Two Albuquerque police officers charged with murder?

[righteousdude2]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lawyers-albuquerque-officers-face-charges-killing-28168619

As you can see, the courts and investigators do get it right, when it is found a mistake is made!

Link to Kelly Thomas, (homeless man beaten to death in So. California). Although the cops got off after a long, media covered hearing, it is not beyond the realm of possiblity for cops to face the music for wrongful shootings and beatings and death of suspects! - http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/us/california-homeless-beating-verdict/

 

[InTheLight]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lawyers-albuquerque-officers-face-charges-killing-28168619

As you can see, the courts and investigators do get it right, when it is found a mistake is made!

Is that statement another example of your artistic license and intuitive leap to judgment?

I don't know that a mistake was made. A homeless man wielding two knives attacked the police. They shot him in self-defense. Interesting story because:

1. The incident happened in March, or 10 months ago, yet action is only now being taken. There has been no action taken by the courts (yet) so I don't see how RD2 can say they "got it right."

2. The district attorney is bypassing the usual grand jury process and will present the case to a judge at a public hearing.

3. Despite 27 deadly shootings by police since 2010 this is the first case the district attorney is pursuing, seemingly only because of protests over her inaction on the other cases.

4. The district attorney is accused of bribing officers while intervening on her son's behalf in a burglary case.

Now if I were going to make a guess as to what is going on I would say this is an incompetent DA whose job is in jeopardy so she is finally trying to do something to burnish her image. The police officer's defense lawyer apparently is relishing the hearing. "I'm looking forward ... to the DA's office presenting one single witness that says this is murder," said Sam Bregman, a lawyer for Sandy."

 

[Zaac]

Post #1- student

Post #2- Teacher

The student should be taking copious notes.

 

[matt wade]

Post #1- student

Post #2- Teacher

The student should be taking copious notes.

Notes sans creative license.

 

[righteousdude2]

Post #1- student

Post #2- Teacher

The student should be taking copious notes.

This word of advice from the village i&%$t? Thanks. But, no thanks!

 

[righteousdude2]

Is that statement another example of your artistic license and intuitive leap to judgment?

I don't know that a mistake was made. A homeless man wielding two knives attacked the police. They shot him in self-defense. Interesting story because:

1. The incident happened in March, or 10 months ago, yet action is only now being taken. There has been no action taken by the courts (yet) so I don't see how RD2 can say they "got it right."

2. The district attorney is bypassing the usual grand jury process and will present the case to a judge at a public hearing.

3. Despite 27 deadly shootings by police since 2010 this is the first case the district attorney is pursuing, seemingly only because of protests over her inaction on the other cases.

4. The district attorney is accused of bribing officers while intervening on her son's behalf in a burglary case.

Now if I were going to make a guess as to what is going on I would say this is an incompetent DA whose job is in jeopardy so she is finally trying to do something to burnish her image. The police officer's defense lawyer apparently is relishing the hearing. "I'm looking forward ... to the DA's office presenting one single witness that says this is murder," said Sam Bregman, a lawyer for Sandy."

That is your opinion. I respect that, and appreciate you taking the side of the cops! If this homeless man were black, I suspect some would be agreeing with the DA and the filing of this murder charge.

And no, this is not any mre artistic license than your jump to conclusion about the decision you have rendered.

Thanks for weighing in. :type:

 

[InTheLight]

That is your opinion. I respect that, and appreciate you taking the side of the cops! If this homeless man were black, I suspect some would be agreeing with the DA and the filing of this murder charge.

And no, this is not any mre artistic license than your jump to conclusion about the decision you have rendered.

Thanks for weighing in. :type:

I'm not jumping to any conclusions, I'm merely recounting the facts contained in the story. You're the one that said the cops being charged for murder was "getting it right".

Then you say if the deceased were a black man some would be agreeing with the charges of murder against the cops. Now that is jumping to conclusions! BTW, how do you know Boyd wasn't black?

 

[righteousdude2]

I'm not jumping to any conclusions, I'm merely recounting the facts contained in the story. You're the one that said the cops being charged for murder was "getting it right".

Then you say if the deceased were a black man some would be agreeing with the charges of murder against the cops. Now that is jumping to conclusions! BTW, how do you know Boyd wasn't black?

How do you know he wasn't?






















I watched the video on a news channel today! And again, your opinions are appreciated.

 

[righteousdude2]

You're the one that said the cops being charged for murder was "getting it right".

Since when are the opinions of others not allowed? In light of everything, going on with the cop shootings of unarmed (supposedly) suspects, I think this was a good call. Let the information and evidence come out in the wash, and we'll see that the cops were protecting a fellow police officer (canine cop) from being slashed by the suspect. Of course, there are those who do not believe canines are human and should not be accorded the same rights as a human policeman.

I do think that dogs have the right to be accorded the same protections of a human officer, after all they are trained to give his or her life for their partner.

I am certainly not saying that the cops are guilty. Just that the DA got this right in the court of public opinion! It should have gone to a Grand Jury, but in light of all the uproar in that city after the shooting and now Ferguson and NY, this was showing that the DA did get it right, because in their mind, the cops did wrong!

It will play itself out, and we will see the cops exonerated. IMO!

Now please find someone else to vent all that pent up anger on. I can't be your only heart throb on the board? Can I??? :love2:

 

[poncho]

Is that statement another example of your artistic license and intuitive leap to judgment?

I don't know that a mistake was made. A homeless man wielding two knives attacked the police. They shot him in self-defense. Interesting story because:

Your's is an interesting story because it's not true.

In the video a homeless (mentally ill?) man holding (2?) little knives was shot dead by police when his back was turned to them. He never attacked them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwytoxMuk4U

It later emerged that Officer Sandy could be heard on police audio talking to a fellow officer about his desire to shoot Boyd “in the penis” prior to actually shooting him.

“For this f***ing lunatic? I’m going to shoot him in the penis with a shotgun here in a second,” Sandy was recorded saying in a conversation to another officer, which he first denied then wrote off as “locker room banter.”

< snip >

Sandy attempted to belittle the incident by arguing that officers regularly make crude and cruel jokes, so much that a group of officers had to create a safe word to signal when inappropriate jokes have gone too far.

“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.”

“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.”

http://www.infowars.com/im-going-to-shoot-him-in-the-penis-says-cop-before-executing-camper/

So your statement then is also an example of "artistic license and intuitive leap to judgment."

 

[Gina B]

People who don't work in circumstances that are traumatizing on a regular basis do not understand such "jokes." They're a method of self-preservation that allow such people to release the intense emotional build ups in a safe way among colleagues who get it.

I have my thoughts on what actually happened, but we've already been through such discussions on such occurances, so I am speaking strictly on the matter of what people say among co-workers, which should only be shared with others on very rare circumstances, such as when it may help determine the circumstances surrounding a crime.

 

[poncho]

It's not about what officer Sandy said. It's about what he did after he said it.

 

[matt wade]

People who don't work in circumstances that are traumatizing on a regular basis do not understand such "jokes." They're a method of self-preservation that allow such people to release the intense emotional build ups in a safe way among colleagues who get it.

I have my thoughts on what actually happened, but we've already been through such discussions on such occurances, so I am speaking strictly on the matter of what people say among co-workers, which should only be shared with others on very rare circumstances, such as when it may help determine the circumstances surrounding a crime.

There's nothing to understand about such a "joke". I know plenty of good cops who would never make a "joke" like that, because they know it's not appropriate. Try and explain it away if you like, but it's inappropriate and wrong.

 

[Gina B]

It's not about what officer Sandy said. It's about what he did after he said it.

Yep. What actually happened is always the thing - but seasoned lawyers can build up or tear down cases based on the slightest of other things. It's how they can get people to bypass common sense - deflect from and minimize the big stuff, redirect to and maximize something small to make that happen.

 

[poncho]

Yep. What actually happened is always the thing - but seasoned lawyers can build up or tear down cases based on the slightest of other things. It's how they can get people to bypass common sense - deflect from and minimize the big stuff, redirect to and maximize something small to make that happen.

Baptist Board must have it's share of seasoned lawyers then because there are a number of people here that are always trying to get people to "bypass common sense - deflect from and minimize the big stuff, redirect to and maximize something small".

One of them must be on vacation because he hasn't called me a Marxist or a moonbat in quite a while.