that the officers basically double crossed the guy. That bothers me.

 

[Tombs]

Ok, my opinion on this. The legal right to engage with deadly force was there. However, (and at least from the brief clip I saw) it appears that the officers basically double crossed the guy. That bothers me.

Until we have a law that requires police to tell the truth, they do this on a daily basis as a means of gaining otherwise-involuntary compliance from you.

How often do you think plea bargains are based on a lie?

 

[TMU317]

Yours just arent so amusing and Im not gonna hold your hand and explain everything for you. But I will say once again....HAND WAS IN COAT. The word "pocket" was not even used by me. Atleast try to make a crude attempt at comprehending. You are a fool if you think a cop will not have his/her gun drawn on you while you have your hand inside your COAT (Not pocket). As for "Cop Hater"...its only the ones that abuse their authority and flat out murder people that I have a problem with.

Coat, pocket, coat pocket, sweater pocket, whatever. Doesn't make a difference. Like I have already stated, if law enforcement officers went around drawing their firearms every time they encounter an individual that has his/her hands in their [STRIKE]pockets[/STRIKE] coat, then they would be drawing their firearm almost every time they exit their vehicle during the winter months. At least try to make a crude attempt at comprehending. Individual with hands in [STRIKE]pockets[/STRIKE] coat, does not automatically equal draw firearm and point at said individual.