Albuquerque police still an issue, protesters takeover city council meeting.

Just when people began to take a stand against the out of control cops in Albuquerque, the Bundy ranch situation got our attention.

But the people of Albuquerque have not forgotten.

As usual, the politicians were spewing the same old talking points, "we cant get anything done if the meeting is disrupted".

The Albuquerque police department has been on a killing spree for a long time. If the town council really wanted to do something, they had plenty of time to do so.

People are fed up.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Someone said not too long ago that if things got started in this country it would start in Albuquerque.

The police there in New Mexico seem very well out of hand and I am glad the people of Albuquerque are standing up for their constitutional rights. Hopefully they can make a difference in their city and get the police department there back under control. Maintaining the rights of people while enforcing the law is very important. We have rights for a reason and they should never be infringed upon.

There have been

37 officer-involved shootings in the past four years in Albuquerque. Twenty-three of them have been fatal.

Since the writing of the above article more have been killed.

New York City is the size of about 15 Albuquerques; it saw almost the exact same number of deadly officer-involved shootings, at 25.

www.esquire.com...

37 shootings, 23 of them fatal

How many of these were criminals cought in the act?

I ask cause acording to threads on ATS lately it is OK to shoot first and ask later(kill) criminals caught in the act as they could "potentionally be very dangerous", these killings done by civilians protecting them self.

So in that sense why is it wrong when the police are doing it if they are protecting them self, colleagues or citizens?

I know, they shot that homeless guy and that was exstremly overreacting on a "potentionally harmless situation".

But beoyned that case what are the other stories and situation and why are is it not allright for the police to act like that when it is ok for civilians "in a potentionally dangerous situation".

My opinion and questions is seen from the standpoint in here and not from the protesting people in Albuquerque.

I mean...

Last week, Albuquerque police fatally shot a man at a public housing complex. Authorities said he shot at officers before they returned fire.

a reply to: Mianeye

This is the Justice Department's conclusion concerning the Albuquerque New Mexico police department. Police officers are being caught lying, or with changing stories concerning many of these instances.

Two weeks ago, the Justice Department concluded that the city's officers were too quick to resort to lethal force and unnecessarily put themselves in precarious situations. Federal and local officials are working on a plan to keep the department under watch and improve training for officers.

articles.latimes.com...

A release issued by the DOJ Thursday said the investigation found three patterns of excessive force used by APD officers.

APD officers too frequently use deadly force against people who pose a minimal threat, and in situations where the conduct of the officers heightens the danger and contributes to the need to use force.

APD officers use less lethal force, including electronic controlled weapons, on people who are passively resisting, non-threatening, observably unable to comply with orders or pose only a minimal threat to the officers.

Encounters between APD officers and persons with mental illness and in crisis too frequently result in a use of force or a higher level of force than necessary.

www.cbsnews.com...


This is an actual and very real problem. The people have asked the city council to do something about it and they have not been able (or willing) to put a stop to this problem. I think the people of the city of Albuquerque have a right to feel very fed up.

Not only that but there are many scandals, one concerning tasers and a contract with the company, that is concerning for people who want their police and city leaders to be honest and upright.

a reply to: OpinionatedB
Well, thats cool and all, i guess it's somehow justified in that case.

In the end of the article is a little sentence that i would like to ad to my questions above, it's very telling.

"Some of them are simply not to fit to make split-second decisions about life and death,"

Shouldent that go for a citizen to.

a reply to: Mianeye


This is also why we have legal process, generally speaking.

ETA:
It does seem like you are trying to make Albuquerque and what's happening there into something else, or about something else, and since this thread is about the police department in Albuquerque I would like to add we should be staying on topic.

a reply to: Mianeye

When a person opens fire on an intruder in their home, they are defending their lives and their property from someone who has already indicated that their intentions are criminal by the act of breaking and entering, which often preceeds a violent offense statistically speaking, assuming the occupant is at home at the time. A homeowner should be under no obligation to consider much beyond their own safety in that scenario.

When the police arrive, the shooter will be questioned, extensively and usually arrested, purely because they have taken a life and there is a procedure to follow for that. Their statement will be taken, and if there are criminal proceedings pending as a result of it, used in evidence against them. Assuming that their statement is a true accounting of the facts of the case, and that the prosecutor feels that there is no reason to suppose any different given the evidence they may not be formally charged, or if there is, it will go to court. When the case reaches court, the whole process becomes a matter of judge and jury, with the pitfalls so associated.

However, when a police officer shoots someone, they do it from a position of being trained in both armed and unarmed methods of neutralising threats, being paid to discharge their duty toward the public, and toward the law in a rigorous and dutiful manner. Shooting unarmed people having all that training at their back, is an entirely different propositon in terms of meaning, than a largely untrained individual whose only option for response may be a pistol shot or a shotgun blast. An 80 year old woman shooting invaders in her home, is, and SHOULD be judged far differently than someone who has trained to deal with violence as a part of their job, and has been doing so for the length of their career, not to mention is fit and healthy enough to be able to do that job.

Put simply, a two hundred pound twenty five to forty year old male or female, with training and expertise, not to mention a belt full of options, should be able to account for themselves with more thought and compassion, than a woman who can barely walk a mile without hobbling, or lift her shopping without getting a sore arm, and has a pistol or a walking stick as her main options for response.

If more explanation is required than that, then there is nothing more that can be done to show you why the two situations are very often entirely different, in the same way as apples and oranges are.

a reply to: Mianeye

a citizen of Albequerque might find it prudent to shoot first, given the reputation of the department there. But who knows.

But your analogy doesn't work. Police are out cruising the streets looking for trouble. Meanwhile, Joe Public sits at home watching TV and talking to the wife about when the electric bill is due. If a person enters their immediate area behaving in a threatening manner....you DO see the difference between the officer out engaging others and the guy sitting in the presumed safety of his own home, right?

originally posted by: Mianeye
How many of these were criminals cought in the act?

The problem in the USA is that too many people shoot first and ask questions later. The Police all across the USA are trigger happy, they see themselves as judge, jury and executioner. In a country where police are supposed to protect and serve by permission of the population, this is just not acceptable.

America has a legal system where guilt is supposed to be asserted and punishment delivered, but the police there have completely missed out on this very simple aspect. To them, EVERY SINGLE PERSON they deal with is innocent, until PROVEN GUILTY by the legal process.

NO cop has a right to pull the trigger against an innocent person, unless that person is a direct and present threat to the lives of others. This should only happen in extreme instances, such as a hostage situation or a violent crime underway.

There is absolutely no reason for them shooting an unarmed man, even a man with a knife. There's no justification for it at all. These are trained, armed and protected men and women who know that their job is dangerous, screaming and shooting to kill someone because they blink in the wrong direction and then claiming they were "threatened" is so far beyond lunacy it's unreal.

I hope the people keep the pressure on, and get every single one of those thug cops fired, and those responsible for deaths imprisoned. Good luck to them, they're gonna need it if what I've read about the uniformed "mafia" in that state is true.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Lol, i was not talking about the 80 year old women, i was asking the flood of members who said they to would shoot on sight if someone broke in to their home, you know..."Some of them are simply not to fit to make split-second decisions about life and death,".

I mean on ATS the people who scream "police state" in a police kill are the same people who say "justice" in a citizen kill, but in reality they are no different, especialy if you take the above qoute in to equation, so therefore i added my question to this thread.

Btw: i'm not trying to derail the thread, so if it's to oftopic let the mods take care of it.

And also i agree with these protesters that lethal force seems out of controll, though i'm not sure i agree with the way they protest if they are like that every time.

a reply to: Mianeye

Your comparing apples to oranges. If someone broke into a cops house they would most certainly face death in doing so. A cop showing up on a call and shooting someone is entirely different.

In the first instance you have seconds to react to someone breaking into your home. Doesn't matter why they are inside your home, they entered forcibly and illegally, it is obvious they are there with ill intent.

In the second scenario the police are supposed to be there to "protect and serve" which means they are supposed to arrive on scene and diffuse a situation that could possibly become escalated, not show up and shoot someone and then go for coffee.

A citizen cannot roll up on a situation that they deem worthy and just shoot people and get away with it. What you are referring to is the case of the 80 year old woman as much as you would like to deny it.

a reply to: Mianeye

It matters not one whit whether a homeowner or occupant is 18 or 80 really. The crucial difference is training. A citizen reacting to an intruder in their house is not, and should not be expected to defuse a potentially dangerous situation, because they are not ordinarily trained for that situation, and their reactions to it therefore are expected to be less than ideal. In that scenario the best you can hope for is that if someone is to die today, it is not the victim of the home invasion, but the perpatrator.

The difference being, that a police person has been trained in unarmed techniques for disarming and neutralising dangerous persons, and has training which should enable them to be more circumspect when a situation forces them to draw their weapons, than to shoot an unarmed person. This coupled with the fact that they are given broad powers to act in matters which affect human lives, mean that they have a greater responsibility in such circumstances as those in question, than would be placed upon an untrained person, defending their home and family.

Beautiful, that was just absolutely beautiful. More!

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Mianeye

a citizen of Albequerque might find it prudent to shoot first, given the reputation of the department there. But who knows.

This guy does.

I'm not getting into a discussion about guns, it wears me out. The APD have something wrong with them and I'm guessing it's the labor pool. The best they can get seem to be rejects.

a reply to: DeepImpactX

Well when your courts tell you that smart cops should be barred from the force......this is what you get.

High IQ's Barred

ABQ has just over 1,000 officers.

ABQ has a population of 555,000.

The answer is staring them in the face. Just take over the police station and hang them by their necks from the streetlights for all the other corrupt departments to see.

originally posted by: Mianeye

37 shootings, 23 of them fatal

How many of these were criminals cought in the act?

I ask cause acording to threads on ATS lately it is OK to shoot first and ask later(kill) criminals caught in the act as they could "potentionally be very dangerous", these killings done by civilians protecting them self.

So in that sense why is it wrong when the police are doing it if they are protecting them self, colleagues or citizens?

I know, they shot that homeless guy and that was exstremly overreacting on a "potentionally harmless situation".

But beoyned that case what are the other stories and situation and why are is it not allright for the police to act like that when it is ok for civilians "in a potentionally dangerous situation".

My opinion and questions is seen from the standpoint in here and not from the protesting people in Albuquerque.

I mean...

Last week, Albuquerque police fatally shot a man at a public housing complex. Authorities said he shot at officers before they returned fire.

Difference is that the police are not shooting people breaking into their homes. And the police are supposed to be trained to deal with this kind of thing with other ways. If not they would be given only a shooting class and told to always shoot. They would not be given any type of self defense training or things like that
I thought that pulling your service weapon was the last resort.
But when they shoot old people in bed and 90 pound kids I think we all see that is not the case.

a reply to: DeepImpactX

Leadership.

Men are made to be led. It is the way we are wired. Good leadership stops this kind of nonsense. Lazy leadership allows the inmates to run the asylum.

I have seen the same people, under different leadership, make such ridiculous improvements that it has left an impression on me for life, and changed my view on leadership in my job. Same thing applies. The officers are just humans needing to be led.

It's a sad state of affairs when the citizens are more afraid of being killed by the cops than criminals.