Murder charges for N.M. cops in homeless man shooting

[BigSlick]

Two Albuquerque police officers were charged with murder in the March 2014 killing of a homeless camper, a shooting that generated sometimes violent protests around the city and sparked a federal investigation into a police force that has been found to use excessive force.

SWAT team member Dominique Perez and former Detective Keith Sandy will each face a single count of open murder in the death of 38-year-old James Boyd, Second District Attorney Kari Brandenburg said Monday. Open murder allows prosecutors to pursue either first-degree or second-degree murder charges.

Police said Perez and Sandy fatally shot Boyd, who was holding two knives, during an hours-long standoff in the foothills of the Sandia Mountains. Video from an officer's helmet camera showed Boyd, who authorities say had struggled with mental illness, appearing to surrender when officers opened fire.

Murder charges for N.M. cops in homeless man shooting - CBS News

 

[JimTh]

They forgot to erase the tape.

 

[BigSlick]

One of the cops retired to avoid the Q and A with internal affairs. This is the cop who stated he was going to shoot the homeless man in the *****. I don't think he acting all cocky now (no pun intended).

 

[BluesStringer]

Well, this ought to go well for Lady Justice. From the linked article:

"The criminal charges were the first Brandenburg has brought against officers in a shooting, something for which she has come under scrutiny. She filed the counts via criminal information, which allows her to charge the officers without presenting evidence to a grand jury.

She has been criticized for her office's controversial, decades-old practice of using grand juries to affirm prosecutors' decisions that no probable cause existed to charge officers in shootings. Most district attorneys in New Mexico and around the country resolve police shooting cases with an internal investigation.

Under a revamped system, county prosecutors decide whether there's probable cause that a crime was committed.

Brandenburg said in a statement that the date for a preliminary hearing for the two has not yet been set."
​

So while the prosecutor in the Darren Wilson case took the unusual step (for his office) of turning to the GJ for exactly the same reason that this case's prosecutor has done for decades, that is, to affirm her decades-long practice of refusing to find probable cause against cops, now this prosecutor will have to stack the deck the old fashioned way - by weighting the jury selection process with people either ambivalent to, or actually supportive of and/or sympathetic to cops, and arguing the weakest case possible to get the cops off just like the prosecutor did in the Kelly Thomas case.

My prediction: These cops will never be held accountable for anything more serious than excessive use of force, if the prosecutor even includes that as a charge, which if she doesn't, these two will walk.

And even if that prediction doesn't come to fruition and they are convicted of manslaughter or higher, their sentences will be so exceedingly short when compared to "regular" citizens involved in killing someone equally unjustifiably, just like Johannes Mehserle got only a two year sentence for killing Oscar Grant in cold blood, and only served a little less than one.

Oh, and it only took this prosecutor 10 freakin' months to come to the conclusion that there was enough probable cause to bring a charge. The same probable cause that existed upon her first viewing of the video is what she filed charges with 10 months later. Any red flags raised by that long of a delay for anybody?

Blues

 

[nogods]

Well, this ought to go well for Lady Justice. From the linked article:

"The criminal charges were the first Brandenburg has brought against officers in a shooting, something for which she has come under scrutiny. She filed the counts via criminal information, which allows her to charge the officers without presenting evidence to a grand jury.

She has been criticized for her office's controversial, decades-old practice of using grand juries to affirm prosecutors' decisions that no probable cause existed to charge officers in shootings. Most district attorneys in New Mexico and around the country resolve police shooting cases with an internal investigation.

Under a revamped system, county prosecutors decide whether there's probable cause that a crime was committed.

Brandenburg said in a statement that the date for a preliminary hearing for the two has not yet been set."
​

So while the prosecutor in the Darren Wilson case took the unusual step (for his office) of turning to the GJ for exactly the same reason that this case's prosecutor has done for decades, that is, to affirm her decades-long practice of refusing to find probable cause against cops, now this prosecutor will have to stack the deck the old fashioned way - by weighting the jury selection process with people either ambivalent to, or actually supportive of and/or sympathetic to cops, and arguing the weakest case possible to get the cops off just like the prosecutor did in the Kelly Thomas case.

My prediction: These cops will never be held accountable for anything more serious than excessive use of force, if the prosecutor even includes that as a charge, which if she doesn't, these two will walk.

And even if that prediction doesn't come to fruition and they are convicted of manslaughter or higher, their sentences will be so exceedingly short when compared to "regular" citizens involved in killing someone equally unjustifiably, just like Johannes Mehserle got only a two year sentence for killing Oscar Grant in cold blood, and only served a little less than one.

Oh, and it only took this prosecutor 10 freakin' months to come to the conclusion that there was enough probable cause to bring a charge. The same probable cause that existed upon her first viewing of the video is what she filed charges with 10 months later. Any red flags raised by that long of a delay for anybody?

Blues

damn those people who serve on grand juries and trial juries. Just stoopid ignorunt tools. We should do away with the grand jury and trial by jury systems because so few of us are qualified to make all decisions on these matters, members of the general public should never be allowed to do it.

 

[BluesStringer]

damn those people who serve on grand juries and trial juries. Just stoopid ignorunt tools. We should do away with the grand jury and trial by jury systems because so few of us are qualified to make all decisions on these matters, members of the general public should never be allowed to do it.

No, damn the corrupt hacks who abdicate their oaths and duty to the Constitution by presenting cases to either type of jury so heavily weighted to the cops' side that the juries have no choice but to acquit/decline to indict. Hacks come in all colors, pinstriped blue suits, black robes, or low-cut red dresses with multicolored bedazzled high-heeled pumps, but the bottom line is, they're all on the same team as the people they're supposedly "prosecuting" when it comes to cops on "trial."

I know you're a lawyer, and so in your mind, no impression or opinion about the "justice" system that doesn't literally kneel to its authority and righteousness will ever be granted any validity by you, but that doesn't give you the right to misrepresent what I was saying. I don't believe that the average citizen (juror) is ignorant, I just believe they are very rarely given the chance to convict or indict a cop for the level of charges that non-cops would be charged at under the same or similar circumstances. The two cases I cited prove it in both Fullerton and Oakland, CA, and there are innumerable cases throughout the country that likewise prove it. The cards are always stacked in a cop's favor at trial. To defend the current state of the "justice" system as it applies to cops as defendants and the hacks who "prosecute" them or oversee their trials, is to defend piracy, murder and tyranny in action, but I never said a derogatory word about the jurors the system combine to manipulate into verdicts and non-indictments that the hacks are happy to achieve in the name of protecting "justice" for cops, which is anything but equal to the justice meted out to the general citizenry.

Even people with law licenses can be either blind to reality, or hacks themselves, but your opinion is of no moment to me just because you've got one.

Blues

 

[mojoman]

Good, I have seen that video and I feel that he didn't deserve it and after that the dog was biting him, cold blooded.

 

[BluesStringer]

Keith Sandy, one of the cops facing charges for shooting James Boyd, was caught on a State Police dash cam audio saying he was going to "shoot him in the p e n i s with a shotgun here in a second" two hours before he actually did shoot him with a shotgun, though not in Boyd's private parts because he lay dying (or already dead) on his stomach from the 5.56 NATO rounds he'd already taken, so Sandy shot bean-bag rounds at his ass instead.

Keith Sandy is not a public servant, he's a freakazoid sadist. This proves a premeditated crime of some sort, though perhaps not murder on Sandy's part since he was using a less-than-lethal round in his shotgun. But then, if any other gang murdered somebody, even the getaway car driver would go down for the murder under the Felony Murder Rule, right? I am not a fan of that rule at all, but it's like I've said many times, there's separate "justice" systems for cops and "regular" citizens. This is just another blatant example proving that premise, and I still predict Sandy will walk in the end, even with clear proof of a premeditated crime involving a shooting. Or, if by some miracle he actually is convicted of something, the sentence will be exceedingly lenient and he'll be a free man in no more than a year. If I were a bettin' man, I'd bet on the acquittal though.

Blues

 

[gunnerbob]

I've watched the video many times, I see murder each time I do.

On a side note, this should make for some very interesting an controversial debate when I bring it up in some of my CRJ classes. I'm sure the LEO that sits next to me will get very defensive and heated, of which I'll enjoy thoroughly.

 

[gfrlaser]

Is this a new ruling? The wheels of justice turning slowly?
Judge Rules 2 Police Officers To Be Tried For Murder Of Homeless Man : The Two-Way : NPR

 

[TroutKing]

These charges are long overdue.

 

[BluesStringer]

Is this a new ruling? The wheels of justice turning slowly?
Judge Rules 2 Police Officers To Be Tried For Murder Of Homeless Man : The Two-Way : NPR

The article is dated August 18, 2015, as is the Link Removed it cites as its source, so I reckon it is a hot-off-the-presses, but nonetheless long overdue, ruling. I skimmed over both articles and didn't see anything about when the indictment(s) this judge was ruling on was obtained.

I doubt either cop will be convicted of any serious crime, but between the two, I'd say Sandy stands the best chance of it because he was caught saying on the video I posted above that he was going to shoot him in the private parts just two hours before he shot him in the back instead. Even with that State Trooper-sourced audio recording though, it won't surprise me in the least to see these two get off scot-free.

Blues

 

[Wild Dog]

damn those people who serve on grand juries and trial juries. Just stoopid ignorunt tools. We should do away with the grand jury and trial by jury systems because so few of us are qualified to make all decisions on these matters, members of the general public should never be allowed to do it.

I agree. The criminal justice system should just turn the reins over to me, it's the only sane choice.