Additionally, the Ferguson PD Report and the DoJ Failure to Find Fault With Brave Officer Wilson's Bravely Killing Michael Brown

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one-two punch.

The DoJ's scathing report [105 pg pdf] on the pattern and practices of unconstitutional policing in Ferguson, MO was released pretty much simultaneously with the failure of the DoJ to find fault [86 pg document file] with the killing of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson, the singularity which has led to months and months of protest actions all across the country, and what's called a "national conversation" about the problems of racist policing and violent cops.

Yes, indeed.

One scathing report after another; one policeman-killer after another allowed to walk free.

It's quite a pattern, and there are reasons for it.

The dissonance is deliberate.

Yes, the police in Ferguson and many other places around the country are racists and practice racist policing. There are so many places where this is true, we might say it is all but universal. Police best practices presume the guile and the guilt of an array of minority and poverty stricken sectors of the population as a matter of course.

Statistically, the crime and criminality of minority and poor sectors of the population appears to be a fact. Thus the presumption is said to be justified. But when the statistics are broken down, it becomes clear that the presumption of guile and guilt is self fulfilling in that police interest and action is concentrated in minority communities, poor communities, marginal communities, and in many cases, police create the crime they then suppress and profit from. It's all quite circular.

When the DoJ investigates and declares a police department to have a pattern and practice of "unconstitutional policing" -- including racist policing -- it is merely pointing to the obvious. In the case of Ferguson, nearly every complaint we've been hearing in the media about the FPD is validated by the DoJ report. The local police operate as a racket, extorting money from the people, primarily the black residents of Ferguson, to fund police and city operations. It's deliberate intent every step of the way. It involves violence as well as more subtle coercion. It's been going on a long time. It is racist at its core.

Anyone who's been following the story is not surprised by these findings. We've been hearing and reading about it for months. Anybody who is familiar with the way St. Louis and the County work is familiar with the patterns and practices detailed in the Ferguson report. It's the same throughout the County. It's monstrous. And according to the DoJ, it's unconstitutional.

On the other hand, the white folks are quite satisfied, it would seem, and want nothing to change.

Similar patterns and practices are found all over the country, but perhaps the most egregious examples are found in the South -- where cities and towns in many cases have always worked this way -- and in the Border regions, such as St. Louis and Baltimore and so forth.

I've been calling it "Negro Farming" for some time, the idea being that black residents of these towns and cities are regarded as a cash crop, to be farmed and harvested of whatever money can be squeezed out of them. That's their chief -- in many cases their only -- value to the Powers That Be, and they, like any other crop, have no say in the matter.

I was thinking about this the other day in the context of what I know about city managers and their thinking. I've only had experience in this field in Sacramento where working on reform of a violent (though not particularly murderous) police force required dealing with the city manager and his office. Like most other cities, the city manager of Sacramento is in charge of the police department.

What I learned very quickly is that the city manager's office categorizes the population according to their worth to the city -- ie: how much revenue they produce, or contrariwise, how much of a cost burden they are to the city.

The city manager's constant goal is to maximize the revenue value and minimize the cost burden of the population. They segment the population by district, by age, race and gender, by income, and by occupation -- among other categories. As a rule well off white people are considered "contributors" to the civic enterprise (oh, yes, the city is itself an "enterprise" with many subsidiary enterprises all of which are treated as revenue sources or cost burdens). Well off white people are considered contributors because they own property and/or businesses which are taxed, generally quite modestly, but taxed just the same. They produce a reliable revenue stream.

On the other hand, poor people, people of color, the marginal, the mentally ill, the addicted, and so forth are almost universally considered revenue drains, costs in other words, and in every civic enterprise I'm familiar with, costs must be contained -- unless there is an off-setting revenue stream. That stream can come from an outside source -- say state or federal funding for programs or prisons -- or it can be extracted through fines and so forth from the people themselves.

Because the revenues extracted in this manner are not generally reliable, however, the place of the people from whom it is extracted is never equivalent to that of well off white people whose revenue stream is much more reliable.

This is a very simple model of what goes on in most towns and cities where populations are routinely categorized according to their civic value.

But it is the basic model that underpins how Ferguson and surrounding cities treats their populations.

In this model, someone like Mike Brown has no value.

Someone like Darren Wilson does have value.

Thus the dissonance between condemnation of an unconstitutional pattern and practice of policing -- and the failure to find fault with Darren Wilson's actions that hot day in August 2014 when he shot and killed Mike Brown in the streets of Ferguson.

The pattern and practice of policing -- not just in Ferguson but generally -- is justifiably condemned as unconstitutional, but it is based on the civic value of individuals and population segments, and the lower the value, the greater the excuse for use of force, violence and death in dealing with them.

The problems come when the costs of use of force, violence and death outrun the revenues that can be derived from the force and violence. And that's happening in city after city.

Whether it will happen in Ferguson, I don't know. Immense efforts (and expenses) have been made to protect Darren Wilson throughout this episode, efforts and expenses which are continuing. I don't know why he is being protected this way, but he is. The various "exonerations" of his actions that have taken place appear to be intended to limit or eliminate any civil award Mike Brown's family might receive, but even that is not clear. Something is going on behind the scenes in which Darren Wilson is seen as a victim somehow, whereas Mike Brown is being cast as the perpetrator. This has been going on since the killing itself. What actually happened and why is not as important as the narrative competition that's been produced. It's as if Wilson and Brown are proxies for a police/civilian culture clash that can only be resolved in favor of the police.

This is something to keep in mind: DoJ is always going to favor the police, even when they issue their scathing reports. In fact, police departments routinely defy these reports and recommendations. It's cultural. And DoJ has no independent enforcement power over police conduct. Any enforcement must come through the courts, and the courts have almost no enforcement powers independent of the police they are attempting to reform.

Consequently, if the police want to -- or they are directed to by their city managers and police chiefs -- they can and do ignore and defy these scathing reports and recommendations.

DoJ will let them get away with it, may even encourage it clandestinely.

We see it right up front with the Ferguson report and the Wilson matter: clean up your act (if you want) but no one will fault you for killing black people.

Reform itself is not enough.

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...

Policing the Policing Crisis in Albuquerque

[On the way to the meeting yesterday, I passed a wreck in the middle of an intersection. A motorcycle lay mangled in the road, ambulances were assembled, and there were at least half a dozen police engaged with traffic control and assisting the injured. It was a common enough scene in Albuquerque -- as the "best drivers" tend to congregate here -- but it was in stark contrast to the generally negative view so many people have of the APD. Just wanted to make that note...]

The Department of Justice released a scathing report on the unconstitutional policing practices of the Albuquerque Police Department on April 10, and ever since there have been numerous community meetings and actions to attempt to address those findings and rein in a police department that has become a militarized gang -- or at least has been perceived as one by large parts of the Albuquerque community.

Perhaps the most poignant moment of last night's meeting came at the end, when the 6 year old nephew of Kendall Carroll -- shot to death by a State Police sniper, but fired on by APD -- got up before the stragglers in the audience and said very simply: "Why did they shoot my uncle?"

His mother, Kendall Carroll's sister, testified earlier that her she and her son were traumatized by what had happened that afternoon, that they would never get over it, and her son was terrified of police, and he shouldn't be, no one should be. She said, "They shot the wrong brother, and they don't care. It's nothing to them." She wore a hoodie with the bold statement on the back, "Fuck the APD." Her brother was shot and killed by NM State Police sniper Shane Todd, who would later be deployed not far from my own home out in the country where he shot and killed Ernest Attebery who was alleged to have exchanged gunfire with police, but who it was later determined had not fired on police. I understand better now why even the sheriff of the county, who believed the situation was under control, was shocked that the State Police sniper had killed the suspect. Just as Kendall Carroll's family is still in shock that the same sniper killed "the wrong brother" in Albuquerque in March of 2013.

Half the country is asking "What in the world is going on out there?"

Good question.

There is no simple answer. Attempts have been made for decades to get control of the slaughter by local police, but all have so far failed. Those who seek simple answers say it is all about race, and it isn't. There is a racial component in that the poor, the homeless, and the underserved mentally ill fall victim to policing practices that lead to their deaths, and in Albuquerque, like most other cities, the poor, the homeless and the underserved mentally ill are disproportionately from minority communities. But racism and racial profiling are not the sole motivation -- nor, in my view, are they even the major motivation -- for the bloody record of the APD and other NM police forces.

No, there's something else going on.

Some of those who testified last night pointed to what it may be.

For one thing, the mayor does not attend these meetings, nor does he attend City Council meetings. Two members of the council did attend last night, at least for a while, but the mayor's priorities do not include -- and apparently have never included -- dealing with the public or even hearing the public on matters of police abuse and murder as detailed by the hundreds who have attended these and other meetings and who have marched and protested the continued use of deadly force by APD.

"He doesn't care."

Mayor Richard Berry has long defended the APD's policies and use of deadly force, and he did so right up to the shocking execution of James Boyd in the Sandia foothills. That incident, in which a mentally disturbed individual was shot six times in the back as he was surrendering, was then shot three more times with beanbags as he lay bleeding out on the ground, and then was attacked repeatedly by a police dog before he died, seemed to momentarily alert Berry to the fact that there might actually be something wrong with APD's policies and practices.

He called the Boyd shooting a "game changer."

Protests mounted, but the shooting and killing went on, and finally, the DoJ report was issued, condemning the APD for its pattern of actions which clearly violated the Constitution and which required immediate remedy.

But the shooting and killing still goes on.

Nothing seems to stop it, and the mayor doesn't honestly seem to care at all. Nor does the police chief.

If they did, the shooting and the killing might have been significantly reduced or stopped altogether long ago.

But instead, it continues, as if nothing has changed, no DoJ report had been issued condemning the actions of the APD, no protests had taken place, no world wide revulsion at what has been going on in Albuquerque for years had arisen.

Nothing seems to have penetrated the shells of denial and disinterest of Albuquerque's powers that be.

Even when one of their own children is killed by police, they don't seem to care. Not enough, at any rate, to penetrate their denial and demand change.

During the meeting yesterday, I was sitting next to a woman whose grandson had been shot and killed by police in Los Lunas a few days before; in 1988 her nephew had been shot and killed by Albuquerque police. Both, she said, had suffered from PTSD -- a common enough complaint among those gathered to hear one another's testimony -- and neither deserved to be killed.

She struck me as a level-headed, heavy-hearted grandmother as so many of the speakers last night did. Even the younger speakers were so very heavy of heart for having lost a loved one or having been subjected to police abuse and misconduct, whether simply being intimidated by officers' rage and threats, or being bludgeoned or gassed or injured and trussed up while medical care was denied.

One man spoke eloquently of his son, a military veteran and victim of PTSD, who had been shot in the arm by a drive-by assailant -- an assailant known to both the police and the victim. When assistance was called for, medical aid was denied to the shooting victim by the police. Even family members who tried to render aid were forbidden to do so and one was arrested for trying.

The assailant was identified but never charged. The man wondered if his son had been targeted for death by the police.

And so it was with so many. They were sad, they were angry, they were frightened, they were determined.

Even if they hadn't lost a loved one to police violence, they knew, they knew. They felt the pain, they felt the loss of those who did.

One of the organizers of the protests and a major factor in the entire endeavor to bring the APD to account, DinahVargas, explained how she had become radicalized toward police violence. She said she'd only known what she saw on the teevee, and every time the police shot someone, she noticed that there was an almost immediate campaign of vilification and demonization by the police and the media regarding whoever had been shot this time. They were always "druggies with long criminal records and tattoos," and she said she thought, "Wait, I have tattoos..." And she went to a protest and she got to know some of the people who'd been shot or abused by the police or whose loved ones had been killed, and she realized they were mostly just ordinary people who'd been caught up in madness, and she knew it was wrong, it couldn't be right. These were her friends and neighbors, her own family, her grandparents, herself. They weren't demons, they were people. They were people who'd been horribly abused and some had been killed by members of a police department which never, ever found any of the killings unjustified.

Ever.

But it's more than just the police. It's an entire governing system and a system of authority in which accountability for actions is only valid downward. A police review commission was established, and when they tried to do some independent investigations to find out basic information about police abuse in Albuquerque, they were thwarted at every turn by the City Attorney and the District Attorney who told them quite simply that they didn't have any authority but to agree with the police's own investigations.

The Mayor, the City Administrator and the Police Chief are notorious for stonewalling, lying, sidestepping, and avoiding anything to do with police accountability.

The power structure of Albuquerque clearly likes things just the way they are and will resist any effort to change. 


The DoJ held these meetings in order to assemble public input to use in a consent decree by which the City and the APD would agree to certain specific reforms and a timetable for their accomplishment.

Many of those at the meeting have long insisted that the only way to accomplish real and lasting reform is to put APD under direct DoJ supervision, and to replace all the current brass -- and to jail those officers who have used egregious deadly force.

V. B. Price has suggested the only way forward may be to abolish APD and start over (a suggestion I tend to think is correct, but one that is unlikely to get anywhere.)

Too many people have been hurt too badly for too long for the situation to become stable as is. There is a movement afoot to recall the mayor and the district attorney and to fire the Independent Review Officer of the Police Oversight Commission. The commission itself has essentially disbanded as it's seen its efforts consistently interfered with by the Mayor's Office and the City Attorney.

Yet the killing goes on -- and on and on.

The killing goes on because the powers that be want it that way. Their minds must be changed for an effective change to occur in the Albuquerque Police Department.

Until that happens, we're going to be subject to a continuation of the Wild West mentality, where anything goes -- until a stop is put to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some resources:

 http://fnsnews.nmsu.edu/

October 22 Coaliton Photos

Life in Albuquerque: Another Police Shooting, Another Community Meeting, Another Candlelight Vigil

From 2012 -- Rally Against Police Violence  (These people are still vital to the movement.)

Dispatches from the DoJ Meetings Part 2 (Brief description of the meeting I attended)

V. B. Price: Unconstitutional

DoJ and the Policing Crisis in Albuquerque

I attended the DoJ's third community meeting regarding the policing crisis in Albuquerque last night, and I will have more to say about it as soon as I can get something coherent written.

It was an opportunity for me to listen and learn and to get to know some of the people who have been part of the movement to take back the city from its rogue police department and the powers that be which have enabled it.

The testimony that I heard from some of the participants who had lost loved ones to police bullets was wrenching to say the least. The distrust and sense of betrayal that people felt was palpable.

At this point, it's really hard to say whether Albuquerque's power structure can accommodate the interests of the people of the city. In other, similar, situations -- such as Oakland or Seattle -- it's not at all clear that the PTB ever relented or that the police have ever changed their behavior.

But it was clear last night that the people of Albuquerque are not going to let this go.

DoJ Press Conference on APD Findings

Livestream...

Class, Prejudice and Outrage in Albuquerque

I watched most of the evening's doings at the Albuquerque City Council meeting last night (on live video, not in person, as we are quite a ways out in the country and all). The meeting was primarily dedicated to hearing from citizens regarding their feelings about the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) and the recent events in which several individuals were killed by police, most notably James Boyd as he was surrendering up in the Sandia foothills after a several hour standoff. The video of that incident has gone viral around the nation and the world. It seemed to me that the Council was primarily interested in dealing with the public relations disaster that ensued, but, as I usually do, I gave the electeds the benefit of the doubt, as it seemed some of them were actually interested in hearing from the public whatever ideas they might have for correcting the situation.

However, it was pointed out very early that the Mayor had "an important meeting" elsewhere and so would not be attending this Council meeting. Interesting. Also, during the meeting, there was a statement from one of the public participants that the AP had just announced that the DoJ's long-awaited report on APD's actions would be released on Thursday. 

At some point, the newly installed -- and rather bumbling -- police chief, Gorden Eden, made an appearance at the back of the room, where apparently he stayed at least as long as I watched, until about 10pm.

The meeting was well attended -- a full house in the Council chambers (241 capacity), and many watching a live feed outside the room on the plaza in front of the government building and apparently in an overflow room as well. It was anticipated that there would be a large crowd for the meeting, and so there was, but from what I could tell, the numbers were not in the "thousands" as had been suggested by some advocates might attend. My estimate is around 500, but I wasn't there, so that's more a guess than I would like it to be.

Quite a few of the speakers were relatives of those who had been killed by police in Albuquerque over the years, and some reported on their own experiences in police custody. There were reports of incidents of police misconduct and brutality going back to the '60s and '70s, the upshot being that "this is nothing new," the APD has always been a sketchy outfit and brutal at best.

I don't know what to say about that. I'm not familiar with what went on in the more distant past, but I did a little research about the Roosevelt Park riots (1971), and indeed, what happened seemed so familiar considering what has been in the news lately. Except for one thing: Crowds don't seem to riot any more. Despite the chief's hyperbole about "mobs" at one of the protest demonstrations against police misconduct and brutality recently, there were no riots.

There were several references to police infiltration, misconduct and brutality during the anti-war protests in 2003, but none about police brutality toward (Un)Occupy demonstrations in 2011 and 2012.

Most of those who spoke were upset with police misconduct and excessive use of force and weapons in Albuquerque, though there were a few speakers who justified and supported practically anything the APD wanted to do. Some of them were current or ex-police officers. I noted that the defense of police actions -- such as the shooting of James Boyd which touched off this latest round of protests against the APD -- often pivots on definition of terms; keep re-defining "justified" for example, and you can justify anything at all. And that's what many police defenders do. Whatever the police do to civilians is "justified" by re-definition. It's bizarre, but it's what happens.

What was clear to me from the testimony last night was that class and prejudice enters into police actions so often as to be definitive. As one speaker pointed out, you don't hear about police shootings in the Northeast Heights. That's because they don't happen there, or in any of the well-off enclaves that dot the Albuquerque Metro area. The police shoot to kill in poor neighborhoods, and their targets are often young, poor white, black or brown men with sketchy backgrounds, often homeless, often struggling with mental illness and/or substance abuse issues.

I believe one of the speakers pointed out that of the 23 men killed by police in the past four years, 11 were clinically mentally ill. There was little or no treatment available for many of them, little or no safety, little or no effort made to keep them out of trouble or out of the line of police fire.

Mental health care services and social services for Albuquerque's growing cohorts of poor, homeless, mentally ill, and substance abusers were broken or absent altogether, and the APD, when called on, too often used lethal force where there was little or no danger to themselves. They got away with it, too, because the men they shot and killed were "the least among us."

The killing of James Boyd was a last straw. He was well known to social service workers and to the police. Despite obvious need, there was no help for him. He was just being cycled between jail and homeless shelter, with occasional interludes at a mental health facility. But he was on his own much more than not, and he was shot and killed because he was trying to survive away from the people who had simply rejected him or couldn't offer him anything.

There are thousands of homeless in Albuquerque, many tens of thousands of poor people, many of them young or youngish, many barely getting by or desperate. These are the people the APD concentrates their force on, and these are the people they shoot and too often kill. Some have extensive criminal backgrounds, but often enough, they are "criminals" for being homeless, for being young, sassy, black or brown, or because they use drugs or get drunk.

The APD is trained to persecute these people. There was testimony from poor, homeless, brown and black people who went through "living hell" from the Albuquerque police because of their status, their color, their location.

It's a a prejudice the police are trained to act on.

And it's not just in Albuquerque.

As more and more Americans are forced into poverty by the endless recession, more and more Americans face this kind of gross prejudice by authority, prejudice based on status, or rather lack of it.

The outrage felt by so many Burqueños is based on long and in many cases very cruel experience. Many said they had been warning the council and the mayor's office for years about the dangerous behavior of the police, and they had been advocating reform after reform, but nothing was done. They were ignored. And now this.

There were a number of representatives of A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which has been in the forefront of police misconduct protests in Albuquerque. I haven't seen them on parade since the Anti-Iraq-War protests which they organized and implemented on an enormous but ultimately ineffective scale.

In concert with Anonymous, the members of the coalition who testified last night issued the following demands:

1) We demand an immediate takeover of APD by the D.O.J.

The recent outrageous and disgraceful shooting of James Boyd by the APD clearly demonstrates that the Chief of Police and his subordinate commanders are unable or unwilling to do anything to address the ongoing excessive use of force and disregard for human life by APD officers.  It is simply imperative that the D.O.J. step in immediately and assume control of APD in order to prevent further abuses.  Whether by consent decree, some type of federal receivership or otherwise, immediate D.O.J. intervention is critical.

2)  We demand authentic and verified citizen oversight of APD to include the authority over hiring and firing (and discipline) of APD leadership and officers.  Once again, the Chief of Police and his subordinate commanders have demonstrated a complete lack of authority/ability in supervising and, where necessary, disciplining and/or dismissing officers who continue to perpetrate abuses of force.  Over the last several years officers have learned that they are free to utilize excessive use of force and that their actions will always be determined justifiable.

3)  We demand the immediate arrest of the officers who participated in the shooting and killing of James Boyd, particularly the two identified shooters. These officers are entitled to the same constitutional protections we all have but they must be arrested and charged just as we ordinary citizens would have been had we surrounded and shot Mr. Boyd.

4)  We demand the immediate termination of Chief Eden.  Despite his assurances of appropriate discipline if and when necessary which he promised when he was appointed, the Chief has clearly shown that his tenure as police Chief is simply going to be more of the same business as usual when it comes down to justifying actions of his officers.  Different name, different face, same result.

5)  We further demand indictments of all officers who have been guilty of violating citizen rights.  

It is time to bring charges against all of the officers who have engaged in excessive use of force cases over the last several years and let them face the same charges and prosecution we would be facing.  Officers cannot be allowed to escape above the law simply because they wear a badge.  In fact, they should be held to a higher standard, not a lesser more lenient standard.

6) We demand the demilitarization of APD.  We have become dismayed and disgusted with the new, modern 'look' of our APD officers.  These officers appear to enjoy strutting about in their tough muscle cars and showing off their modern tactical weapons including high powered rifles, and assault type, almost military looking uniforms, including helmets and bullet-proof vests.  They seem to enjoy the opportunity to roll out their armed assault vehicles.  One recent event involved an officer who arrived late at a police scene and exclaimed that he was sorry he has arrived late and wasn't going to be able to try out his new toy "i.e. his assault rifle.

7)  We demand an increase of funding for social services including substance abuse prevention and treatment, preventing homelessness and an acknowledgement that each of us is entitled to housing, shelter and the peaceful enjoyment of our city.  A redirection of funding from police weaponry and tactical training to social services will certainly go a long way in reducing the confrontations between the police and the homeless in our City.  Similarly, substance abuse treatment will reduce the crime rate which leads to violent confrontations.

8)  We demand a new vigorous investigation of the APD hiring practices.  We hae learned that APD recently lowered minimum standards for new officers and is not requiring lateral transfers to undergo background checks and psychological exams.  This has resulted in a rash of 'reject' officers from other jurisdictions finding a home in APD.  There was a reason these rejects were let go by their departments.  How can we believe they will no longer be problem officers?

9)  We demand that access to deadly weapons by APD officers be dramatically reduced.  As mentioned in demand number 6 there is too much emphasis on more modern, more tactical weapons.  Officers place more and more emphasis on newer more deadly weapons.  This has resulted in more officer involved shootings and overkill where the victims are not just shot once or twice but multiple shots.

10) We demand authentic and verifiable policing that puts positive police-community relationships ahead of violent confrontation.  Clearly officers and citizens are both better served and safer when they can work together in collaborative rather than a confrontational fashion.  What has happened to 'community based policing?' This is a term we never hear anymore.

11)  We demand a non-police emergency response of trained mental health professionals and crisis negotiators who can be called upon at all encounters that carry the potential for possible use of deadly force.  Especially in situations like that which led to the killing of James Boyd, there was plenty of time to bring in trained crisis intervention personnel to help defuse rather than escalate the situation.

12)  We call upon those police officers who recognize the problem of the police violence to publicly support these demands.  In spite of the many problem officers within APD, we acknowledge those officers who are just as disgusted as we are with the outrage which have occurred.  We call upon these officers to stand up and be counted in taking a stand for sound and rational police practices designed to serve and protect the citizens.

13)  We demand that the city counsel adopt the Police Oversight Task Force's recommendations for police oversight immediately and without amendment or alteration. These recommendations are well thought out and reasoned approaches to the problems we are facing.  These recommendations must not be diluted or watered down so that they become ineffective.

14)  We demand immediate and ongoing medical evaluation of all APD officers to determine their mental fitness to carry a weapon and serve as a police officer.  As mentioned in demand number 8, we insist that APD reinstate previous screening procedures designed to identify and weed-out potentially problem officers.  These procedures are already in place, they have not been enforced during the last few years.

The council accepted the Police Oversight Task Force's report at last night's meeting, but what will become of it is anyone's guess. There have been many reports over the years, none have made much difference. The problem with the APD is inbred in its culture, and is reinforced by leadership. There were calls for the immediate resignation of the police chief and the mayor, but the council pointed out that the city's Chief Administrative Officer is actually the one who has authority over the police. Some called for his resignation as well, but the council was at some pains to assure the public that they had very little actual authority over the police and their conduct. They pointed out they only had policy and budget authority, not operations authority. Some wags responded that "policy and budget" are two of the chief ways to control the police department, but that seemed to go right over the council's head.

I was curious about whether this would be as raucous a meeting as I'd witnessed in Oakland, but it wasn't. It was far more polite.

But the mayor wasn't there, and the police chief stayed in the background. How it will all turn out remains to be seen.