Alb. Police Charged with Murder in Homeless Shooting

Remember to shave while your waiting, otherwise you'll have a Saruman beard.
 
a cop going to jail for pulling a Bateman??? what is this shit? it is not like they killed a real person or something.
fuck, i guess they would get arrested for shooting a mannequin. well, i saw that movie Mannequin and that uppidy bitch needed shooting.
 
a cop going to jail for pulling a Bateman??? what is this shit? it is not like they killed a real person or something.
fuck, i guess they would get arrested for shooting a mannequin. well, i saw that movie Mannequin and that uppidy bitch needed shooting.

Lol wat
 
I remember reading articles implying Keith Sandy was trying to duck an investigation by retiring. Guess he hasn't outran this one just yet.
 
I wonder about the charges. To charge with either first, or second degree murder, there has to be proven intent to commit a crime. The DA says those facts will come out in a prelim, so I will be curious what those facts are. Otherwise, they are setting this case up to lose because intent will never be established. Voluntary manslaughter is a better case.
 
I wonder about the charges. To charge with either first, or second degree murder, there has to be proven intent to commit a crime. The DA says those facts will come out in a prelim, so I will be curious what those facts are. Otherwise, they are setting this case up to lose because intent will never be established. Voluntary manslaughter is a better case.

I'm curious about those things as well. I hope they have more than just the audio from the dash cam coupled with the bullet hole placement; because I have a hard time seeing that as being enough to go this route.
 
This was a really bad one. Hoping they get at least somebody in prison for 24 hours. Might be too much to ask though.
 
I'm curious about those things as well. I hope they have more than just the audio from the dash cam coupled with the bullet hole placement; because I have a hard time seeing that as being enough to go this route.

I just don't see what they could have. It's crazy, but I could see charge the officer with the K-9 with reckless endangerment or the equivalent for getting so close to a man with a knife, that a lethal solution was even considered. You just don't do that if you have other options. I know they tried negotiating and less lethal, but with the terrain and distance they had, they could have tried every less lethal in their disposal.
 
but with the terrain and distance they had, they could have tried every less lethal in their disposal.

well, you could not tell which way the wind was blowing so farting in his direction might not have gone so well, maybe even backdraft on them
 
I just don't see what they could have. It's crazy, but I could see charge the officer with the K-9 with reckless endangerment or the equivalent for getting so close to a man with a knife, that a lethal solution was even considered. You just don't do that if you have other options. I know they tried negotiating and less lethal, but with the terrain and distance they had, they could have tried every less lethal in their disposal.

They even had a beanbag gun, which they shot him with 3 times after blasting him away with the AR's.

I roll my eyes at most of the "nonlethal" calls, but if ever there was a perfect case for it, it was here. This guy made it clear that he was coherent and wanted no violence, and only went for reached for his knife after they sent the dog on him. No rational person can be expected to not react to a dog attacking them.
 
If there is any weapon that should be outlawed, it is police dogs.

Sending attack dogs on someone is just so barbaric. Why is this allowed? I feel like this will be one of those things that in 50 years, kids will be like "What? No way they really used to send dogs to attack people? Why would anyone put up with that?"
 
They even had a beanbag gun, which they shot him with 3 times after blasting him away with the AR's.

I roll my eyes at most of the "nonlethal" calls, but if ever there was a perfect case for it, it was here. This guy made it clear that he was coherent and wanted no violence, and only went for reached for his knife after they sent the dog on him. No rational person can be expected to not react to a dog attacking them.

They used the bean bag gun on him before they closed in. It had little effect. In fact, he is shot with a bean bag just before the dog goes in.


As for your net question, police dogs are used because they work. They can track and detect things that humans can not. Plus they will make most people give up faster than me pointing a gun at them.
 
I just don't see what they could have. It's crazy, but I could see charge the officer with the K-9 with reckless endangerment or the equivalent for getting so close to a man with a knife, that a lethal solution was even considered. You just don't do that if you have other options. I know they tried negotiating and less lethal, but with the terrain and distance they had, they could have tried every less lethal in their disposal.




^^Here's a video of the audio I was referring to. The civil lawyer that's representing Boyd's family seems to think its stronger evidence than I do. I gotta believe the DA isn't banking on this, though, and has some other tricks up her sleeve.
 
If there is any weapon that should be outlawed, it is police dogs.

Sending attack dogs on someone is just so barbaric. Why is this allowed? I feel like this will be one of those things that in 50 years, kids will be like "What? No way they really used to send dogs to attack people? Why would anyone put up with that?"

i find it comical/ridiculous/stupid when you see dogs attacking some idiot on a random episode of cops and the officers all gather around and yell "stop resisting!" as if you are just supposed to lay there while the dog is gnawing on you.


i also find it humorous when people in some of these threads say cops get criticized on this forum too much when there are literally thousands of videos showing us what pieces of trash they are
 
This DA just fucked her career.

I wonder about the charges. To charge with either first, or second degree murder, there has to be proven intent to commit a crime. The DA says those facts will come out in a prelim, so I will be curious what those facts are. Otherwise, they are setting this case up to lose because intent will never be established. Voluntary manslaughter is a better case.

The video says there is an option for voluntary manslaughter. Also says that the judge could make that decision on the count or allow the jury to make it during the trial.
 
I'm curious about those things as well. I hope they have more than just the audio from the dash cam coupled with the bullet hole placement; because I have a hard time seeing that as being enough to go this route.

Yeah, they do have more than audio and a bullet hole. They have a video. Probably the only reason why these guys were indicted to begin with. DA likely would have never touched it without the video.
 
Yeah, they do have more than audio and a bullet hole. They have a video. Probably the only reason why these guys were indicted to begin with. DA likely would have never touched it without the video.

Ya I remember seeing the video a while back, I don't remember it perfectly but I think it was pretty f'd up.
 
Last edited:


^^Here's a video of the audio I was referring to. The civil lawyer that's representing Boyd's family seems to think its stronger evidence than I do. I gotta believe the DA isn't banking on this, though, and has some other tricks up her sleeve.


In print, it looks worse than it is. I saw the truncated quote "For this fucking lunatic, I am gonna shoot him" and they cut out the "penis" part. Maybe for censoring reasons, more likely because it looks like he makes plans to kill the man prior to getting on scene. He was also taking about a taser X-rep shotgun, so I tend to believe that he was making a morbid joke. And the lawyer is like "and then, exactly two hours later, he does just what he said he was going to do-shoots him in the back." No, he said penis, with a taser-not exactly the same thing. She is grandstanding trying to say he made threats that he made good on.

I don't think they should have moved in, keep distance and keep peppering him with bean bag rounds and X-rep rounds. Or keep him contained and fucking wait him out. They moved in and forced a lethal force scenario, which does not make it right.
 
This DA just fucked her career.



The video says there is an option for voluntary manslaughter. Also says that the judge could make that decision on the count or allow the jury to make it during the trial.

That is a risky strategy. I have seen many "slam dunk" cases lose because they overcharge them and think the lesser included charge will stick. It usually does not.
 
Back
Top