Posted on 10/12/2016 1:11:56 PM PDT by CedarDave
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The first murder trial involving an on-duty shooting by an Albuquerque police officer in at least 50 years ended late Tuesday afternoon with a District Court jury deadlocked 9-3 for acquittal on charges against former officers Keith Sandy and Dominique Perez.
Sandy and Perez, who showed no emotion at the mistrial ruling, left out the back door of the courtroom, away from the media attention.
Sandy retired months after the shooting, but Perez was terminated when the criminal charge was filed, per city policy. A decorated Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq War, Perez is now unemployed. He is appealing his termination.
Boyd, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, had been camping illegally in the Sandia foothills for a month before two APD Open Space officers confronted him that Sunday afternoon. The confrontation escalated until more than a dozen police officers had responded on the hillside. Ultimately, a hastily assembled team of off-duty officers, including Sandy, led the final hour of negotiations. Boyd at one point appeared ready to come down the hill, at the officers’ urging, and started to pick up his belongings.
But Sandy and Perez said he still posed a threat because he failed to drop his knives, as requested by police. Three attempts to subdue him with less lethal tactics, including a flash-bang grenade, a Taser shotgun and the release of a police service dog all failed.
Unexpectedly, the dog’s handler ran after the dog, which failed to bite Boyd. Boyd pulled out his knives again, and that created the volatile situation in which, Sandy and Perez testified, they felt compelled to shoot Boyd.
Boyd, 38, died the next morning.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
I think prosecutorial overreach again is the problem in this case. These guys “APPEAR” guilty as hell but “murder” was just too much for the jury. Most likely, “involuntary manslaughter” or “voluntary manslaughter” would have resulted in a conviction.
I predict a second trial on “manslaughter” and a conviction with 2-5 years penalty.
You had left-wingers saying that mentally ill people had the right to be crazy in public, and you had fiscal conservatives saying oh goodie, now we don’t have to spend as much on mental health, and both of them abetted by the development of anti-psychotic meds, which were supposed to restore sanity to the mentally ill, except that the mentally ill often don’t have insight into their illness and stop taking their meds, which usually have unpleasant side effects.
There has been a fifteen or twenty fold decline in psychiatric beds per capita in the last sixty years, and that cannot be entirely blamed on the left.
The mentally ill habitually self-medicate. Tobacco, alcohol, heroin, benzos, meth, pot, whatever. Some geniuses ought to develop an anti-psychotic that actually feels good to take, or combine it with a medication that does. But God forbid we should encourage addiction.
Hung jury. They weren't exonerated. The only option on the table regarding the death was Second-Degree Murder.
Manslaughter, and Negligent Homicide were not options here. The definition of Second-Degree Murder for New Mexico is: "Unless he is acting upon sufficient provocation, upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion, a person who kills another human being without lawful justification or excuse commits murder in the second degree if in performing the acts which cause the death he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another."
Assault and Battery:
Assault is a verbal threat of bodily harm by a person capable of carrying out that threat.
i.e. Two men in close proximity in a bar or on the street. A says to B, “I’m going to kick your ass.” A has committed an assault.
Battery is the actual “touching” with intent to cause bodily harm. A hits B. A has committed a battery.
I agree with Cen-Tejas above. Because not guilty or second-degree murder were the only choices, a conviction for murder was a bridge to far for most of the jurors. A charge of manslaughter might have brought a conviction.
P.S. That “battery” can be by a hand, club, bullet, car, etc.
The batterer does not need to physically make person to person contact with the vic.
I did not know all that. Thank you.
You can’t have a dangerous lunatic running around hurting or threatening people.
That said, in four hours they couldn’t come up with a couple of beanbag rounds?
“Ultimately, a hastily assembled team of off-duty officers, including Sandy, led the final hour of negotiations.”
My only question is WHY were there off-duty officers involved in this? Sandy was OFF DUTY.
Wonder how that factored in?
He had the knives in his hands.
It’s like when both Patton and Bradley talked about not “accepting the surrender” of Germans once the enemy was within 100 yards of the American solider.
In the real world, he had plenty of opportunity to put down the knives. His mental state does not require the LEOs place themselves in danger.
(In almost every jurisdiction) murder requires the intent to take a life. The shoot could be out of policy, but not murder by any stretch of the imagination. It could possibly be manslaughter, but when the defense tells the jury to put “themselves on the hill”, it becomes a tough case.
(In some jurisdictions, manslaughter is called Murder 3.)
Secondly, there is a rarely understood legal issue here. Only one person could have fired the one legally fatal shot. Which bullet was it?
If he was killed by a certain shot, then all the bullets hitting him before than cannot have been fatal, because he was alive when hit by the fatal shot.
Likewise, bullets fired “after” that one fatal shot could not “kill him again,” so there was no killing there either, murder or manslaughter.
Who fired that ONE fatal shot. Virtually impossible for the State to prove.
+1
I cannot BELIEVE how the lunatics (home grown AND imported) are allowed to run the asylum these days!
Irrelevant, really, given the distance between himself and the officers was about 30 to 40 ft over rough terrain — also note the weapons are brought to bear as he's gathering his things.
Now, unless you're of the opinion that the illegal camping is justification for the police to deprive him of property you've got very little argument.
It’s like when both Patton and Bradley talked about not “accepting the surrender” of Germans once the enemy was within 100 yards of the American solider.
Really?
You're going to tell me that the police should treat the general population like enemy soldiers?
In the real world, he had plenty of opportunity to put down the knives. His mental state does not require the LEOs place themselves in danger.
"In the real world" often seems to be a 'code phrase' for attempting to justify the unjustifiable.
(In almost every jurisdiction) murder requires the intent to take a life. The shoot could be out of policy, but not murder by any stretch of the imagination. It could possibly be manslaughter, but when the defense tells the jury to put “themselves on the hill”, it becomes a tough case.
How about this video, also involving police action; do you think it shows intent to kill?
Secondly, there is a rarely understood legal issue here. Only one person could have fired the one legally fatal shot. Which bullet was it?
Strictly speaking, that's simply not true — fatal blood loss from multiple shots could occur where a single shot fewer would not be.
Sorry, but your attempted legal point is incorrect.
I find it very telling that you picked on the technicality and ignored all the other questions.
Protests beginning in downtown ABQ in response to hung-jury non-verdict. Calling for “justice” for James Boyd. Blocking traffic, homemade signs, some minor incidents of vandalism (beating on cars). Probably about 50-75 so far. Unless UNM students join in en masse it will peter out, but they are calling for others to join via Facebook.
Aerial views by news choppers show only about 25-30. I over estimated from ground shots. News crews trying to make more of it than actually exists.
You are totally correct.
My early observations were certainly subject to debate, but the point of law is absolute.
BTW, that portion of the law is very difficult to argue before a jury. If Def Counsel is going to rely on that as a defense, Counsel will usually ask for a NON-jury trial, with judge alone deciding case, especially if you have a very learned judge.
Perhaps that's the most important time to have a jury trial.
_____________________________________________________________
You sir are very wrong. I used to manage a Jail and before that a mental hospital. These people can be managed, safely with proper procedures. Not once in 25 years did an employee have so much as a bloody lip. There is NEVER an excuse for shooting a mental patient in the back especially if he is more than 15 feet away from you. In this film the perp was at least 30 feet away, that leaves plenty of time to shoot if there is an attack. It isn't like they were in a hury, they had been there for 4 hours and the guy hadden't attacked anyone, someone got trigger happy, I hope they pay for it for a long time.
In this particular event the perp should have been tazed and bean bagged into submission on the ground there is simply NO excuse for what happened. It was obvious to me the perp didn't want to hurt anyone he just wanted to be left alone. I know he couldn't be left alone but capital punishment was not warranted.
These people have mental problems, they are still humans.
So these clients would have been handcuffed,including upon arrival.If our clients had been so restrained we would never have had some of the incidents we had.
and before that a mental hospital.
So these clients would have been properly medicated and perhaps even restrained as well.Again,see above.
Bottom line...the guy in question,unlike your prison clients,*wasn't* in restraints during this incident nor can we be certain that he was properly medicated.In fact,I'd be willing to wager everything I own that he *wasn't* medicated with anything but at least one of the following:ethanol,cocaine/speed/meth,heroin.
A lifetime as a prison guard or as a psych hospital staffer doesn't expose you to everything that one sees in a big city ER.And I'd also wager everything I have that it doesn't expose you to everything you see as a big city cop (I'm assuming that Albuquerque can be labeled a "big city").
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.