Two Albuquerque police officers charged with murder?

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."

 

Post #1- student

Post #2- Teacher

The student should be taking copious notes.

 

Notes sans creative license.

 

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?

 

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."

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.