Albuquerque, NM — In a matter of two days, former Albuquerque police officer Dominique Perez went from facing a new trial for the murder of James Boyd to getting his job back.
A mistrial was declared by Judge Alisa Hadfield in October when only three of twelve jurors voted to convict the two officers — which, though deplorably typical, seems inexplicable given officer helmet-camera footage and several nasty details in the case.
Instead of holding a second trial, however, Police Chief Gorden Eden issued a statement after the district attorney announced that Perez and former detective Keith Sandy will not be retried, according to the Albuquerque Journal.
Sandy will also continue to collect his $37,000 annual pension — for murdering a man on video.
Not only will the officers not be held accountable for murdering a mentally ill man on video, but Perez will now go back to work in the same department.
Luis Robles, Perez’s attorney, said Friday that his client and the city are completing the terms of his return to the Albuquerque Police Department, according to the journal.
“It’s not a question of if; it’s a question of when,” Robles said.
Only in America’s corrupt police institution can a person needlessly gun down a mentally ill man for camping and face no consequences.
Prior to the fatal shooting, a conversation involving Officer Sandy was captured on tape, revealing not only a lack of compassion or understanding for those with mental health issues, but utter disregard for human life:
Sandy: What do they have you guys doing here?
Ware: I don’t know. The guy asked for state police.
Sandy: Who asked?
Ware: I don’t know.
Sandy: For this f#@king lunatic? I’m going to shoot him in the penis with a shotgun here in a second.
Police had been summoned to the rocky hillside location of Boyd’s illegal campsite in March 2014, after receiving calls of someone acting erratically. As footage from an officer’s camera-bedecked helmet subsequently revealed, a small army of 19 cops — some sporting a ridiculous amount of tactical gear — and a K-9 officer responded to the scene.
Boyd begins gathering his belongings and seems to be complying with police demands to leave, when one officer abruptly fires a flash-bang grenade — completely disorienting the man who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, an illness characterized most often by visual and auditory hallucinations.
Video shows Boyd appearing to pull out two knives as an officer with the K-9 approaches, but ineffectually waves them in the air, not making any significant threatening moves toward any of the cops.
When Boyd turns to retrieve his bags from the hillside, officers Sandy and Perez shoot him in the back — killing him, in what many who have seen the footage termed an execution.
Even if the homeless man’s movements prior to being shot could be deemed threatening, at the moment officers fired the fatal rounds, his back was clearly visible.
“What was the crime that prompted this paramilitary response?” Special Prosecutor Randi McGinn said during the original probable cause hearing, adding that shooting someone in the back isn’t something “reasonable people” do. “It was not a terrorist act. It was illegal camping.”
McGinn toldABC News in October she was not surprised by the deadlocked jury in this case, but hoped the trial would broaden the discussion and ‘leave a lasting legacy.’
Apparently, the only legacy left now is further reassurance of the precedent that cops can kill, on video, and keep their jobs.
If you brandish weapons at a cop, you die. And they will not be held liable for murder.
Moral: Never brandish a weapon at a cop.
What was the stated reason for the cops to do the flashbang grenade when they did?
Why was the K-9 released?
If a dog of that sort approaches me in a hostile situation, I'd be concerned about defending myself from the dog.
It appears the man was complying with the police orders to leave when the police escalated the situation with the flashbang grenade, and that this escalation was completely unjustified.
Nope. Didn't look to me as though he was complying. It looked as though he was reaching for a weapon.
I'm sure to you it looked like he was reaching for a bazooka, or maybe a flame thrower. Hell, they should have just mowed the guy down before they came within 100 yards of him. Even by talking to the guy they were risking their lives as the police are then risking being hypnotized into committing suicide.
I cannot fathom either your dishonesty or enormous bias, whichever it really is. Maybe it's stupidity, but I don't think that would account for what you routinely put on display here. Not everything at least.
"I cannot fathom either your dishonesty or enormous bias, whichever it really is."
I cannot fathom your blindness or your dishonesty or your enormous bias, whichever it really is. After he drops his equipment, he reaches to his waist at least twice then turns and reaches for his backpack on the ground.
All the while the police are yelling "On the ground. On the ground now".
"Can you articulate any reason the police had to justly set one off?"
What in the hell does that have to do with your previous statement? Don't change the fucking subject.
He reached to his waist at least twice then turned and reached for his backpack on the ground while the police were yelling "On the ground. On the ground now". That's on the goddamn video. Watch it.
At the 0.53 mark grenade shot Boyd. At 1:02 officers make demands for him to get on ground and continuously shoot at him. When he is on the ground they shoot at him again. Boyd is no longer moving.
Those officers acts were cowardly. Only trigger-happy outlaws do stuff like this with no conscience at all. They are not law enforcement but instead psychopaths.
Well, I watched the goddamned video. It was murder. Police dispensed a flash bang which is itself a weapon capable of inflicting serious injury, and did so without provocation or rational reason as the victim was collecting his belongings. At no point did these officers have any rational or legitimate fear for their lives.
Even the police dog either declined to attack or was called back by it's controlling officer, which either way is a further indication that either the dog itself or the owner did not perceive any threat from the victim.
That tells me you're blind, stupid or you DIDN'T watch the video.
The needless police flash bang grenade put the man in fear for his life. If a citizen dispensed one of those near a cop, you'd consider a cop drawing his weapon perfectly normal and reasonable.
I'm pretty sick of your one sided, extreme bias in all things related to police. There's never been a violent action carried out by a uniformed person you didn't adore.
The needless police flash bang grenade put the man in fear for his life.
I see. It wasn't the barking German Shepherd or the half-dozen automatic rifles pointed at him. No. A flash-bang going off 20 feet away made him so fearful that he pulled out two knives.
Oh, wait. He had a knife in each hand before the flash-bang went off. So, what made you think the flash-bang made him fearful?
Never mind. You don't know. You don't have a clue. You just automatically jump to his defense and ignore everything he did.
I see. It wasn't the barking German Shepherd or the half-dozen automatic rifles pointed at him. No. A flash-bang going off 20 feet away made him so fearful that he pulled out two knives.
20 feet my ass. It was more like 6-7 feet.
Oh, wait. He had a knife in each hand before the flash-bang went off.
Clearly a lie on your part. Anyone can clearly see he had a backpack in one hand and what looks like a white drinking container in the other when the flash bang went off.
The guy had picked up his belongings and with his arms and hands occupied with no weapons, he took a step to leave the area in compliance with the police instructions, and that's when police needlessly escalated the situation by threatened his life and safety with both the flashbang and dog. He responded defensively in the presence of the dog that was released. The cops then inexplicably closed the distance with the man whom they later claimed was a threat to them (which if he was, why did they close the distance), then they killed the man.
This is a clear case of cops intentionally or negligently converting a minor civil dispute into a hostile and dangerous situation with a man who was complying with their instructions and then killing the man after he justly responded defensively out of fear for his own life and safety.
