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

[Liberty Sanders]

The purpose of a flashbang is to impair the senses, so you can forget about being able to issue commands 1-3 seconds after exploding that bomb in someone's face.

So there he is, with impaired vision, impaired hearing, and impaired mental faculties.... "ignoring" the unintelligible shrieking of the officers. His fate was sealed as soon as that grenade was tossed.

​It's pretty clear to me that was the officer's intent.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You think he could cross 15 rocky feet on a mountain and kill a man with a pocketknife before 3 men could pull their triggers on their already aimed rifles?

There was no real threat.

1. Boyd had the height advantage and could have been on the officers very quickly even though he is tubby.

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

3. There was more than enough of a threat to justify shooting him.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

​It's pretty clear to me that was the officer's intent.

But, when they are out in the open, and the Police Officer is so close, wasn't there a significant risk that the flashbang could have disoriented the closer officers as much or more than the perp? (especially if the grenade landed next to one of those big rocks which could well have reflected the percussion back toward the Police Officers)

 

[steveh_131]

Again, I do not know their laws/rules but the dog was sent prior to the knives. The officer followed his dog to the suspect, the K9's won't release on command alone generally so if the dog got a hold of the suspect, the handler will have to be right there. After the suspect was down, we would not likely send the dog to a suspect still armed. That could easily end with getting the dog hurt/killed.

That is not unreasonable, although releasing the dog to begin with was pretty stupid. If the dog's life is worth risking an officer's life, why risk it to begin with?

You've provided some insight here, and I think that I mostly agree with your statements thus far. We seem to agree that tossing the grenade and sending in the dog with no real plan was stupid. Especially since he was finally more calm and cooperative.

I'm not sure about the distance. I can see the dog running between them, and that's a big dog. But we will probably never know the true distance.

I don't agree that from any perspective, this man should have been perceived as an immediate threat and killed as he was. I've watched the video many times and there's no getting around the fact that he was turning away from the officers when he was shot. Maybe the other cop saw something that we can't from the video, but if he had then they certainly would have included that in their official statements that justified this shooting, right?

Anyways, I appreciate the real discussion.

 

[Destro]

the suspect's hands

some only see 10 fingers and 2 palms, others see the means to their own demise

 

[rambone]

Well, the killing doesn't seem to be going over well with the public. The Mayor seems to notice. The police oversight group seems to notice. Maybe some day the police will notice.

Mayor: Wrong to say Albuquerque shooting justified

 

[churchmouse]

 

[Zoub]

I see Native Americans saying to each other "See, if we'd have done that, right from the beginning, things would be different."

I see this whole thread and it's why I am still in favor of Indian Reservations. Frankly, since Wounded Knee, things have been fairly quite on the Western Front. Most of these wilderness killings are White on White so that should tell you something.

 

[Zoub]

How much popcorn do you eat in a week?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

But, when they are out in the open, and the Police Officer is so close, wasn't there a significant risk that the flashbang could have disoriented the closer officers as much or more than the perp? (especially if the grenade landed next to one of those big rocks which could well have reflected the percussion back toward the Police Officers)

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.

 

[Zoub]

Maybe I misunderstood the video.

Looked to me like he was turning around and headed towards the ground before they shot at him.

And yes, little knives. I say this to point out the fact that he had 3 rifles trained on him at close range and he was a long ways away from the nearest cop holding knives with zero reach. There was no real threat.

There are no such things as little knives, not when they are hitting your bones pointy tip first. Lay a 3" knife against, across or alongside of any part of your body. It will hit things and some of them will bleed you out in 10 minutes. Plus the guy had access to plenty of rocks. I don't think the number, size or type of weapons he had is relevant. He was armed, he died. Once Officers are in harms way, they can justify lethal force. Whether a person is overly emotional or mentally unstable, when he finds himself armed in front of a squad of professionals, he is on borrowed time if he is not capable of clear thought. Obamacare wants to build databases of plenty of people the Govt. wants to deem unstable. Many often found in forums like this. I think the key is to focus on what procedures the Cops followed prior to the shoot and eliminate that as a plausible defense or justification for their actions. If not now, at least going forward. I don't like seeing paramilitary units being used for citizen control.

I am not clear on which cop fired the first shot. Was it the guy with the dog handler?

 

[steveh_131]

There are no such things as little knives, not when they are hitting your bones pointy tip first.

Again, I never implied that a small knife can't kill you.

Any size knife can kill you. The length of the knife is relevant when discussing the distance from the attacker. The smaller it is, the closer he needs to be and the more time you have to pull the trigger.

 

[rambone]

Put your ears to the ground. Read the comments in any of the articles and see people's reactions. People are not happy with this. It does not look good at all. The loud and proud defenses of the incident do not look good either. People are discomforted, after watching a video that disgusts them, when police everywhere across the country seem to have no issue with what was done.

I'm grateful for the small minority of cops who are willing to go against the grain. It may not be popular to contradict other officers' actions but it is healthy and necessary.

The flashbang used on the cooperating guy leaves most people with their mouth hanging open saying "WTF?" And then watching the contagious fire strike the man in the back, over another cop's shoulder, followed by a triumphant warcry "Booya!" just does not sit well with people at all. Maybe that kind of attitude flies in Iraq but not when killing the most pathetic members of society.

 

[rambone]

The culture of abuse and excessive force in NM might come from how they train their cadets to be paranoid, hair-triggered "warriors," who look at everyone they meet as a deadly threat, prepared to kill anyone who might keep them from going home at night.

Experts say strongly worded police curriculum is risky with cadets

New police training puts fewer limits on use of force

A former LEA instructor named Phillip Gallegos says he was fired by Colonel Jones because he refused to teach cadets Jones’ controversial philosophy about shooting fleeing vehicles.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I see this whole thread and it's why I am still in favor of Indian Reservations.

I have no idea what you mean by that statement.

Frankly, since Wounded Knee, things have been fairly quite on the Western Front.

OK, this one I think I get. There have been no (significant) Indian wars since 1899?

Most of these wilderness killings are White on White so that should tell you something.

I think I get this one too. White people have a greater propensity for killing each other than other races? Or.....Only white people hang in wilderness areas, as other races tend to stay in civilization?

 

[steveh_131]

Excuse me, Stewardess. I speak Zoub.

Never mind. I got nothin.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Excuse me, Stewardess. I speak Zoub.

Never mind. I got nothin.

And now we've probably frightened him away and we'll never know.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[KG1]

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.

It certainly seems that the deployment of the flashbang lead to the escalation of events that seemed to be de-escalating at the time.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]