Tenten

I recorded the video above last night outside the Embassy Suites in Albuquerque. It's part of the talk by Corrina ("Tenten") Shoemaker, the sister of Victor Villalpando, a youth shot and killed by Espanola, NM, police a year ago last June. I had just heard about Victor's killing when I headed out that day to a meeting to discuss a protest march planned for later in June to highlight the continued police killings in Albuquerque and elsewhere despite the scathing DoJ report on the city's pattern and practice of unconstitutional policing.

When I heard about Victor's death, I was shocked. At the time, it was not at all clear what had happened. There were news stories that the boy had threatened the police with a gun, and thus he "needed killing," but there was something clearly off about that. We hear those kinds of stories in the aftermath of police shootings all the time, and very often they later turn out to be untrue. There were stories that someone had called police from a fast-food joint in Espanola saying there was a young male outside waving a gun around. Then there were stories that Villalpando himself had been the caller. Thus, in some people's eyes, this was clearly an incident of "suicide by cop." The video of the killing itself, however, showed that that wasn't the case. The video showed him attempting to flee when he was shot and killed. He was not threatening the police in any way. Nevertheless, the Rio Arriba County grand jury ruled the homicide "justified" because Villalpando was "armed" with a cap gun, and how were the police to know it wasn't real?

Perhaps Victor lacked wisdom, but since when is a sixteen year old expected to be wiser than the supposed adults, like the police involved in his killing?

There was a march last evening in Albuquerque to protest -- yet again -- the city's hosting of what I call the Killer Kop Kompetition, an elaborate, multi-day shooting contest by Albuquerque's and the nation's "finest."

 Last year's Killer Kop Kompetition was won, we were told, by an APD officer who would later go on to some notoriety when he shot and severely wounded an undercover officer engaged in a drug sting. The shooter was the supervisor...  It was quite a remarkable situation and starkly demonstrated how trigger-happy and out of control APD's officers had become. On the other hand, it was one of very few police involved shootings by APD after July of 2014 when such shootings -- once commonplace -- came to an abrupt halt. At least for several months, there were no killings by APD.

Then, the day after the shooting of the undercover officer by his supervisor, John Okeefe was shot and killed by APD after a foot chase down an alley. The police claimed that Okeefe was shooting at them, and a stolen revolver was recovered at the scene beside Okeefe's body. The revolver, it turned out, had been stolen from the home of a sheriff's deputy a few days before, a factoid that set off an alarm bell or two among police-watchers, as did the fact that this killing took place almost coincidentally with the shooting of an undercover cop by his supervisor ("Ooops!") and the announcement that Dominque Perez and Keith Sandy, the killers of James Boyd, were being charged with Murder 2 by the Bernalillo County DA.

A lot of threads were woven together in last night's march and protest. Initially, I didn't intend to march with the rest of the protesters as I am still kind of lame from the episode of sciatica almost two years ago now. The march route was said to be a mile and a half through downtown Albuquerque, but it looked farther than that to me, and the tail end of it was uphill. I don't do uphill well at all.

Nonetheless, when I heard Victor Villalpando's mother and sister talk to the assembly prior to the march, I knew I had to go on the march with the rest, no matter whatever difficulty in doing so I might encounter. I'm glad I did.

The march was one of the most orderly protests I think I've ever been involved in. There were perhaps 100 or so participants, no police escort -- and if there were undercover officers seeded among the marchers, I didn't notice any. We marched in the street or on the sidewalk, depending on the preference of individual marchers. I carried the "Abolish Police Departments" sign -- in part because I am an abolitionist rather than a reformer these days (I've done my time as a police reformer... and found the results to be.... less than I had hoped.)

Signs prior to the march

Medics on foot and on bikes accompanied the march, and monitors with caution tape controlled the traffic while the marchers passed. Many, many drivers honked their support for the marchers. There were water stations set up along the route, and the medics distributed water to anyone who asked. Organizers let people know what was going on and how the march would proceed. Everyone felt comfortable and protected. It was the formation of a spontaneous community, something that will become increasingly necessary as the efforts to end violent policing continue.

While the uphill climb to the Embassy Suites was a bit tough for me, I made it, and the sunset view from the top of the ridge was spectacular. (I wanted to capture it in paint or pastel, and I still may try... the art-part of my life coming close to an obsession these days...)

As we reached the turn into the hotel driveway, a couple of bicycle officers appeared to help with traffic control. They were the first uniformed officers we had seen, even as we marched past the sheriff's and police departments downtown. These bicycle officers together with some other uniformed APD officers would form a phalanx protecting the lobby of the hotel from the protest rabble outside.

After reading the names of the dead at the hands of APD ("Presente!") about half the marchers made their way toward the lobby of the hotel. Access was denied. However, during the protest, a number of the participants in the shooting competition came out to observe the proceedings, and one even had himself photographed with the protesters.

Tenten wanted to talk to a police-officer competitor and to anyone associated with Embassy Suites, but the police inside were too afraid of her, and the hotel refused to send out a representative (at least this was my impression from observations and talking with some of the participants.)  Eventually, an APD officer (along with a backup officer "just in case") spoke with Tenten outside the lobby, but nothing was resolved. My video above starts just after the APD officers retreated back to the lobby.

Fear. The officers were so frightened... I call them cowards. They see the public -- at least an expressive portion of the public -- as their enemies, and they live in constant mortal fear of those enemies, and so they lash out, sometimes murderously, when confronted with protest, demands, or disobedience.

Last night, for the most part, they hid.

There was no hint of violence within the crowd of protesters last night, but at one point I was told that the officers inside the hotel were demanding that the protesters pledge to be "peaceful" if they wanted to speak to an officer inside. It was a ludicrous demand given the nature of the event being protested, but it was an example of kind of fear the police have of any expression of public outrage at their behavior. The same fear is seen among the occupying armies of our nation's vast overseas imperial adventures. It's inculcated from the top down.

Ultimately, the point was made -- that this competition is an insult to the many hundreds, indeed thousands of dead at the hands of police, and it is not wanted in the city of Albuquerque, not after everything that has happened, the piles of dead bodies, the protests, the pain and the outrage.

Victor Villalpando's sister and mother brought those points home to me more strongly than I think I have felt them up to now, and I've been involved in the protests against violent policing for many a long year.

We marched back to Robinson Park in the downtown area, and I slowed down the closer we got. A kind driver asked if I'd like a ride for the last few blocks, and I said yes. Well, I coulda made it on my own, but it would have taken me probably another half hour or so. Had a great talk with the driver, Sara Ruth (I think), someone who feels like I do that the context of policing, the culture, and the behavior of police must change or be abolished.

More on the Latest APD Killing - - and the MLK Weekend of Rage

The police have released a bit of body-cam video of the latest APD killing. It's disturbing from the outset because the officer involved is prominently displaying and using his automatic rifle during the incident.

The dead suspect, John Okeefe, was said to be armed with a replica old west Colt .45 revolver -- which he may or may not have been -- and he was said to be wearing body armor -- which he may or may not have been -- but even if so, the issue to me is that the police brought out the heavy weaponry and were marching around and firing in a populated neighborhood at rush hour. What's up with that?

Really, there was no concern for civilian casualties at all.

And this is all based on a report of "suspicious behavior" of two men behind a beauty salon? Something's wrong here.

The accounts of what happened are distinctly odd, to say the least, and there seems to have been a deliberate effort to obscure the participation/culpability of the other man involved. He was said to have been arrested, but according to other reports, he wasn't. He was transported to the hospital for assessment of dizziness and shortness of breath, and was released without charges.

According to police, the suspect Okeefe ran when confronted by police who were called to the scene of "suspicious behavior". According to police, the suspect Okeefe fired at officers as they pursued him. According to police, they didn't fire back. They say they lost track of the suspect Okeefe for a few minutes, then found him again running along the alley where he was eventually shot to death.

One of the citizen videos I posted links to in a previous post are alleged to show suspect Okeefe firing at officers, but they don't. In fact, it's impossible to tell from that video whether or not suspect Okeefe fires at all, or even if he has a gun.

It is, however, interesting to note that officer Fisher and officer Oates -- said to be the actual killers -- are not apparently the officers seen in the citizen video chasing suspect Okeefe in the alleyway. Officer Fisher is in fact on the other side of the shrubbery -- he starts out on the other side of the street -- and officer Oates (if I'm reading the stories right, and who can say about that, as I do get confused now and again...) is in the SUV that jumps the curb. So if I'm understanding it right, the officers chasing suspect Okeefe in the alley are not firing, whereas two other officers are firing, one out of camera view in the citizen video, and one arriving in the SUV.

[Note: I crossed out that particular paragraph because it was based on my initial misunderstanding of what the citizen video shows.]

Officer Fisher is apparently the officer running at the left of the scene, outside the shrubbery. It's not clear exactly when he fires at Okeefe, but it appears to happen while he is screened from view by trees. Another officer -- unidentified -- who is probably closest to Okeefe at that time suddenly backs away, no doubt due to the shots being fired. Officer Oates is not located, though he is likely in the scene. One report had it that Oates was in the SUV, but I've not found that report again, and I've seen no confirmation.


The one video released from officer Fisher also does not show the suspect Okeefe at all until after he is dead in the alley. It does not show him firing, though officer Fisher says he is firing. This may or may not be true, it's impossible to tell from the video, but given the frequency of police using the line "Stop resisting!!!" on unresisting suspects who have been tased or are being beaten, one would be wise not to take anything an officer says in a crisis/conflict situation at face value.

Officer Fisher's video doesn't show suspect Okeefe until sometime after he is shot dead and his corpse is surrounded by side-arm wielding officers. When we see Okeefe's body in the alley, he appears to be lying face down, what looks like a gun lying on the ground a foot or two away from his left leg.

The police claim Okeefe was wearing body armor, but that's not clear from the video at all. He appears to be wearing a black or gray shirt. That's all I can discern.

From the citizen video shot at a distance, it appears that Okeefe was trying to climb a resident's back wall to escape when he was shot and killed. There are several bullet holes in the wall. Probably more bullet holes in Okeefe, though.

The media has made a great show of "all the mug shots" of John Okeefe in order to make it seem as if he needed killing, and from certain theories of law enforcement and Führerprinzip, that's true enough. Get out of line, the man don't just come and take you away anymore, the man come and shoot your ass as likely as not.

There's a lot of "Darwinism" in the responses to police killings these days. Those who die, according to the "Darwin" fans have failed at survival of the fittest, too bad so sad. It's just "Nature" -- Natural Selection at work. Police are doing their part in cleaning up the riff-raff, "human garbage disposal" as one APD officer notoriously remarked about his job.

Both officers involved in the Okeefe shooting have had, shall we say, issues in the past. Officer Fisher has been repeatedly accused of use of excessive force, and the city has paid out more than $100,000 in settlements. Officer Oates was one of three officers who opened fire and killed a suspect in a carjacking in 2011.

Was this a "necessary shooting?" No, not at all. The idea that "suspicious activity" behind a beauty salon is worthy of a police chase and killing like this is just absurd. There was no threat to anyone at the time of the call to 911, not even a hint of it. When police arrived, one of the suspects ran. (I wouldn't be surprised if the other "suspect" was a cop, but that's another issue for another time.) The police say Okeefe fired at officers as he ran, but there is no concrete evidence it is so. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but even if he did,  does that automatically warrant a death sentence? On the street? Like that?

Many would say yes. They have been conditioned to believe that police are always justified in killing someone in self-defense. But in this case, even if Okeefe was firing -- and there is no proof that he was -- killing him in the alley like that makes no sense and clearly endangered others. It wasn't self defense, especially if Okeefe was trying to climb a wall to get away. The "race card" can't be used in this instance because Okeefe was Anglo, but because he had a long rap sheet, the killing was automatically justified in many people's minds, whether or not it was self-defense. Simply having a criminal record is enough for many to believe killing is the right remedy.

If this incident means that APD has gone back to its innate tendency to kill, it will mean a very difficult period for Burquenos ahead. When it seemed that maybe, just maybe, the killing had stopped, we may find it has been ratcheted up to a new level.

That would be a tragedy.

--------------------------------------------------
Reclaiming the real legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. is a primary objective of this weekend's celebrations of his life and there are militant demonstrations all across the country asserting that Black Lives Matter and that Martin Luther King, Jr. was far from the rather bland pacifist he's been lionized by white folks as.

The Oakland Federal Building was barricaded for four hours and 28 minutes on Friday in a wonderful display of third world and white ally unity with #BlackLivesMatter. It was great.

Simultaneously with the action in Oakland, the BART stations from the Embarcadero to Powell Street in San Francisco were shut down.

In Boston, I-93 was shut down through the city, snarling traffic for hours.

Actions were taking place all day yesterday throughout the country. More are planned for today and tomorrow.

The protests over the egregious killing of Mike Brown -- and so many others -- have become a Movement to end police violence. The lists of demands are growing, and there is no sign that the protests will cease or that the protesters will back down. The issue is as straightforward as can be:

Justice where there is none, and an end to police violence where there is too much.

Whereas last year it seemed that the issue might not catalyze the public to action, this year it looks like the necessary action is almost certain.

Officers Keith Sandy and Dominique Perez, the Executioners of James Boyd, to be Indicted on an Open Count of Murder???? Get Out...

Word has been circulating in Albuquerque that the men who killed James Boyd on March 16, 2014, in the Sandia foothills east of town will be indicted on an open count of murder sometime in the spring or whenever Bernalillo County District Attorney Kari Brandenburg gets around to it.

Will wonders never cease?

Actually,  this Wonder is one to take with a grain of salt. Given her history, Brandenburg would not indict them -- or any other police officer performing his "duty" -- without enormous political pressure, and the way she's said to be going about it, skipping the grand jury and going directly to a judge who will rule on whether or not there is sufficient evidence to go to trial at a preliminary hearing (think Perry Mason), indicates she is not interested in a conviction, only the cover of an indictment to show that she "did her job," and oh well, isn't it too bad, just too damn bad, that these two get off.

Previously, it was reported that the parallel FBI probe of the Boyd execution was unlikely to result in any charges.

Also, too, it's possible neither of these stories is true. They may be put "out there" as oil on the waters.
----------------------------------------------------
In other news, Jeremy Dear, the APD officer who stalked and killed Mary Hawkes in April of 2014, was let go from the department for his consistent failure to turn on his body camera when interacting with the public. There was no video of the Hawkes killing because -- apparently -- Dear didn't turn on his camera once again, ergo... bye bye. Problem is, he has a team of lawyers (all police officers seem to have a team of lawyers these days) who strenuously object to his dismissal and are working to get his job back.
------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Shane Todd, the State Police sniper who operates in the Albuquerque area and who shot and killed Kendall Carroll in Albuquerque and Ernest Atterberry in Moriarty and who has shot and wounded others, has not been named as the shooter who fired at and wounded a suicidal Christopher Gallegos on Interstate 25 the other day. The lack of information in this incident is troubling. Whether Todd was the shooter in this incident remains unknown. There are hints that he was shot by officer(s) who approached his truck, but what actually happened remains a mystery.
----------------------------------------------------
The Bernalillo County Sheriff's Deputy who shot and killed Adam Padilla the other day as Bobby Unser watched has not yet been named either. My sense is the deputy may have panicked when Padilla got out of his car and approached the officer -- who may have just discovered outstanding warrants on Padilla.

The APD Consent Decree

In the midst of all the Hallowe'en festivities last Friday, the Department of Justice and the City of Albuquerque announced and released the long-awaited Consent Decree regarding reforms of the Albuquerque Police Department. Oh. That. Right.

The Decree itself is turgid and legalistic and extremely detailed with regard to some of the reforms that are to be instituted, vague as can be about others, and it is so filled with loopholes that literally nothing need change at all with regard to the bloody business that touched off the DoJ involvement in Albuquerque if APD doesn't want to change.

Though I've seen some positive responses to it from victims and survivors of APD's bloodlust, it's not entirely clear at all that this document will inspire much more than cosmetic reforms over the short or the long term.

What it does do, and what I've said all along the intent of DoJ Consent Decrees has been, is "professionalize" the police force and make manifest the right ways to go about killing and imprisoning and suppressing the Rabble rather than perpetuate the wrong ways. That's why there is so much focus on training and reporting, and so little focus on the problems that caused the uproar in the first place.

But there are potential positives, at least from the surface view that most of us have about these things. The Repeat Offender Project is to be disbanded. The APD killers associated with it will no doubt be reassigned. This is progress on one front, but quite possibly it will have the effect of spreading the infection throughout the force. It remains to be seen. As it was, many of the deaths caused by APD were the result of ROP actions. "Human Waste Disposal," right? They called it an ad hoc SWAT team, but their killer reputation was one of the chief complaints from the public. So, ROP will go.

A stronger mental health component and understanding will be instituted through training and the development and deployment of teams of Crisis Intervention experts. Or at least so-called experts. Community involvement in mental health oversight and responsibility will be encouraged through commissions, panels and workshops. Issues surrounding homelessness will be addressed more fully. All of which is good, but I hate to see them in the hands of police, in part because police don't have the mindset or the tools to effectively handle people in crisis -- mental health crisis or otherwise -- except with violence and too often the use of lethal force. That's why so many people in crisis get dead when the police are called. Their viewpoint regarding people in crisis is to meet it with as much violence and use of force as they deem necessary to control the situation and neutralize the threat they perceive to themselves or to others.

That means tasing and shooting people to death -- regardless of reforms.

So maybe the APD will come to understand the nature of mental illness and homelessness, they might even learn details about drug and alcohol conditions affecting behavior, but will that knowledge lessen the killing? Probably not.

What can be helpful is the deployment of Crisis Intervention teams any time a person-in-crisis situation is identified. The problem has been that the killer cops are also deployed at the same time. This has been one of the problems with calling 911 or suicide hotlines in cases of persons-in-crisis. Once the call is made, the dispatcher or counselor is required by policy and protocol to assign police not health care professionals to follow up. If there is any mention of death threats or arms of any kind, then the police assign killers to the case, sometimes whole teams of killers in SWAT gear. This is wrong and absurd, and it doesn't appear that these protocols are changed by the terms of the APD Consent Decree. So long as the police are assigned to be the first responders in such crisis situations, and indeed continue to prevent intervention until the threat is neutralized, we'll continue to see the killings of people in crisis.

Most of the 106 page Consent Decree consists of detailed training and reporting requirements, none of which is particularly onerous -- though it will probably be seen that way by some of the line force and supervisors who will have to comply. Or maybe not.

They may comply but not really. They report but lie. They may... we could go on and on.

The point is that the Consent Decree may or may not lead to a lessening of the Albuquerque Police Department's bloodletting. It doesn't really address that problem. It addresses other problems that were identified, mostly regarding the professionalization of the force to ensure that it operates according to "best practices" in the field.

That may or may not be what those who have given so much and worked so hard and long have sought.

The timelines are also problematical. A year is typical for instituting some of the reforms, but up to four years is mandated for others. This means there doesn't have to be any immediate change -- again unless APD wants to. Past practice can continue and not be punished. In fact, there is no provision or recommendation in the Consent Decree for addressing egregious behavior that occurred prior to the Consent Decree and only modest recommendations regarding future egregiousness. Internal matters stay internal, in other words, and while complaints might -- or might not -- be addressed more transparently and fully in the future, they won't necessarily result in any action against offending officers.

There is still the presumption that the officers are not the offenders. This presumption can have the effect of perpetuating the impunity that police have long arrogated to themselves.

On the other hand, Community Oriented Policing is to be instituted (according to reports, it was once the norm in Albuquerque but was abandoned by a previous administration). This doesn't necessarily reduce impunity, but it can have the effect of integrating police into the fabric of communities rather than them being seen as outside occupation forces.

In some cities, a key transformation has been Community Oriented Policing which has the effect of completely altering the relationship between police and residents to the point where "protection and service" is a fact, not merely a slogan. According to some of what I've read, there was a time when this approach to policing was the standard in Albuquerque. It may be again. We'll see.

I'd rather be positive than not. But it will be up to the police and the city administration to show good faith and actually implement the recommendations and requirements set forth. So far, they have been resistant and reluctant. Time will tell.

This Was No Split Second Decison

I want people to understand this about police shootings.

So often we hear the police rationale that in a "life or death situation" police have to make "split second decisions" on whether and what kind of force to use in any given circumstance. Sometimes, of course, those decisions lead to "unfortunate loss of life." Oh well. Police "should be able to go home to their families at night." Case closed.

So often we hear the excuses. So often the excuses are false.

The decision to kill is not made in a "split second." Sometimes these decisions are made hours, days, months and even years in advance, not based on what is happening but based the on protocols and policies of sniper squads and special weapons and tactics teams.

Once deployed, the death of the suspect is all but certain. It has nothing whatever to do with "split second" decision making. It has everything to do with the expectations and training of those assigned to do the killing.

KRQE in Albuquerque has done detailed reporting on how it worked in the case of a mentally ill homeless man, James Boyd, shot to death in the Sandia foothills last March. That shooting triggered months of protest and the release of a scathing report from the Department of Justice on the routine violations of civil rights and the many other failings -- some of them clearly criminal -- of the Albuquerque Police Department.

Boyd was shot to death as he was surrendering after a multi-hour standoff between him and as many as 42 officers and a police dog (a dog which was sicced on Boyd and bit him severely after he was shot and paralyzed.) Two of those officers, Dominique Perez and Keith Sandy, shot Boyd to death. Sandy, at the least, has now been documented to have made the decision to shoot him hours before the deed was done. It was his assignment as a member of the elite Repeat Offender Project.

Recently, too, another APD killer, a police sniper named Sean Wallace, has been awarded a commendation by Police Chief Gorden Eden for his outstanding service. So far, he has shot and killed three -- or is it four -- unarmed men. It's his assignment on the force. Of course, the award was for helping to take armed men into custody without shooting them to death, so maybe it's a sign of progress. Maybe not.

Many police forces employ snipers and elite officers and units whose main function is to kill. Once they are assigned and deployed, the suspect will more than likely die.

There is nothing "split second" about it -- except when the bullets enter the person's body.

911-Death Squad

Armand Martin, killed by APD SWAT team sniper, May 3, 2014

Calling 911 when a loved one is having a psychological or emotional crisis is too often a death sentence.

When you call 911, certain protocols are operating, and when you call seeking assistance because a loved one is in crisis, those protocols include dispatching police or a SWAT team if your loved one is deemed to be a "threat" -- to him/herself or others -- by virtue of what you have to say to the 911 operator. For example, if you say your loved one is behaving violently or is armed, EMTs will not be dispatched until your loved one is "compliant" which often means until your loved one is dead.

"Compliant" means that either your loved one can and immediately does follow barked commands which often seem incomprehensible or contradictory even to people who are not in crisis or, failing immediate compliance to such commands, "compliant" means "neutralized," ie: severely injured enough to no longer be a "threat." Often the desired compliance is obtained through mortal injury to the subject "(as your loved one will be referred to).

Back in May, soon after one of Albuquerque's numerous protests against the epidemic of police killings in the city, Gail Martin, wife of retired Air Force Lt. Col. Armand Martin, approached a police officer in a park near her home in the nice suburb of Ventana Ranch and announce that he husband had threatened her with a gun.

That was all that was necessary to dispatch a SWAT team to the house and begin operations to force compliance from the erstwhile gunman or know the reason why.

Mrs. Martin did not seem to think her husband was a danger to her or anyone else, she just didn't want him to be waving a gun around. He suffered from depression and PTSD, in fact was retired on disability because of his condition.

The SWAT team had a crisis intervention negotiator on hand. Apparently the "negotiations" consisted of shouting over a bullhorn to Martin to come out with his hands up, and when that didn't produce compliance quickly enough, the next phase of the "negotiations" consisted of bombarding the house with flash bang and tear gas grenades. Oh, and commanding Martin to surrender forthwith. Not to forget that.

The entire neighborhood was terrorized. SWAT assigned a sniper to "neutralize the threat" -- apparently to kill Martin on sight.

Meanwhile, Martin was on the phone with 911 operators, his brother and apparently with one of the television stations in town as well, basically asking what (the fuck) was going on, why was there so much hubbub, saying he hadn't done anything wrong, and yesterday, it was revealed that said he'd taken sleeping medication to calm himself down and he just wanted to sleep. BAM! SWAT could not allow that. Oh no. He had to be forced into compliance at all costs. He could not be allowed to sleep.

His wife apparently had no idea that her pleas for assistance to help her husband would lead to this. How many wives and loved ones have thought the same? It's routine. Calls for help are answered by domestic death squads.

The standoff with Martin went on for several hours, with SWAT demanding compliance and using violence (grenades, you know?) to achieve it, Martin wondering "what the fuck," and telling his brother on the phone he was afraid the police would kill him if he came out of the house.

Guess what? That's exactly what they did.

BAM!

Someone, perhaps Martin's brother, convinced him to come out of the house, and as soon as he did, a SWAT sniper named Daniel Hughes shot him. He fell. Police say he was armed, and two pistols were shown on video next to his body, but whether he shot at officers or "aimed" at them (often claimed by police as justification for killing subjects) is in dispute. Police handcuffed him and left him to bleed out on the driveway of his house for fifteen minutes or so before calling paramedics to tend to his corpse.

It was deemed a "good shoot" -- as they almost always are.

Martin's family was and is in shock. Yes, well...

Once you call or approach a police officer in cases like this, you have ordered up a death squad, whether you intend to or not. And once that death squad arrives, you have no control over what will happen next. Be prepared. They are there to kill, and if the opportunity presents itself, they will kill without a qualm for that is what they are trained and expected to do.

I pointed out that the Killer Kop Kompetition that will be held in Albuquerque this weekend simulates endless scenarios in which police are conditioned to fire their weapons to "neutralize threats." They are conditioned to see threats everywhere, and to react to them as if on automatic pilot. Oh, they get a demerit if they happen to misperceive a bystander as a threat. But I kind of doubt they are disqualified for doing so.

When someone like Armand Martin -- an armed black man -- is the the subject, there is practically no way and nothing he can do that will prevent him from being killed. He is by definition a prime target.

The family has no say in it. The subject has no say. As for the officers, they can't seem to say "no" to killing.

Once the 911-death squad is dispatched, there can be little hope that your loved one will survive the encounter.

Another APD Killing

Moments ago. Little news. Suspect dead. ATF and APD attempt to serve a warrant on a fugitive -- they say. Two shots fired.

It has been just about three weeks since the last shooting death of a suspect. Right on schedule...

---------------------------------------------
Ah yes, "pulled a gun from his waistband" excuse. It's used frequently: the man was a suspect, sometimes even a fugitive, and "he reached into his waistband" they said to pull out a gun. He needed killing. And so it would be. Pop-pop. Dead. Besides, he had a long criminal record and was wanted for something, in this case: parole violation.  Strangely, inexplicably, in this case, ATF was trying to serve a warrant.

Wouldn't be surprised if the "weapon" in his "waistband" was a cell-phone, but maybe they'll find something scary like a cap gun or even a BB gun. That, as we know, is a sure death sentence. Or maybe there was no "gun" at all, the cops just thought there was one.

So sick of this shit.

 

Autopsies, Lawsuits, and More, Oh My

James Boyd's estate, represented by his brother Andrew Jones and the Kennedy law firm, has brought suit (76 pg pdf) against the City of Albuquerque alleging battery and wrongful death -- among other things -- in Boyd's execution in the Sandia foohills and calling for a range of specific relief, including the establishment of "the James Matthew Boyd Emergency Outreach Team to enable a team of three trained health care professionals to respond to crisis involving individuals experiencing homelessness and mental health emergencies in the City of Albuquerque."

The allegations of what was done to Boyd by the police that clear, cold day in March are horrifying. They are no less horrifying than the autopsy report that was released a couple of weeks ago, detailing the wounds Boyd suffered when he was shot by officers, and when a dog was unleashed on him and he was hit by several bean bag rounds at close range after he'd been mortally wounded by police gunfire and he was on the ground, paralyzed from those wounds.

The autopsy clinically describes entrance and exit wounds, abrasions, amputations and other surgeries and finally his death. The lawsuit, on the other hand, deals far more with the people involved, and the failed institutions of the City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Police Department that let this incident spiral out of control, with -- apparently -- no clear leadership or plan of action, despite 43 officers dispatched to the scene.

It was a classic clusterfuck -- this time, like many other times with regard to the APD -- leading to the unfortunate and completely unnecessary death of a man who,  according to the reports I've heard and read, and despite his mental illness, wanted nothing more or other than to be left alone in a place he loved.

These 43 officers couldn't do that. Oh, no. That would be allowing non-compliance, and in modern police culture, non-compliance can be a death sentence.

As it was for Mr. Boyd that day.

Interestingly, the Archbishop of the Santa Fe Diocese, Michael Sheehan, has recently announced that he came to the realization that the Albuquerque Police Department needed "drastic reforms" after the shooting death of Christopher Torres in 2011, but he hasn't spoken out until now. Discretion being the better part of valor? Who can say? The Archbishop has submitted his resignation to the Pope, effective when he reaches 75 years old next month, and that may be a reason why he is speaking out now, before the Pope replaces him...

Christopher Torres was also a diagnosed schizophrenic, as was James Boyd.

Archbishop Sheehan's voice is a powerful one in heavily Catholic New Mexico, and his words in this instance are unsparing.

APD needs "drastic reform."

Appended to the Boyd lawsuit is the scathing DoJ report (46 pg pdf) released in April which found and detailed numerous instances of APD's culture of violence and compliance, and a pattern and practice of unconstitutional policing.

The DoJ report notes numerous instances of APD's use of inappropriate force on the mentally ill, including lethal force. The report was prepared before the Boyd execution and released within weeks afterwards, in part, it seems, due to public pressure.

Recently, the Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Albuquerque -- a former city attorney and former State Corrections Director -- remarked that he believed the majority of Albuquerque's residents "trust" the police. A poll was released that day or the day before that starkly indicated otherwise. Indeed, "trust" in the police in Albuquerque has taken a precipitous nosedive since 2011, falling to 33%. Hardly the majority Mr. Perry claims.

But then, in his mind, that 33% probably is a majority, and overwhelming majority, of the people who matter. 

Indeed, this is all about the people who matter -- and people who don't.

The people who don't -- like James Boyd, or even Christopher Torres -- are fair game. Much like the dogs that are routinely shot and killed by police all over the country when they are found to be inconvenient or threatening.

They are disposed of without another thought.

Mentally ill? Children in the way? Oh well!

They don't matter to police forces and the institutions of power in this country. That's the problem it seems to me.

Only certain people matter, and only they are privileged to be counted as the "majority."

The relief called for in the James Boyd lawsuit would provide a range of interventions in future cases of police confrontations with mentally ill and homeless individuals. The relief called for would even provide alternatives to police confrontations. It would provide extensive training in de-escalation techniques as well. Use of force would be strictly controlled. Police accountability would be required and enforced.

The point, of course, is that nothing like what happened to Mr. Boyd would happen again, but we know all too well that what happened to Mr. Boyd has already happened again and it will continue to happen until and unless the APD and the city administration is reformed top to bottom.

The Boyd lawsuit may be the necessary catalyst to change, but that remains to be seen. The rate of killing by APD increased after the release of the DoJ report, almost as if the institution of the APD was responding to the report with defiance and with further bloodshed. But there hasn't been a killing by APD in over a month, and it may be that word finally went out to the field that a cease fire was advisable. If not a complete halt to the killing, at least ratchet it back a bit. 'Mkay?

It's bad PR under the circumstances to keep killing at the same or an even higher rate.

Bad PR is bad for business. Can't have that. Nosirree.

I'd like to think that progress of some sort is being made in the face of implacable institutional inertia, but the evidence is not yet clear.

If the cease-fire holds, maybe...

Just to be clear...

Rob Perry, Albuquerque Chief Administrative Officer, is the central character in the systemic problem of police violence, bloodshed, abuse and corruption in Albuquerque. He is the one who is ultimately in charge of police operations, not the mayor or the city council, nor even the police chief.

Perry is a bully, a dissimulator, a condescending prick -- aka what's known in the vernacular as "an asshole." In that, he's fairly typical of city manager/administrator types I've encountered over the years, except that in Perry's case, the rough edges haven't been filed off. He is what he is. I suppose that's a good thing in that there can be no doubt where he stands. He does not stand with the People, he stands with Authority which he sees as his right.

One thing he said in his condescending, assholic interview with KRQE (in the previous post) was interesting. He said that he didn't believe the people had lost trust in APD; he believed that by far, the residents of Albuquerque trusted the police.

As it happens, a poll was released just yesterday that starkly refutes his claim. The Garrity Perception Survey -- which is widely used and widely respected in New Mexico -- shows that far from the majority of Albuquerque residents trusting the police, two thirds of Albuquerque residents don't trust the police.

The question was as follows:

“on a scale of 1 to 5, with five being very favorable and one being very unfavorable, what is your level of trust of police officers?”

 The poll was taken between the last week of February and the first week of March, 2014, so it didn't cover the time since the James Boyd execution in the Sandia foothills on March 16, 2014.

The poll was taken statewide.

The number of responses to the poll question which fall in the 4-5 range (ie: favorable, trusting of police) has fallen precipitously since 2011, most notably in Albuquerque, where trust in police has fallen from 52% to 33%, and in what's deemed "North Central" New Mexico (not sure the boundaries), where trust  has fallen even more, from 57% to 30%. And this was before the Boyd killing.

In no area of New Mexico did a majority of New Mexicans express trust in police. None. Certainly not in Albuquerque.

For Perry to assert his belief that most Burqueños do trust the police is typical of him, but it also shows that he is completely, horribly out of touch with Albuquerque residents. Of course he doesn't serve the interests of most Burqueños, and he doesn't care what they think. He may or may not know what this poll shows, but whether he does or not is irrelevant to what he believes.

Because of the way city government is organized, removing Perry is very difficult. A better approach is to shame him. We've seen that he's immune to shaming by people like Nora Anaya, let alone David Correia, so something else is necessary. He doesn't care about people, he cares about power. And one way to shame people like him is to demonstrate they are factually wrong. Demonstrate his ignorance and arrogance, and point out the consequences his ignorance and arrogance have for ordinary people.

Not only does he not know what he's talking about, he doesn't seem capable of recognizing any fact which doesn't fit with his pre-conceived notions of his own power.  He's also apparently incapable of recognizing the harm his ignorance and arrogance can cause. Needless to say, this attitude has been with him for many years (42 pg pdf, class action lawsuit against Perry and NM Department of Corrections which he headed).

Terms like narcissist and sociopath are thrown around with great abandon on the internet, and for that reason, I tend not to use them, but there are cases where they are appropriate. They were certainly appropriate in the case of Oakland's city administrator Deanna Santana and her choice for police chief, Howard Jordan. Jordan was an inveterate liar and Santana had nothing but contempt for most of the people of Oakland. Both acted to compound the damage already done to Oakland and its residents by years of police corruption and civic outrages against the People. Their lies and contempt reached a point of unsustainability, despite the fact that most of the elected city officials, including the mayor, supported them. They both had to go, and eventually they did, but not before they had done their level best -- or worst -- to destroy what little trust remained in civic institutions. Theirs were shameful performances in every way.

It's hard to say whether Oakland is on the road to recovery after their disastrous reign.

Albuquerque's situation is somewhat similar, in that the police chief and the city administrator are operating contrary to the interests of the People, in a way that harms the civic body rather than helps it. Like Oakland, Albuquerque is a gritty, working-class city, beset with poverty and all the consequences of poverty, overlaid with some extraordinary enclaves of wealth and privilege. The economy of Albuquerque has sputtered and faltered badly during the Endless Recession, partly because of its dependence on government for so much of its economic activity and well-being. There have been so many cutbacks in government contracting and employment over the now nearly-decade long economic downturn, and there has been little private sector economic development to take its place.

Burqueños are poor and getting poorer. That's not the worst of it, though. New Mexicans can cope with poverty; they've been doing it since long before the advent of Norte Americanos and tourist-trapping "The Land of Enchantment." Families, culture, deep roots in a harsh but beautiful land, all contribute to communal strength and an ability to cope with adversity.

When civic authorities set out to make things worse, however, as Mr. Perry and members of his police force have done routinely, through their blind allegiance to power, and their gross misuse of power to harm residents and bring disrepute to the city and its citizens, it's time for them to go. It took several years to dispose of Deanna Santana and Howard Jordan in Oakland, but they were eventually replaced with officials who seem to have the greater interest of Oakland's people in mind rather than service to unelected power.

What people in office such as Mr Perry tend to forget it that New Mexicans are quite as capable of dealing with people like him, just as they are more than capable of dealing with other adversity.

It's time for him to retire...

So Someone Is Not Telling the Truth...

There's been a lot of news lately about the numerous deadly encounters between the Albuquerque police and residents, and there's been some news about police infiltrating protests to end police violence in Albuquerque.

One of the recent killings by APD was that of Alfred Redwine. He was shot the very day of one of the mass protests to end police violence in Albuquerque, and his autopsy results were released the other day. They showed Redwine had been drinking, his blood alcohol was .27 or more, according to toxicology reports. But other than that, he wasn't on psychoactive substances. He'd been reported to police by a neighbor as having a gun and waving it around in a public housing project apartment. The apartment was that of Redwine's mother. There is some dispute over whether Redwine ever fired the gun -- some witnesses say he did, others say no.

According to Redwine's sister -- who was negotiating with her brother via cell phone -- Redwine was terrified to come out of the apartment once the police got there because he was afraid they were going to kill him. Which they did.

He would not be allowed to surrender, any more than James Boyd was allowed to surrender nine days before. The very act of attempting to surrender seems to be considered a terrorist threat by APD, and at least until recently, it has been taken as a reason for summary execution.

Witnesses claim that Redwine was not armed when he was shot and killed by an APD sniper, he was holding a cell phone and was attempting to talk to his sister who was urging him to come out of the apartment and surrender. The police claimed he was holding a gun and had fired at them when he was shot, but witnesses say that's a lie. There is no police video of the moment of the shooting from the point of view of the shooter, though there is video of the shots being fired, of Redwine on the ground after he was shot, and of the confrontation between Redwine's sister and police, but witness video is inconclusive regarding whether Redwine was armed or fired a weapon before he was shot. Redwine's sister says that the police found a gun in the apartment after they shot him, and that is the weapon they claim he fired at them just before they shot him. She and many other witnesses say he was holding nothing but a cell phone at the time he was shot.

Who is telling the truth?

The demonstration on Saturday was surveilled by undercover police officers, one of whom, according to KRQE reports, a crime intelligence unit sergeant, shot and wounded a suspect in 2012. In this interview with Rob Perry, Albuquerque CAO and "the man who oversees APD" Perry asserts many things, insults and disparages the interviewers, and claims that the only thing he knows the undercover officers filmed was an incident in which a protester was removed from the march -- or rally -- by march security, not the police.



Is he telling the truth?

Rob Perry is not known for his honesty, though he can be... forthright. Bullying. Disingenuous. Obstreperous. Rude. Condescending.

Dishonesty?

You decide.

Secret Agent Man

[Note: Johnny Rivers' "Secret Agent Man" was the opening music for the American broadcast of "Secret Agent", a popular British television program in the mid-1960s; this post is a parody of an episode of "Dragnet", a very popular American police drama which aired on both radio and television from the late 1940s into the mid '50s, and on television alone from about 1957 until 1959. It was revived for television several times after that, most recently in 2003. All photos used in this post, unless otherwise noted, are from David Correia's Twitter stream.]

It was hot in the City, Albuquerque, New Mexico, a place the travel brochures ought to say is "so close to Texas yet so far from God." A company of useless eaters was gathered in Roosevelt Park south of Central Avenue -- aka, the World Famous Route 66 -- to vent their spleens about an "end police brutality." I was working the day shift out of police intelligence. The name is Peck, Jason Peck. I carry a badge.

Useless eaters have meant trouble in the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, for as long as my partners and I have been cops. We look at ourselves as Human Waste Disposers. When a man needs killing, we take care of it. And when the undeserving go against the established order, it is up to us to learn their plans and to thwart their schemes.

V. B. Price Discusses Current Events of Interest to Burqueños and Others with David Correia

David has been very clear that he is not the "leader" of the coalition of community groups pressing for fundamental changes in APD and systemic reforms in the governance of Albuquerque. But he is a dynamic speaker and has been relentless in his pursuit of justice, dignity, community and peace.

What he has to say about his efforts and legal issues is of more than passing interest. On the other hand, he is not the only one with something to say about what's necessary.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Correia writes about the Albuquerque Spring in the Alibi

Reparative Justice

Assembling on the Mountainside where James Boyd was Executed

James Boyd was executed on March 16, 2014 behind the large rocks in the left of the picture. He'd made a makeshift campsite out of the view of people living down the hill or of most hikers who would mostly follow a trail on the left and go around the rock formation on their way up higher in the Sandias.

His campsite was his home. A home in the midst of extraordinary desert beauty, the sort of thing that captivates those of us who live in New Mexico, filled as it is with a wonderful, harsh majesty. Here in the Sandias, on the west face of the mountains from James Boyds' home-place/campsite, the view stretches gloriously for miles, over the dusty and gritty city of Albuquerque "all the way to California." Well, not quite that far, but plenty far, to Mt. Taylor, sacred to the Diné People, some eighty miles away.

I wanted to visit the site to pay my respects, but the hike was a bit too much for me. I have to content myself with the view up the hill, and the moving memorial service presented last night in a small clearing down below, just to the left, out of view in the picture.

About 50 people, not counting media, but including James Boyd's brother, attended last night's 3 Month Memorial to honor the memory of the man whose friends called "Abba." Those who knew him declared him to be a gentle, creative soul whose difficulties in life were due to a condition over which he had no control, and for which he received scant treatment. As one of the speakers, a legislator on the State Behavioral Health subcommittee, pointed out, in New Mexico -- as in many other places -- the most extensive "mental health care facilities" are the jails.

James Boyd's death didn't have to happen and it might not have happened had there been some means or someone available to intervene that tragic day in March when he was shot to death for being... different and difficult. There will be other rationales, there always are, for his summary execution on the hillside, but the main reasons, as is so often the case, were his difference and the difficulty of dealing with him through persuasion and threat.

One woman, whose name I didn't get, said she knew "Abba" casually, that she had met him one evening when she took her daughter up near his campsite "to see the stars" and he had greeted them with dignity and interest, and he had urged their caution up in the hills. She said she came to know something of his situation, and she could empathize because there was someone in her family who suffered schizophrenia, someone who, like "Abba" wished to harm no one, but only wanted the peace of solitude and the sky overhead and open country all around. She said she wished someone had known to call her when the confrontation that led to his death took place, for she would have gladly intervened and might have been able to prevent his death. She broke down in tears telling her story, as did many others. This affront to the conscience and the dignity of all of us did not have to happen.

But it did, and the consequences have reverberated around the world.

The consequences for Albuquerque and New Mexico have been severe. There are sporadic boycotts of the state's tourist industry, people refusing to vacation in New Mexico or to visit Albuquerque, people who express fear of what might happen to them if by some unfortunate chance or fate they are confronted by the local constabulary. There have been so many stories, and so many outrages, in many parts of New Mexico. The seemingly out of control police are part of New Mexico's lore and legend these days, and the sense that their potential for the arbitrary imposition of authority and use of deadly force to compel compliance, whether warranted or not, seems to be pervasive.

It's been said that police are not nearly as violent and deadly now as they once were, even with all the shootings of suspects that occur with such gut-wrenching regularity. No, it was worse in the past they say, and there was much more crime as well, but we forget. We see and hear of the nearly constant abuse and gunfire by police and we assume it's worse now than ever. Local news, especially, is focused, laser-like, on every report of crime, so it sometimes seems like we're swamped in a sea of criminality, and many fear they will become the victims of random criminals they just know are lying in wait for them. Crime statistics don't bear it out; violent crime is at the lowest point in generations, and the likelihood of any random individual being the victim of a violent criminal is slight. It's not as slight, though, as the chance of a police officer being killed or wounded by one of these criminals. Police officers are rarely killed or injured on the job, making police work one of the safest professions.

The police did not have to kill James Boyd, they didn't have to confront him with high-powered rifles pointed at his face, they didn't have to marshal a dozen or more officers in bullet-proof vests (oddly, few of the officers who confronted Boyd were uniformed; it's puzzled me from the get go.) They didn't have to have their dogs, their flash-bangs, their bean-bag rounds and their shotguns to fire them.)  None of it was necessary. James Boyd wasn't harming anyone and was not about to harm anyone. If it was necessary to get him off the mountain because he was camping illegally, practically anyone with a lick of sense and even modest skills at dealing with the homeless mentally ill in a non-threatening and non-confrontational manner might have been able to do it.

The police could not. They had neither the skills nor the desire. Instead, they precipitated and escalated a confrontation, making the situation much more threatening and frightening for Boyd than it should have been, and when Mr. Boyd finally agreed to go with them down the mountain, even though he feared for his life, someone had already given the order to execute him. As he gathered a few of his things and began to comply, he was subjected to a flash-bang grenade and a barking, snapping police dog, and as he turned away in fear, he was shot repeatedly by two officers with high powered rifles, shot in the back, shot in the arms, paralyzed. He fell, unable to move, and the dog bit him in the legs. He was shot three more times in the buttocks with bean bag rounds, and he was ordered to "drop the knives" even though he could no longer move his arms, and even though he was mortally wounded in the torso. The wounds of a suspect do not matter to police attempting to secure a scene. The wounded suspect must comply with commands even when unable to do so. The suspect is considered armed and dangerous, no matter his or her wounds, until and unless control over the suspect is complete. If the suspect bleeds out and dies, oh well. Too bad, so sad.

Police almost never express official repentance under these circumstances, though some are privately mortified and devastated. What happened to James "Abba" Boyd at that gorgeous site in the Sandia foothills that afternoon in March was a terrible thing, unconscionable any way you look at it, and many of those who spoke at his memorial last night wanted to ensure that his death was not in vain. They called out for justice, true, but for justice that made life better for others, not for revenge.

They didn't use the term but they were calling for Reparative or Restorative Justice. It couldn't bring back James Boyd, but if it could be done at all, it would honor his memory through the good works that could be done for others in his name.

The police did a terrible thing, an unconscionable thing, when they shot and killed James Boyd on March 16, 2014, and surely some of them understand -- in the abstract -- that what they did was "wrong." They're trained not to take responsibility for their actions, so it's quite possible that those who shot Boyd or fired grenades or loosed their dog on him have no sense of remorse and take no responsibility for their actions. They are inculcated with the belief that the victim is always to blame, that the police were only there to enforce the law, protect the peace.

Reparative justice usually isn't applied in cases of such violence. Its practitioners see it as a way to deal with minor and social crimes and affronts rather than with major incidents like this. It's much like the way I was trained in conflict resolution: CR is not an appropriate means of dealing with violent conflicts or acts of war. I thought at the time that this was an artificial and unnecessary restriction on the use of a valuable tactic for resolving conflict, and I wondered why practitioners were so reluctant. But that's a separate issue.

In the current situation of seemingly out of control police violence, such as the death of James Boyd, I kept thinking back to the efforts in Sacramento I was involved in almost 20 years ago to curb police brutality and change police culture from one a predatory and violent gang-like mentality and approach to their job to one of cooperation and commitment to dignity, justice, community and peace.

It was a big challenge, and the community came together in unexpected ways to ensure the challenge was met. It was met in part by a commitment to repairing damaged or forgotten relationships, to restoring trust, and to building community rather than destroying it.

Restorative justice, in other words, though the term wasn't used. The police weren't forced to admit wrong-doing, but they changed their ways. The public wasn't forced to submit unduly to police command, but they came to respect the police more and to cooperate with them to make a better community.

Complaints against police and the incidents of brutality and misconduct were reduced dramatically. Complaints were cut in half or more than that, and the incidents of police officers killing suspects or innocent bystanders were reduced to -- in some years -- zero.

It was a remarkable achievement. It took years, but it was done. It still needs work. Throughout the process of reforming the Sacramento Police Department, a parallel process was attempted with the county sheriff's department without much success. The sheriff was in charge of the jail and his deputies were charged with law enforcement outside the city limits, and they had developed an unrepentant and independent culture that included a good deal of "physical persuasion" that caused more than a few injuries and periodic deaths.

However, in recent years, a new sheriff, a man of considerable achievement, and I believe a man of honesty and good will, has set the department on a new path that is more in line with the practices of the city police department. Whether he will succeed, I don't know, but I know he's trying.

Albuquerque's situation is much more bloody to start with. Complaints in Sacramento focused on police brutality -- beatings, home invasions, false arrests and so on -- meant to intimidate and terrify residents, but rarely involving police killing suspects. It happened, but it was relatively rare. As I recall, a more frequent problem was police running down pedestrians and bystanders in their high-speed efforts to chase suspects or get to crime scenes. That, too, changed.

But in Albuquerque, the police are notorious not just for brutality but for numerous public, summary executions. They kill. They kill with appalling frequency and with more or less complete impunity. They are not charged, they are not even held to account, and some officers on the beat have more than one killing to their credit. Some are valued for their skills at killing. Their killing devastates families, disrupts and destroys communities, and it has brought scrutiny and disrepute to the city. The execution of James Boyd wasn't the last straw by any means, but it became the catalyst for upheaval and change.

What would reparative or restorative look like in this situation? I've only thought about it superficially, so what follows is sketchy at best, but it may be a starting point for further exploration.

There's a necessary pre-condition: an acknowledgement that the killing of James Boyd was wrong. There have been many previous financial settlements and court awards for previous killings by APD, and there is a suit for damages in process on behalf of James' family. Typically, the police and city do not admit wrongdoing, but they agree to pay substantial settlements to survivors nonetheless. These settlements and judgements, however, are not "reparative." They are acknowledgements of loss.

In a reparative system, once there is an acknowledgement of wrong, steps can be taken to repair the consequences, to set right what was wrong. I would look at the situation and suggest that part of setting right the wrong that was done would involve disarming every one of the officers who were part of the confrontation with James Boyd, and permanently disarming the ones who shot him as well as those who fired grenades and bean-bags. They may have been following protocol, but it was a wrong protocol under the circumstances, and they didn't think through what they were doing. They are not robots. They could have refrained and they could have restrained their colleagues. They didn't.

Thus they should not have access to weapons in the future, as they've shown they cannot use them responsibly in appropriate circumstances, circumstances which should be vanishingly rare in any case.

Not only should every officer involved in the confrontation be disarmed, and those who fired on Boyd in any way or shot and killed Boyd should be disarmed permanently, but their commanders and supervisors should be removed for cause: they didn't act responsibly, and they didn't provide the officers under their command with appropriate guidance and tools to do their jobs. We're not sure exactly who was in command, but those who were hold the ultimate responsibility for what happened to James Boyd, and if they were honorable, they would have resigned in shame. Since, so far as we know, they have not done so, they will have to be publicly identified and removed by other means.

Once those important steps are taken, the repairs can begin. We can think of what needs to be done. One thing that was mentioned at "Abba's" memorial was that he wasn't forced to live in the hills, he was there because he wanted to be there, because he loved being outdoors and he loved the Sandia foothills. He didn't want to bother anyone, he just wanted to feel independent and free. And yet someone who lives just down the hill from where Boyd was camping complained to the police, apparently calling several times after the police initially did nothing or didn't follow up.

This person needs to understand that his actions led directly to the death of someone who wasn't harming him or anyone else. Boyd may have been in violation of the camping regulations, but he was not a threat, nor was he intentionally causing any harm.

But the man who called police to complain of someone camping illegally in the foothills probably believed he had no alternative, that calling the police was the proper thing to do. And he probably had no intention at all that James Boyd would be killed as a consequence. So many people are killed by police because someone thought that the proper thing to do was to call the police to intervene or to help a loved one in distress. I've often said, "Don't call 911 in those cases unless it is clearly and obviously a medical emergency. Your loved one is likely to be killed, not helped otherwise."

The American 911 system does not provide "help" in too many situations. For whatever reason, many Americans believe it does -- or it should -- without the use of deadly force. And many Americans believe there is no alternative to calling 911; in many cases, they're right.

So part of reparative justice in this case must be the provision of alternatives. Camping illegally should not be subject to the death penalty, no matter how annoying the camper might be. Nor should a death squad be sent to deal with an illegal camper. Where were the alternatives? The resident who called felt he had none, the 911 dispatcher felt there was no alternative, the police felt they had none. Why? Why was the only option to send a literal death squad to root out this (terrorist?) camper?

What would have happened if someone skilled at dealing with mentally ill and homeless populations had been dispatched instead? James "Abba" Boyd was well known in the homeless community, he was well liked, even admired. Many, many people knew him and any of them might have been able to talk to him that day and help him to understand why his camping there was a problem and if there had been an acceptable alternative available for Boyd, they might well have been able to convince him to give up that campsite. But they didn't know till after he was dead that there was a problem they might have been able to alleviate.

On the other hand, what harm, really, was Boyd doing, apart from violating the regulations on camping? His camp was out of sight, it was well-cared for, it was his little bit of nature, and according to some who met him, he was acting as an informal host to those who came up the mountain. Who or what was he harming? No one and nothing, as far as I can see.

What would have happened if he had not only been allowed to stay, but he was given an informal position as a kind of host to those traveling that trail? What harm would be done? What joy might he have had, and how much might he have been able to share with hikers?

These are the kinds of alternatives that need to be built in to potential or real crisis situations. And these are the kinds of alternatives that can repair communities, can build and strengthen bonds and trust. These are very simple alternatives, sane and direct. They don't require massive bureaucracies and formal procedures. They're common sense.

Common sense? The preferred alternative, no?


Reparative justice of course involves a great deal more than these few suggestions. Repairing the harm done to Albuquerque's citizens by the police will take many efforts by many people of good will. There is a great deal of anguish to overcome. Many of the wounds are still fresh, and for some, they can never heal. But the efforts must be made, and what I saw and heard last night convinced me that the community is ready and willing. The question is whether the police and city administration are.
-------------------------------------------------
Some news reports to add to the mix:

KOB

KRQE

Albuquerque Journal

---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Jones, "Abba's" brother, honor's James Boyd's memory"

De-Legitimizing Authority and Reparative Justice

Albuquerque -- indeed, much of New Mexico -- has been going through a social and political crisis over the issue of the police use of firearms in so many confrontations with residents. There have been dozens of deaths in Albuquerque due to police gunfire. and about twice the number of those who have died have been wounded by police. No police officers have been killed by gunfire in Albuquerque since 2005, and only a handful have been wounded in such confrontations.

Statistics are similar in the rest of New Mexico.  Despite the fact that police declare themselves to be at such risk from the public at all times and in every way imaginable, and how their lives depend on their split-second decisions -- which often result in the deaths of residents -- police work is actually quite safe compared to most other professions, and residents are not shooting cops, nor are they trying to in any significant numbers.

It's quite the other way around. Police have taken to stalking residents, like Mary Hawkes, and gunning them down based on the suspect's non-compliance or attitude, and their perception that the suspect might be carrying or holding a weapon (let's say a gun, but it could be anything) and is a potential threat at some point in the future, either to the officer or to someone else... The officer who killed Mary Hawkes, for example, claimed that she "pointed a gun" at him -- and that's why he shot her to death, but many of those who knew Mary Hawkes say the story told by the officer is unlikely to be true, there is no video back up of the officer's story (somehow the video camera he wore and was supposed to turn on during his encounter with Mary Hawkes recorded nothing), and the gun he said she pointed at him was suspicious in and of itself, as it was not noted in first-responder videos of the scene, and it seemed to "appear" in the scene and move around quite a bit before being retrieved by investigators. Also, when the police chief held a news conference to justify the killing to the public, instead of the gun they said she had and which was recovered at the scene, he held up another gun, which he said was like the gun recovered at the scene. Close enough, eh? It was bizarre.

Many people suspect the gun Mary Hawkes supposedly had when she was shot and killed was a "throw-down," a weapon of convenience supplied by police to justify the killing, and the showing of a gun like the gun recovered at the scene was highly evocative of that practice. As there is no corroborating evidence, only the word of the officer involved, there's is no way to be sure, and the police like it that way. It allows for impunity, and impunity is something police seem to think is their right.

But impunity for anyone, but especially for those in positions of authority, is corrosive to society and leads to breakdown in social trust and cohesion. Ultimately, the breakdown of trust leads to the de-legitimization of authority.

Albuquerque is at that point now. The entire system of civic authority is under intense scrutiny and strain, and important parts of it have been de-legitimized in the eyes of a growing number of residents. The police are seen by many as an alien and militarized occupying force, out of control and running wild, threatening, brutalizing and killing with complete impunity. The city's governing and legal authorities -- the mayor and city council, the city administrator, the district attorney, the city attorney, and the police chief -- have faced numerous complaints about their disinterest (shall we say) in justice, and their unwavering support (well...) of police no matter what they do -- at least until recently -- and so, in turn, their authority has been de-legitimized in the eyes of many residents.

A growing community of activists have taken it upon themselves to help ensure that this process of de-legitimization of authority continues and is highlighted in the press and media, utilizing many well-known non-violent resistance and civil disobedience tactics. There have been many large and small demonstrations against police misconduct, many disruptions of the routines of power, many calls for justice and reform, many memorials for the dead, many pleas for redress of grievance.

Until very recently, the city and police administration were simply immune to any of this, indeed behaved as if it weren't happening at all, and city officials ostentatiously ignored the pleas of hurt and outraged residents. Even as tens of millions of dollars were paid out to victims and survivors of an out of control police force, the city maintained its disinterest in justice and denial of justice for those who had long been suffering at the hands of a militarized and deadly police force. 

As has been pointed out many times, complaints about police misconduct and routine shootings and killings have been piling up for many years, and apart from paying out tens of millions of dollars in settlements and court awards, the city made few and mostly futile efforts to reform and restrain policing. Many recommendations were made, some were adopted, few made any difference in the rate of killing and abuse by police.

Something more, and something else was needed.

A higher authority has stepped in. The Department of Justice civil rights division investigated and issued a scathing report in April of this year which found in essence that the Albuquerque Police Department has long engaged in a pattern and practice of "unconstitutional policing," and which cited the almost arbitrary use of weapons -- including gunfire -- against residents with no justification. It was a devastating report highlighting some of the worst abuses police engage in.

Its findings and recommendations became the basis for further demonstrations and de-legitimization of authority.

At least temporarily, the rate of killing seemed to increase, as if the police were in defiance of an authority greater than themselves. There has been no video evidence of any police killing in Albuquerque -- at least none released -- since the killing of James Boyd on March 16 which caused an international uproar.

That video showed a mentally ill homeless man, suspected of nothing more than illegal camping, confronted by a dozen or more heavily armed and threatening police who point high powered rifles at him throughout the confrontation, threatening him if he does not surrender, ordering him to obey, though he is terrified for his life under the circumstances, and believes he's done nothing to warrant this kind of over-reaction by the police. Eventually he agrees to surrender, and as he is doing so, a flash-bang grenade is fired at him, a police dog is loosed on him, and as he turns away to try to protect himself, two officers fire their rifles at him. Three bullets strike him; he falls, paralyzed, the dog bites him repeatedly, and three bean-bag round are fired at him from close range. He can't move, and yet he is repeatedly ordered to "drop the knives!!!" -- but both arms are essentially paralyzed from police gunfire, and he has a mortal wound in his torso. He physically can't comply. It matters not at all to the police who are only concerned with gaining his compliance -- whether or not he is capable of doing as commanded.

The video of this appalling incident was released by the police chief who sincerely believed it exonerated the police and provided justification for the killing. The public thought otherwise. International condemnation and revulsion soon followed. The police believed that because Boyd had two small knives in his possession at the time he was killed ("executed" has become a commonly used term) shooting him as he was turning away from their dog and a flash-bang grenade  was justified. He had... knives... and thus he was seen as an immanent and mortal threat to police, even though he had been trying to surrender up to the moment that the police fired the grenade and loosed the dog.

This was insane.

The police said that during the hours long confrontation, he had repeatedly threatened them, though he had no way to carry out his threats, and it was obvious to anyone with a lick of sense that he was pretty well out of his mind. He was never a serious threat to the officers or to anyone else, not even to himself.

Yet they killed him because they were afraid he might be a threat at some point.

Apparently, they figured that he was the greatest threat to them as he was surrendering, so they made a "split-second decision" -- police decisions are always "split-second" ones even in an hours-long confrontation like this one -- to execute Boyd so that he wouldn't become an actual threat to their safety.

In essence, they tricked him into surrendering so that they could kill him.

And initially, the police chief saw nothing wrong with it. No. Instead, the killing of James Boyd was justified in his mind because... ?

Because it never made sense to most of those who saw the video, the condemnation from around the world was swift and severe. Boyd had literally done nothing to warrant his execution, not by any sane standard, and the fact that the police chief claimed his killing was justified merely showed how very far off the rails our nation's policing culture -- and Albuquerque's police -- have gone.

This was not the first instance that people have seen for themselves what tragic consequences have come from a police culture focused on something other than their core mission -- supposedly to protect and serve. But an obvious question arises: protect and serve whom?

Not people like James Boyd, obviously. Not people like Mary Hawkes. We could go on and on and on and on naming the names of people who are not protected and not served by the police, and maybe we should do that, because when it comes down to it, the police protect and serve a very small fraction of the population. They prey on and sometimes kill everyone else.

This is nothing less than the Third World standard of policing. And for reasons of history and culture, this standard is most apparent in New Mexico and particularly in Albuquerque.

De-legitimizing this form of authority is necessary in order to change it. Authority will fight, as APD and the city administration are doing, even while making the pretense of compliance with an authority greater than themselves.

They are making cosmetic rather than substantive changes in order to appear to comply, much as the city administration and the police department of Oakland has been doing for more than a decade. They refuse to change their fundamental practices, practices which include the deliberate use of police violence against targeted populations and the protection of wealth and power at the expense of dignity and justice for everyone else.

The fight becomes more intense as authority is more and more de-legitimized. Typically, if nothing is prepared to take the place of a de-legitimized authority, the situation reverts to whatever the status quo ante was (this happened in Oakland), and progress is reversed, halted, or hamstrung, while lines and processes of authority are re-established. A cycle may then be established in which there is a constant circling of a point, but never a resolution.

The resolution, in my view, comes with the commitment to reparative or restorative justice.

I'll do another post on the process we went through in Sacramento for dealing with a police force that had become a danger to the public and how some important but modest reforms changed the way the police interacted with the public and the public responded to the police. The situation in Sacramento was not as bloody as it has been in Albuquerque, but the dynamics were very similar.

Come, Let Us Reason Together

The situation hasn't quite reached the Reasoning stage, but I sense it's getting there.

I went to the fundraiser/event up in El Dorado-Santa Fe that David Correia mentioned yesterday on the radio (Yesterday's program has not been uploaded yet). It struck me more as an informational get together for Santa Feans who may not be particularly current about what's going on regarding the actions against police violence in Albuquerque than it was a fundraiser -- although some money was raised.

David Correia spoke at length as did Mike Gomez (his unarmed son, Alan, was shot and killed by APD sniper Sean Wallace -- his third shoot, second fatality -- in 2010, and the Gomez family received a $900,000 settlement from the city last December). There was also a flutist named Karma Lama (video above) and a story-teller from New York named Regina Ress. It was a well rounded and spiritual evening.

David was arrested and charged with a felony on Monday at a sit in at the mayor's office and said he had to get permission from the court to travel outside Bernalillo County (ABQ) to come to this event.

Many of those in attendance (I'd guess there were 40 or so all in all) had experience as activists against police violence, as have I.  Information was shared widely. One had come from Taos and had been involved in the protests against the state police shooting at a van full of children, and there were others associated with Occupy Santa Fe (or is it (Un)Occupy? No one seemed to know...;-) and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition -- which is much more active in NM, it seems, than I can recall it being anywhere else, and which has been doing yeoman service on behalf of the movement. I believe about half of the 'Burque 13 arrested at the mayor's office on Monday were from the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition.

There was a lot of talk about media attention and how to create the conditions that cause -- or force -- change in the police culture in Albuquerque, and once that's done, how to spread those ideas well beyond ABQ. There was recognition that the problem of police violence is not unique to Albuquerque. National and international attention has been focused on Albuquerque because of the Boyd killing in March and the numerous demonstrations since then. But the problem is nationwide, and finding ways to address and correct it in Albuquerque is intended to lead to positive change in police culture around the country.

It's a daunting task, in part because of resistance by the police and the city's power elites. The police are openly defiant, deeply resentful, and frankly terrified of those they are supposed to be policing. The point was made that they are trained to believe everyone is armed, and they are taught to be afraid for their lives in almost every encounter -- which is part of the reason why they shoot so often. David refrained from going into the detailed history of APD, but he acknowledged that they see their role and position (and the risks they take) very differently than the public at large. He pointed out that many of those he met when he was in jail are terrified of the police, live in mortal fear of what they are capable of doing, and this mutual fear infects whole communities.

The police fear the public, and a significant portion of the public is terrified of the police.

It's an unsustainable situation.

Activists have been attempting to get the city to acknowledge the problem and change its ways for many years, but every previous reform effort (and there have been many) has either failed or had mixed results at best. The opportunity now for some kind of success is better than it has been for years, but there is still intense resistance by the city's entire power structure. They don't want to change, and if change is forced on them, they don't want those changes to be more than cosmetic.

The underlying problem is a deep and pervasive level of corruption that would expose many city officials, including police officers and higher ups, to criminal prosecution. The FBI and DoJ are -- apparently -- investigating that aspect of the problem as well as the matter of police violence itself. David mentioned that many police officers quit in disgust when they discovered just how corrupt the department is, and they've joined the activists advocating for change.

It was obvious to me, as it has been for some time, that these activists are clear headed, determined, and they are organized. They know what to do and they do it well. They have been able to disrupt and discommode the routines of the powerful, they have been able to de-legitimize authority within the city's administration, and they have kept the pressure on for months.

I wasn't able to provide them with a lot of financial support, but I contributed what I could. Money wasn't really the issue last night in any case. It was much more about community building, and that seemed to go darned well.




Note: there will be a demonstration and march in Albuquerque June 21 starting at 11am at Roosevelt Park.

(The moon hanging in the eastern sky as I drove home was magical too....)