Two Police Officers Who Shot and Killed Mentally Ill Homeless Man Actually Charged with Murder

Comments

1
Chill out. This probably isn't going anywhere. It looks like the reason there were charges was because the APD was investigating the DA on trying to protect her son charged with a burglary (by attempting to reimburse a victim). I don't see cops going to jail over killing a homeless man. It just doesn't happen. The APD and DA will negotiate a deal, and all their problems will go away.
2
The man shot and killed, James Boyd, was white. Could be coincidence.
3
"They should do something more productive," he said sagely. "Like write articles and essays."

Yes, because the average person will definitely get published. And simply everyone reads all blog posts.

Bwahahaha! Yeah, "don't protest", because that's how Labor got us the fucking 8-hour workday, (remember that?) and hell if slave-apitalists want to give us that back when they have us so nicely over the barrel.

"Civilized" and "manners" are forms of social control. It's time to bother the rich in their niche.
4
Dude in photo looks like he needs 3 doses of milk of magnesia
5
Albuquerque cops just shot and killed one of their own. Undercover narc was shot by fellow officers in a $60 meth bust that went wrong and got all trigger happy. Karma is what it is.
6
Two officers WERE charged. Please.
7
The images of both appear to be severe constipation (republicans can relate to this being anally retentive) The faux round eyeglasses tell more than I want to know.
8
My prediction is no conviction! The evidence is not "beyond a reasonable doubt".
9
@5

Didn't they drive to a McDonald's parking lot and do that during daylight hours? Anyway, I read that the shooter was devastated by the whole thing. Wonder how devastated any of them are about the homeless man.
11
Both the picture and the quote seem self-satirizing. Look at that fucking spread collar and too big tie knot. Writing essays to effect change indeed. If they want legislation passed, why don't they just talk to their uncle, who is very good friends with his congressman?
13
We'll see. They still have to get through the preliminary hearing and most notably, get a jury to convict a cop. That's no easy task.
14
If you're unfamiliar with this case and how egregious it is, the helmet cam footage is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DngOL6Lo…
15
Why are bigots always so ugly? Is it a coincidence or is all the hate making them ultra fugly?
16
Saying the protests led to the conviction is like a climate change denialist proclaiming a cold snap proves there's no global warming.
17
er, indictment, not conviction, I mean.
18
Grand juries don't acquit and, regardless of some national columnist's claim, the double jeopardy clause doesn't apply (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2…) . In fact, prosecutors/AGs/DAs who are dissatisfied with a grand jury's return of no true bill can present the same case to another grand jury.
19
@12, You do realize that someone armed with a knife can cover the distance between the homeless guy and the nearest officers and plunge the knife in about the time it would take an officer to draw and fire one aimed shot? Even when already drawn down on a suspect, it is not uncommon to get one or more shots into an on-rushing attacker with a knife, club, broken bottle, or other deadly weapon and have them connect with that weapons even when they have multiple bullets in them.

When that evidence comes in at trial (or comes in as part of the jury instructions) and all the officers on scene say they feared serious injury or death, this will be an acquittal.

That said, it would not have been an unreasonable tactic to back the containment up further so that officers and the public are still safe, or for officers to cover the guy with a shotgun, while other officers attempt to use a taser (shooting promptly and overwhelmingly if the guy rushes the officer with the taser). Failure to do so is not a criminal act; however, it could be negligence in a lawsuit.

I would encourage you and other stranger readers to view the following for context on this vital public policy question:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=vide…
The cop shoots and scores a hit first, even after being hit, the suspect still moves out of frame to the right and shoots the trooper, dozens of rounds are fired by both but only two hits occur, the suspect drives off and bleeds out and dies one mile down the road, and the trooper lives to patrol another day.
http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2014/07/30…
Note the man who rushed the officer with a broken bottle fell on top of the officer after being shot multiple times. The officer barely missed getting cut.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…. Note in the video where the man falls after being shot. He falls right at the feet of one of the officers. He was 1/2 stride from getting the officer with a knife.

This context is important in these cases. The legitimate question for law enforcement, is why are they tactically closing so close to suspects that they are left with no choice but to fire. In some cases they have to, but in many cases they don't. That seems like the public policy discussion to have, not accusing cops of unjustified homicide for errors in judgment, made in good faith. In the case of the I 84 cop, the suspect did the closing in. The cop provided lots of space and attempts to de-escalate. In the Gasworks incident, cops were attempting to use non-lethal means to get control of the suspect and had called for cops trained in mental health de-escalation.

The Stranger never gives its reader this context and nuance to decide. They only give facts and context to support the conclusion that cops are trigger happy megalomaniacs out to commit a justifiable homicide.

22
@20. All of what you write about APD may be true, but that does not make the police actions in the incident in question murder. That has to be judged solely based on what occurred in the incident in question. What happened in other incidents is not admissible in a criminal trial. Pattern and practice are only relevant in civil proceedings, where you aren't putting someone's liberty at risk and "preponderance of the evidence" is the legal standard not, "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Pattern and practice, as a legal principal mostly comes into play in sexual harassment civil suits. E.g. These five women are testifying that this boss harassed them, therefore, it is credible that this particular plaintiff's claim that she was also harassed is likely to be true.

It can also be a factor in a complaint of civil rights violations by a whole police department. E.g. This department has a pattern and practice of using excessive force against this protected class than the general public. That is how Seattle Police got to where they are at with the present consent decree and it is where APD may wind up if they haven't already.

Patter and practice is not admissible in a criminal trial.
23
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3573…

ORIGINAL (9/28, 10 p.m.): Two hours before Albuquerque Police Officer Keith Sandy shot and killed homeless camper James Boyd, he was recorded telling another officer that he would shoot Boyd in the penis with a shotgun.

Sandy responded to the scene on March 16th where Boyd refused to come down from a makeshift campsite in the foothills near Tramway and Copper. At the scene, Sandy saw former colleague State Police Officer Chris Ware. Sandy didn’t realize it, but Ware’s dash cam was rolling and picked up their conversation.

Sandy: What do they have you guys doing here?

Ware: I don't know. The guy asked for state police.

Sandy: Who asked?

Ware: I don't know.

Sandy: For this f***ing lunatic? I'm going to shoot him in the penis with a shotgun here in a second.

Ware: You got uh less-lethal?

Sandy: I got...

Ware: The Taser shotgun?

Sandy: Yeah.

Ware: Oh, I thought you guys got rid of those?

Sandy: ROP's got one...here's what we're thinking, because I don't know what's going on, nobody has briefed me...

Civil rights attorney Shannon Kennedy represents Boyd’s family in a wrongful death suit against APD. Kennedy believes Sandy spelled out his intentions, then carried them out.

“Two hours later he's escalating the situation so he can do just that,” Kennedy said in an exclusive interview with 4 Investigates. “It's chilling evidence and stunning that he has not been criminally indicted. He says to a state police officer ‘that f'ing lunatic, I'm going to shoot him in the penis. It's crystal clear and he says it with contempt in his voice.’”

In April, APD internal investigators asked Sandy about what he meant by the “shooting in the penis” comment. In an internal investigation transcript, sandy is quoted saying,

"Jokingly, just kind of locker room banter, just told him, you know, ‘Don’t worry. I’ll shoot him in the pecker with this and call it good.’”

But a few minutes later, the transcript shows that Sandy recanted his statement. The investigator asked, “Did you say anything to Chris Ware about shooting him in the pecker?”

Sandy responded, “I don’t…no, I don’t think I did.”

In the transcript, Sandy gave the internal investigators a lengthy explanation how the officers working in the Albuquerque Police Repeat Offenders Program (ROP) often make cruel and crude jokes. In fact, Sandy described the hostility among his peers getting so bad that the officers adopted a “safe word.” When officer use the safe word, CHINA, all jokes must stop. Sandy told investigators he was merely making a crude joke when he said he wanted to shoot Boyd in the penis.

“Of course it’s not a joke because he went forward and actually shot him,” Kennedy said. “Clearly he has complete disregard for people suffering from mental disabilities. He calls him an expletive lunatic and then in the next breath says I'm going to shoot him in the penis. What is so mortifying about this shooting, and thank goodness we have a tape to show exactly what he did-- which is instead of shooting him in the penis, he shoots him in the lower back. So had James Boyd not turned around at that moment to set down his bags, he would have been shot in the penis.”

uhmerican hero, no?
24
Actually, these two guys look very similar to the L.D.S. boys that came up my driveway last week to see if I need salvation. I was very polite to them and said, no thanks, I'm a heathen, I drink alcohol, occasionally smoke pot and am a firm believer in the B'hai faith.