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

[Kirk Freeman]

Rule of Man says "Yes, OK, but like we keep saying, next time try not to kill anyone."

APD has a baaaad reputation. This may hurt them in civil litigation, especially a jury trial.

 

[BogWalker]

If a man pulls a knife on a civilian, INGO says shoot.

If a man pulls a knife on a cop, INGO wants to side with the guy pulling the knife?

Last I checked cops are people too. The fact they didn't shoot him as soon as he presented a knife shows they trying for this to end peacefully.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

sten to the audio, he was pleading with them to "keep their word and not hurt him" as he was clearly picking up his belongings and giving up.

A lunatic may think he can commit crimes and have the police leave him alone. But if he wanted not to be hurt he would not have assaulted the officers, OR he could have eschewed the three hour standoff, OR he could have thrown down his weapons so he wouldn't get shot.

His "aggravated assault" was essentially his uneducated way of claiming his own self defense,

Boyd had no right to self-defense.

it appeared to me that he was saying if they attacked him he would kill them.

And he had no right to make such a claim. In fact such a claim could be another felony under New Mexican law (and Indiana law).

Listen to the audio, he was backpedaling.

Boyd was screaming that he would hunt people down and kill them.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If a man pulls a knife on a civilian, INGO says shoot.

If a man pulls a knife on a cop, INGO wants to side with the guy pulling the knife?

Apparently INGO, much like prosecutors, think police officers are extra special if not super human.

 

[steveh_131]

I will ask you though, and honestly I can't tell from the video...if the guy still has deadly weapons in his hand, has he clearly surrendered? Not in my opinion. Until those weapons are out of reach and you're flat on the ground, face down, hands out to the side, you're still a threat.

You don't really have to speculate. You can see it and hear it from the exact perspective of the shooter.

He was laying down on the ground to surrender. That much is clear. I think his bullet-riddled body was having a hard time moving his hands to let go of the little knives.

He was surrendering, both verbally and physically. Why argue for 3 hours and then escalate things as soon as he finally de-escalates them!? It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[nakinate]

All the armchair quarterbacking in this thread is fun. So many people with zero or limited experience with the law or enforcing it are telling professionals they are wrong. I have no dog in the fight, but the professionals are the only one who have remained consistent in their responses throughout this thread.

 

[steveh_131]

If a man pulls a knife on a civilian, INGO says shoot.

If a man pulls a knife on a cop, INGO wants to side with the guy pulling the knife?

I don't speak for all of INGO.

But if you throw a grenade at someone and sic your dog on him and he pulls a pocketknife out of his pocket, I don't say 'shoot'.

 

[steveh_131]

All the armchair quarterbacking in this thread is fun. So many people with zero or limited experience with the law or enforcing it are telling professionals they are wrong. I have no dog in the fight, but the professionals are the only one who have remained consistent in their responses throughout this thread.

I know, right? Only cops should be able to criticize the actions of other cops.

What's one more dead homeless guy? At least he's not cluttering up the landscape any more with his ridiculous attempts to stay alive.

 

[nakinate]

I don't speak for all of INGO.

But if you throw a grenade at someone and sic your dog on him and he pulls a pocketknife out of his pocket, I don't say 'shoot'.

But he was on that land illegally and had been given three hours to resolve the situation. The police had to do something. Distracting him with a non-lethal grenade and sending a trained dog who likely wouldn't have killed him were decent options.

 

[nakinate]

I know, right? Only cops should be able to criticize the actions of other cops.

What's one more dead homeless guy? At least he's not cluttering up the landscape any more with his ridiculous attempts to stay alive.

Not saying that. Just saying that you should know the law and try to understand their viewpoint before you start a flame war.

 

[nakinate]

Also, if Boyd were so concerned with attempting to stay alive he would not have threatened the lives of other humans and wielded multiple knives to back that threat up.

 

[rambone]

Boyd had no right to self-defense.

Why do you hate liberty and self-defense?

 

[nakinate]

Why do you hate liberty and self-defense?

Because when you are illegally on someone else's property and refuse to leave after being given THREE hours to comply you have decided that breaking the law is more important than the right to liberty or self-defense.

 

[steveh_131]

But he was on that land illegally and had been given three hours to resolve the situation. The police had to do something. Distracting him with a non-lethal grenade and sending a trained dog who likely wouldn't have killed him were decent options.

No they weren't. Not when he was already surrendering.

Not saying that. Just saying that you should know the law and try to understand their viewpoint before you start a flame war.

I understand their viewpoint. This isn't my first time on this particular merry-go-round.

Also, if Boyd were so concerned with attempting to stay alive he would not have threatened the lives of other humans and wielded multiple knives to back that threat up.

He didn't 'wield multiple knives' to back up threats. From his viewpoint, he was double crossed while trying to comply with their orders and he responded as any human being under attack would respond. And once he pulled the knives on instinct, he clearly thought better of trying to hurt anyone when he turned away and tried to get on the ground.

I understand that he was technically 'trespassing', my views on government property aside. I understand that he hadn't been complying and was potentially dangerous. I understand the officers' desire to defend themselves. All of that is pretty understandable.

What I don't understand is a man getting shot in the back when he was clearly on his way to the ground to comply. I don't understand that. If one 'professional' would just say "I wouldn't have shot him in the back" then I think this discussion would have been over long ago.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He was laying down on the ground to surrender. That much is clear. I think his bullet-riddled body was having a hard time moving his hands to let go of the little knives.

1. He was not laying down on the ground to surrender. The forward cop with the long gun shot him thrice and he fell sideways. The cop with the camera shot him thrice more.

2. He was not surrendering. If he wanted to surrender, it would have been very easy for him to drop the knives, he choose not to surrender. He wanted to fight. The cops gave him that fight and Boyd lost, badly.

3. Little knives? How many times should someone volunteer to have those little knives stab them? A dozen? 100? Once?

 

[public servant]

You don't really have to speculate. You can see it and hear it from the exact perspective of the shooter.

He was laying down on the ground to surrender. That much is clear. I think his bullet-riddled body was having a hard time moving his hands to let go of the little knives.

He was surrendering, both verbally and physically. Why argue for 3 hours and then escalate things as soon as he finally de-escalates them!? It makes absolutely no sense.

"Little knives"? Seriously? I can't kill or inflict serious bodily injury with a "little knife"?

Do you really see a man as having "surrendered" if he's still holding the weapons he previously threatened to kill you with? What if he's laying there with a "little gun"? Could he not still shoot your eye out?

Had he dropped the "little knives" I'd be with you 100%. He didn't. I'm not. If those weapons are still within reach it ain't over.

 

[nakinate]

I agree that loss of life shouldn't be taken lightly, but Boyd was given ample opportunity to comply previous to the video. I'd like to think I wouldn't have shot him, but I can't say for sure after having hours of him threatening my life. I'm not going to sit here and judge the situation. I'll let the DA deal with that.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What I don't understand is a man getting shot in the back when he was clearly on his way to the ground to comply. I don't understand that. If one 'professional' would just say "I wouldn't have shot him in the back" then I think this discussion would have been over long ago.

Then you need to study how human react to gunfire. Boyd fell sideways after the first officer shot him. I would speculate that it was a spine shot.

Unlike INGO's usual program of legal study, a movie, there is no legal prohibition of shooting someone in the back. If you have reasonable fear of your life or serious bodily injury, then where the bullet enters is of no import.

 

[Denny347]

I bet they also considered him to be subhuman and felt no remorse killing him. They were waiting for an excuse and you know it. Half of you would've yelled "booya" too. It is disgusting. Glad to see the one lawyer in bed with the cops every time one of their brothers bags himself a live one. Booya!

You don't know us.

 

[steveh_131]

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.