Talk:Killing of James Boyd/Archive 1

Deletion of the James Boyd page
This page should not be delete as it stands the ramifications are still unfolding. The Shooting event seems to be causing a seachange concerning mental health and policing policy and practices in New Mexico. The political fallout seems to be negated by speedy resolution of cause and effect and restoration of the public trust brought on by the various layers of government/s applying best practice simultaneously.

Due to on-going multi-layered levels attached to this Shooting it could lead to a new social pact policing model State/s wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.156.167.53 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

criminal record dubious tag
this is a very controversial shooting in a city with very complacent media. It was A DoJ investigation before Ferguson, so there is reason to suspect slant. I do see a number of mugshots online, so apparently he did have police contact, but I cannot find any court records online for anyone named James Boyd anywhere in New Mexico, and there should be some if he had ever had any kind of hearing, even for jaywalking. Absolutely all court case are included in this database; parking tickets, traffic, everything. Possibly they purge dead defendants (?) or possibly he just got rousted a few times. If the latter, he was hardly the dangerous criminal the police account portrayed (?) Elinruby (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * PS - this is a question - if anyone has a real reference, please bring it.
 * I've been aware of this situation since Boyd was killed. I watched the video of his death and attributed it in large part to two impetuous and impatient, trigger happy officers. There were too many officers on the scene, and their presence both wasted time and escalated the situation of dealing with a very difficult and disturbed individual. Having extensive experience in the field of both criminal justice and mental health casework, including with the homeless M.I. I believe there was insufficient intervention from trained caseworkers for the mentally disabled who might have provided services forestalled and/or prevented this death. Clearly, Boyd was of little danger to anyone but himself, in this instance, but he was quite disturbed, angry, and had attacked others in the past. His unfortunate death however brought attention to the shortcomings of the ABQ police force and LEO in general in dealing with the mentally ill, especially in the withdrawal for funding for appropriate intervention of this class of people. Our society is much more willing to spend money for response than prevention or amelioration. All that said (excuse while I get down from my soapbox) this was perhaps the worst example of poor editing and oversight on Wikipedia I've ever seen. I cleaned up a number of bare URLs, added more to bring the article more current. There are still sixteen bare URLs in the references. Without going through the history, I suspect many have been placed there by unregistered users, and wonder if same as a class might be permanently blocked from editing this article?  I looked at the history after realizing that USER:Elinruby had done a mammoth effort (134 edits) to clean up this article in the past, but that afterward, the same sort of careless and/or inept editors who had caused the problem earlier continued to botch it. Now that the trials are bringing the case once more to public attention I hope that someone can devote similar efforts to it now and in the future. I'm far to busy to do so. It presents a very important article and issues, including because of the social and public policy aspects, as well as the Wikipedia editing ones. We should all thank "Elinruby" for his or her dedication. Lastly, there seem to be cites about Boyd's history that would tend to confirm his criminal record. Maybe I can help there. Activist (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * @Activist: I'm not sure that this is the appropriate venue for this discussion, but since you stated your opinion – I think that calling the officers who shot Mr. Boyd "impetuous, impatient and trigger happy" is inappropriate.  They spent about 3 1/2 hours dealing with Mr. Boyd, in an effort to get him to put down his weapons and walk off the hill.  Due to his mental illness, they were unable to do so.  If you have evidence of previous incidents involving these officers that show that either of them was "trigger happy" please post it.  The officer didn't fire until they perceived that the K−9 handler was in jeopardy. Given the terrain, time of day, seriousness of the offense, the fact that Mr. Boyd had committed repeated assaults with a deadly weapon on LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers), and the fact that he had a tactical advantage, having a large number of officers present, to prevent his escape is reasonable.  You say that you think this is "wasting time" but that seems to be in direct opposition to your statement that they were "impetuous and impatient."  It's also interesting that you think that it escalated the situation.  When possible, LEOs bring enough people to handle the problem.  At times, more than are necessary show up, but given that "too many is better than too few," that's not an issue.  It's easier to send people back to their duties than to call for more people, who may be miles away and may not respond in time.  There were numerous supervisors, both on the scene, and monitoring the situation from the command center, who if they thought that there were too many officers present could have, and would have told some of them to clear and go back to their normal duties.  The area in question is open desert and Mr. Boyd could have fled in any direction at any time, greatly complicating the situation and increasing the danger to himself and the officers present.  Having a large number of officers present, while it may have affected his impaired mental state, was helpful to prevent his escape, should he try to leave the scene.
 * I too have extensive experience in the field of criminal justice. I spent 30 years in LE and served on a SWAT team, as department Rangemaster, and was a use of force instructor on several police tools, as well as many other assignments.  I retired with the rank of Sgt.  I've testified as a use of force expert several times in municipal and superior courts.  I'm certainly not a mental health caseworker but have dealt with the mentally ill and homeless, hundreds of times.
 * You say that there was "insufficient intervention from trained caseworkers ..." in this case. Unfortunately you overlook the constraints of time, location and time of day. The discussions with Mr. Boyd went on for over three hours.  You may have noticed that when the incident was finally resolved, it was starting to get dark.  This is not an area where it's possible to bring in lights to illuminate the area. And so continuing to talk to Mr. Boyd would have occurred in the dark, where it would have been difficult, if not impossible to see him, and to see what he's doing.  In more urban areas, LE allows the situations to go on, sometimes for days.  But here, that wasn't possible.  It needed to come to a conclusion in a timely manner. Besides being a danger to himself, Mr. Boyd was a danger to the officers and before they had arrived, to any passerby who happened to bump into him.  He thought he was "a messenger from God," that he was "working for the Department of Defense," and that he was "empowered to kill anyone who interfered with his investigation."  And he was armed with two knives.  As you point out, "he was quite disturbed, angry, had attacked other in the past."
 * As to "the shortcomings of the ABQ police force and LEO in general in dealing with the mentally ill" – nonsense! LE deals with the mentally ill thousands, perhaps millions of times a day in the US.  RARELY does it result in such an outcome.  If nothing untoward happens, and that's the most common result, you don't hear about it.  But given the "If it bleeds, it leads" ethos of today's press, when it go sideways, it's news around the world.  It sells advertising, so it's kept at the top of the news.  I agree that more should be done with and for these people, but until that's done, we work with what we're given.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Before going to work for the ABQ PD, Sandy had been fired from the state police for engaging in fraud, on the job. Keith Sandy said on arrival at the scene, before walking up the hill, caught on the dash cam, that he was going to taze Boyd. He also said he was going to shoot his penis off, calling him a "******* lunatic," while still quite a distance from him. He does not turn his lapel or helmet camera on. Having between 19 and 40-something officers on the scene and on the clock, is certainly "wasting time." Boyd is in crisis, agitated, and the crowd of uniforms can't have helped but make him more so, when calm is called for. You can see the video of Boyd shouldering a large knapsack and picking up and holding other objects in his hands, starting to walk calmly downhill, apparently complying with the officers' requests. Sandy quickly escalates the situation, throws a flash bang at him which explodes and turns him around with his back toward Sandy and Perez. He's shot and topples forward, away from the officers, dropping the bag and other objects and grasps a knife in each hand as he's face down on the ground. Sandy has shot him in both arms, shattering the humerus bone in his right upper arm. Perez, who is lower down the hill, shoots him in the lower back. The bullet destroys Boyd's spleen, transverse colon and lung before it lodges in his left deltoid muscle. Perez shoots beanbag rounds and hits Boyd in the buttock. The K9 is released and he begins to chew Boyd's right leg. He's told to drop the knives but he would not have had control of his right hand, possibly not his left as well. Where's Boyd going to "escape to?" He's high up on the U-Mount hill, in the desert, hundreds of feet from a subdivision, with all those officers strung out below him, and what might he be escaping from? The LEO's are there to insure that he leaves his campsite. He's not about to leave all his possessions nor is he physically capable of running uphill through the boulders and away, and he has not physically assaulted anyone. He's 38 years old, high mileage, weighs 102 kilos/225 pounds (probably without his arm). The DOJ report, which avoided commenting on the Boyd case because it was under investigation, repeatedly criticized the lack of effective command on the force, chronic overuse of often deadly force. It appears that Sandy was literally calling the shots. Well I've worked with over a hundred homeless (when I outreached them) mentally ill clients, many as agitated as Boyd was. I got all but a couple to voluntarily accept medication and treatment, outreached probably a quarter of them in situations not at all unlike Boyd's, literally living out in the desert amongst the scorpions and rattlesnakes. I got all of them on Supplemental Security Income save for one who qualified for Social Security Disability. I've run ex-offender programs and community and prison substance abuse treatment programs. It appeared to be rapidly coming to an acceptable conclusion before Sandy escalated it. I was wrong about the negotiator, who had handled hundreds of cases.I suspect that any "passerby" in this hiking area would have given him a wide berth. It's unlikely that he was looking for a confrontation. You may not even have looked at the film of the shooting, from your take on it. It's quite gruesome. If you want a better understanding of how out of control the APD was, you need to read the entire DOJ report which goes into exhaustive detail about other cases, reviews and summarizes documentation and deficient training procedures, analyzes chronic failure of supervision which actually congratulated inept and violent perpetrators and their handling of crisis situations. I should add that the Boyd family sued for $1.7 million, the city fought it, and lost a $5 million judgment which indicates how the jury perceived it. The total bill for it and other cases it's lost, after similar mishandling, have cost taxpayers in the tens of millions, if the city is self insured or assuming its premiums went up commensurate with their prior and subsequent settlements. Let me know when you've read this and I'll erase part of my comments. Activist (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Activist wrote,  "Before going to work for the ABQ PD, Sandy had been fired from the state police for engaging in fraud, on the job." 


 * Yes, that's correct. But there was no filing of charges so when APD needed to fill openings, they hired him.  In any case, it has nothing to do with this incident.


 * Activist wrote,  "Keith Sandy said on arrival at the scene, before walking up the hill, caught on the dash cam, that he was going to taze Boyd. He also said he was going to shoot his penis off" 


 * Sorry, but that is wrong. His actual comment was that "he planned to shoot Boyd “in the penis with a [Taser] shotgun here in a second."  Check the Article for the references.  He was obviously talking about using less lethal.  While unfortunate, especially given the outcome of the contact, it's not unusual for people who work in high stress situations such as the military or LE, to make jokes like this.  It's called "locker room humor" or "black humor."  More ironic than funny.  Talk of maiming like this is also common in sports.  I'd bet that many of us have said about the other sports team, "We're gonna kill'em," never really intending to cause death.


 * Activist wrote,  "calling him a "******* lunatic," while still quite a distance from him." 


 * Yes, that's true. He knew Boyd from his reputation.  It means nothing regarding this incident.  Boyd WAS mentally ill, and had been diagnosed a long time before this incident.  The use of the word "lunatic" is insensitive and crude, but given the context, not completely unexpected or unheard of.


 * Activist wrote,  "He does not turn his lapel or helmet camera on." 


 * True again, but unless you can prove that this was intentional, thinking there is something untoward is conjecture and it may imply a bias that has no place in an encyclopedia entry. It's not unusual for someone focused on a dangerous situation, to forget a detail like this.  Body and helmet cameras are relatively new in LE it will take awhile before everyone becomes accustomed to them.


 * Activist wrote,  "Having between 19 and 40-something officers on the scene and on the clock, is certainly 'wasting time.' " 


 * The official record is that there were 19 officers present, an appropriate number given the area, the situation, access by the public, and the situation. The only place that the number 41 appears is in the filing of a lawsuit, where such exaggerations are common.  It's also done so that if, during the proceedings more officers are discovered to be involved, they can be named.  Typically in such filings they are described as "John Does 20-40."


 * Activist wrote,  "Boyd is in crisis, agitated, and the crowd of uniforms can't have helped but make him more so, when calm is called for." 


 * I agree but in such a situation there's no time to go change out of uniforms into plain clothes. The mere suggestion is just, well, silly.  It takes a large number of officers to contain such a scene.


 * Activist wrote,  "You can see the video of Boyd shouldering a large knapsack and picking up and holding other objects in his hands, starting to walk calmly downhill, apparently complying with the officers' requests." 


 * Sorry but this is completely and utterly wrong! Before Boyd was going to be allowed to walk down the hill it was necessary, for many reasons, to disarm him, and check him for other weapons that he might have possessed.  In fact, the officers planned to arrest him and have him evaluated at a psychiatric facility.  For details of why this is so, this take a look at my response to Elinruby under the heading " 'Negotiations' or 'unsuccessful negotiations?' "


 * Activist wrote,  "Sandy quickly escalates the situation, throws a flash bang at him which explodes and turns him around with his back toward Sandy and Perez. He's shot and topples forward, away from the officers, dropping the bag and other objects and grasps a knife in each hand as he's face down on the ground. Sandy has shot him in both arms, shattering the humerus bone in his right upper arm. Perez, who is lower down the hill, shoots him in the lower back." 


 * Sorry, but you have the timeline and the facts completely wrong. I suggest that you review the video, paying close attention to what it shows.  The flash−bang does not turn Boyd around.  In fact, there's evidence that it did not affect him in the slightest.  It appears that it was thrown into some rocks that shielded him from both the noise and the flash of the device firing.


 * Here's the proper chronology. Boyd picks up some of his property.  Sandy throws the flash−bang.  This distracts the police dog, as does the firing of the flash−bang.  The handler releases the dog about the same time that another officer fires a Taser shotgun, which has no effect on Boyd.  Boyd drops the property he's picked up.  He draws both of his knives and takes an aggressive stance, including taking a step forward, towards the officers.  The K−9 handler advances to cover his dog as it runs first towards where the flash−bang fired, and then towards Boyd.  The dog does not bite Boyd, rather it approaches him, and then returns to the handler.  Two officers who are providing cover for the handler, advance just behind him.  The dog picks up a small bag and brings it to the handler.  The handler crouches down, probably to get the dog to release this bag, intending to resend the dog to bite Boyd.  The handler's full attention is on the dog and his firearm is holstered so that he can handle the dog.  At this moment Boyd is 8'-10' from Boyd, well within a distance from which, he could take a couple of steps forward, and slash him with either of his knives.  If you've ever done any reactive drills, as most LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers) have, you know that this slashing, from this distance, can occur before a shot can be fired.  And that assumes that there is an instant reaction to being shot.  Those of us who study these things realize that even rifle fire often does not stop an action instantly.  As the cover officers make the decision to fire to protect the handler, Boyd begins to turn, and the bullets strike him in the arm and the back.


 * Boyd falls to the ground still holding both his knives. The officers have no way of knowing whether or not their rounds have incapacitated Boyd, or even if they've hit him at all.  It's not unheard of for someone to "fake" being shot to lure an officer within range of their edged weapons.  And so, when he's not compliant to their commands to drop his knives, one officer fires three bean bag shotgun rounds, striking Boyd's buttock, and the handler redeploys his dog to bite him.  After the officers are convinced that Boyd is not faking, they approach him, remove the knives from his hands and handcuff him.


 * Activist wrote,  "The bullet destroys Boyd's spleen, transverse colon and lung before it lodges in his left deltoid muscle." 


 * The damage done by the rounds is unknown to the officers, it's only discovered much later, when he's at the hospital. These incidents are properly judged ONLY by what the officers knew at the time, not what is discovered later.  This is long−held case law from SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the United States).


 * Activist wrote,  "Where's Boyd going to "escape to?" He's high up on the U-Mount hill, in the desert, hundreds of feet from a subdivision, with all those officers strung out below him, and what might he be escaping from?" 


 * The concern at this moment is not that he'll escape, it's that they have to approach him to place handcuffs on him. If he's faking, he can easily slash any officer that comes within range.


 * Activist wrote,  "The LEO's are there to insure that he leaves his campsite. " 


 * The first officers that responded, the Open Space Officers were probably, as you say, only going to have him move his campsite out of the Albuquerque City limits. But when he escalated to threatening to kill both of them, and threatened them with a knife,  he committed a felony, "assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer."  (The Albuquerque penal code may word the charge slightly differently).    HE escalated the situation, not the officers.


 * Activist wrote,  "He's not about to leave all his possessions nor is he physically capable of running uphill through the boulders and away, and he has not physically assaulted anyone." 


 * It doesn't take an Olympic athlete to slash someone with a knife. His physical condition is meaningless.  And given that, at times, mental patients are highly resistant to pain, it can make them very dangerous.


 * Activist wrote,  "Well I've worked with over a hundred homeless (when I outreached them) mentally ill clients, many as agitated as Boyd was. I got all but a couple to voluntarily accept medication and treatment, outreached probably a quarter of them in situations not at all unlike Boyd's, literally living out in the desert amongst the scorpions and rattlesnakes. I got all of them on Supplemental Security Income save for one who qualified for Social Security Disability. I've run ex-offender programs and community and prison substance abuse treatment programs. It appeared to be rapidly coming to an acceptable conclusion before Sandy escalated it. " 


 * That's great! And I mean that sincerely.  If only every single contact with these folks ended as yours did.  But the fact is that they don't.  By your own admission  "I got all but a couple ..."   Not everyone has your skill in dealing with these folks.  We're talking about LEOs not mental health workers.  Perhaps the mental health professional that was called to the scene isn't as good as you are.  Perhaps he missed a cue that you might have picked up.  OR, perhaps Boyd was just in worse mental condition than anyone you've encountered.  It's one thing to deal with these folks when in a calm, fairly controlled situation.  It's quite another to deal with them, in the field, when they're at their worst.


 * Activist wrote,  "I suspect that any "passerby" in this hiking area would have given him a wide berth. " 


 * You may be correct, but it's nothing but wishful thinking and conjecture. Given that there are only narrow walking paths through the area, it's quite hilly and strewn with boulders and rocks, it's conceivable that someone could be within feet of him, before they even saw him.


 * Activist wrote,  "It's unlikely that he was looking for a confrontation." 


 * I've dealt with hundreds of such people in my career. Few of them were "looking for a confrontation."  I've also had them change from quiet and mild to murderous, without an obvious trigger and without any warning.  They are unpredictable and can be set off by many triggers without one even realizing that they've set them off, until it's too late.


 * Activist wrote,  "You may not even have looked at the film of the shooting, from your take on it." 


 * I have watched that video repeatedly, frame by frame. You are the one who seems to have missed what it shows.


 * Activist wrote,  "It's quite gruesome."  Some people, by their choice of professions, regularly see and do things, that the average person (whatever that means) could not handle.


 * There's a saying in LE (Law Enforcement). "No use of force is pretty."


 * Activist wrote,  "If you want a better understanding of how out of control the APD was, you need to read the entire DOJ report which goes into exhaustive detail about other cases, reviews and summarizes documentation and deficient training procedures, analyzes chronic failure of supervision which actually congratulated inept and violent perpetrators and their handling of crisis situations." 


 * No need. I've read the summary.  It shows a pattern or practice of excessive uses of force.  But each use of force needs to be examined by itself, not based on other uses of force or habits.  This one, looks to me, to be an appropriate use of force.  The courts will have the final word on it.  If they come back with not guilty verdicts, there will probably be another trial at the federal level.


 * Activist wrote,  "I should add that the Boyd family sued for $1.7 million, the city fought it, and lost a $5 million judgment which indicates how the jury perceived it." 


 * My information is that the lawsuit was settled out of court for the $5M figure, with the city not admitting any responsibility. If you Google "james boyd lawsuit Albuquerque" the first two links (besides the link to the Wiki article) state this clearly, and the list goes on and on, with virtually every one of the entries supporting my statement on this, and contradicting yours.  I did not find even one link that supports your assertion.  If you have some, please show them to us.


 * Activist wrote,  "The total bill for it and other cases it's lost, after similar mishandling, have cost taxpayers in the tens of millions, if the city is self insured or assuming its premiums went up commensurate with their prior and subsequent settlements." 


 * It's not unusual for government entities to settle such lawsuits out of court. $5 million is close to what it probably would have cost to defend the suit in court and the video is so ugly to the average person that it may have turned the jury against the department, notwithstanding the facts.  In many large cities, payouts by the police department are the smallest of all the entities in city government.  That being said, I don't know the stats for Albuquerque.


 * Activist wrote,  "Let me know when you've read this and I'll erase part of my comments." 


 * I prefer that you NOT "erase [any] part of [your] comments. They show a lack of knowledge of what actually occurred during this incident and perhaps a bias that may have influenced your editing.  I freely admit to a bias on the side of LE, but having investigated dozens of LE shootings and other incidents, I'm neutral until the facts are known.  I've not had the opportunity to watch much of the trial so my comments are often based on the written news reports and on reports on the Net.  Had you wanted your comments to not be seen by other editors, you could have sent it to me privately or to my personal talk page.  Instead you chose to put it here, for all to see.  Please leave them up in full.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've discovered part of the problem as I left you a note on my Talk page. You don't seem to have a User page, so I presume you may not be seeing prior pings. Activist (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Responses to editor
Earlier I wrote, '' "Yes, that's correct. But there was no filing of charges so when APD needed to fill openings, they hired him.  In any case, it has nothing to do with this incident." ''
 * Activist wrote,  "It's relevant as prior behavior." 
 * I'll disagree. Had he had a previous shooting that was ruled as inappropriate, it would be relevant.  A previous case of "double dipping" is not.  While it does go to character and honesty, there is no allegation of lying or other dishonesty on Sandy's part in this incident.  Sometimes people 'learn their lesson' and don't repeat a mistake.  Boyd's past is relevant only as it display previous acts of aggression and/or violence, and/or his mental state, because it goes directly to his mental illness, and the danger he presented to LE.  .  Notice that no one has brought up anything in his past except as it bears directly on this incident.  You however, think that UNrelated incidents matter if it's the LEOs involved.  Nice double standard.
 * He did have prior behaviour that was inappropriate. Just not with a gun Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Earlier I wrote,  "Sorry, but that is wrong. His actual comment was that "he planned to shoot Boyd “in the penis with a [Taser] shotgun here in a second."  Check the Article for the references.  He was obviously talking about using less lethal.  While unfortunate, especially given the outcome of the contact, it's not unusual for people who work in high stress situations such as the military or LE, to make jokes like this.  It's called "locker room humor" or "black humor."  More ironic than funny.  Talk of maiming like this is also common in sports.  I'd bet that many of us have said about the other'' sports team, "We're gonna kill'em," never really intending to cause death." ''


 * Activist wrote, '' "When someone fires three shots into a person's back, the expectation of death is hardly remote.
 * How does this address the  "shooting in the penis with a Taser"  comment? Please try to stay on topic and follow along with the discussion.  Nice straw man argument.  No one has said that  "death [was] remote."   I have no idea why you bring this up.  In any case, let's look at what really happened, that is, what the officers KNEW at the moment, not what you know years later.  The officers knew that they'd fired several shots each.  But they had no idea whether their rounds had actually hit Boyd, where they'd hit him, or if they had hit him − what effect their hits had on him.  It's not unheard of for people to feign being incapacitated in order to draw officers close so they can assault them.  And so, the officers hung back and gave Boyd orders to drop the knives he still had, one in each hand.  When he didn't comply, one of them fired three bean bag, less lethal rounds into his buttock and the handler sent the dog to bite him.  When he was unresponsive to both, they moved up, disarmed him and handcuffed him.

Earlier I wrote, '' "Yes, that's true. He knew Boyd from his reputation.  It means nothing regarding this incident.  Boyd WAS mentally ill, and had been diagnosed a long time before this incident.  The use of the word "lunatic" is insensitive and crude, but given the context, not completely unexpected or unheard of." ''


 * Activist wrote, '' "Actually it was a recorded phrase, "fucking lunatic." He only at last apologized for it before the jury while facing murder charges, 2 1/2 years later.


 * Interesting that you clearly noticed the  "fuc**** lunatic"  part of the recording but somehow missed that he was obviously referring to his TASER shotgun. But it's not unexpected given your bias.  And your comment that he didn't apologize until recently betrays an obvious lack of knowledge of court proceedings in these cases.

Earlier I wrote, '' " I agree but in such a situation there's no time to go change out of uniforms into plain clothes. The mere suggestion is just, well, silly.  It takes a large number of officers to contain such a scene." ''
 * Activist wrote,  " You're deliberately mischaracterizing my point. That many officers, 19 or 41, clearly weren't needed." 


 * Thanks for sharing your opinion, but it's not controlling. It's doubtful that there were 41 officers present.  I've already explained why that number exists, but you've either not read it or don't agree.  Actually 19 is about right.  Figure 4-5, including a K−9 handler on the inner perimeter, and the rest on an outer perimeter.  I've spoken of this with some of the best tactical LE minds on the planet.  They agree with me.  And finally, one of us is a court recognized expert on these matters who is not emotionally involved, and the other ...?


 * Activist wrote,  "They didn't need to 'change clothes' " 


 * I'm wondering why you brought it up?


 * Activist wrote, '' "if they didn't need to be there. You're exaggerating the situation to rationalize the excessive response.


 * You're one of those people who think that the size of the response really matters. It doesn't in the real world.  But it's a great emotional response!  The other officers besides those on the inner perimeter, weren't involved in the final confrontation and there wasn't an excessive number of shots fired.  THAT is what's important.  Your comments about the  "excessive response"  make for interesting discussion, shows an emotional involvement, shows how little you understand LE work, and otherwise are superfluous.

Earlier I wrote, '' "Yes, that's true. He knew Boyd from his reputation.  It means nothing regarding this incident.  Boyd WAS mentally ill, and had been diagnosed a long time before this incident.  The use of the word "lunatic" is insensitive and crude, but given the context, not completely unexpected or unheard of." ''


 * Activist wrote,  "How do you know Sandy knew anything about Boyd? There's nothing in any of the references I've seen that indicate the LEO's knew with whom they were interacting." 


 * Really!? Have you forgotten the dash cam conversation when he met Ware near the scene of the incident.  He was well known in the LE community there.

Earlier I wrote, '' "Sorry, but you have the timeline and the facts completely wrong. I suggest that you review the video, paying close attention to what it shows.  The flash−bang does not turn Boyd around.  In fact, there's evidence that it did not affect him in the slightest.  It appears that it was thrown into some rocks that shielded him from both the noise and the flash of the device firing." ''


 * Activist wrote,  "Be serious. You've read the autopsy report. Perez's shot hit Boyd in the lower back, traveled upward through soft tissue, through his transverse colon, through his spleen, through his diaphragm, through his lung and lodged in his shoulder. In order for the slug to take that path, Boyd's torso would have had to have been roughly parallel to the ground. This is simple geometry." 
 * Again you respond to a post that no one has written! I've said nothing about the rounds that struck Boyd.  I was addressing a statement that the flash−bang 'turned [Boyd] around.'  It did not.  Here are some facts for you.  When a bullet enters a body, it's impossible to predict it's path.  Bullets rarely move in straight lines, except in the movies.  The human body is not a inanimate, homogeneous substance like a car door or a stucco wall, where you can insert rods to determine the path taken by the bullet and the direction it came from.   "Simple geometry"  does not apply.  I know of a shooting where a man was shot with the gun held horizontally.  The bullet entered near his navel.  The bullet came apart in his body and one part of it wound up near his heart and another part of it wound up in his upper thigh.  And so your seeming insinuation that at least one shot was fired while Boyd was laying down is completely erroneous and it's contradicted by the video evidence.  It also displays a rather thorough lack of knowledge of action v. reaction and reaction time.  As Boyd turns, he bends forward at the waist.  If that's when the round struck him, it would account for that angle of travel.  Again, time spent studying the best evidence we have, the video, would do you in good stead, both in these discussions, and in forming your opinions about the situation.

Earlier I wrote,  "That's great! And I mean that sincerely.  If only every single contact with these folks ended as yours did.  But the fact is that they don't.  By your own admission  "I got all but a couple ..." ''  Not everyone has your skill in dealing with these folks.  We're talking about LEOs not mental health workers.  Perhaps the mental health professional that was called to the scene isn't as good as you are.  Perhaps he missed a cue that you might have picked up.  OR, perhaps Boyd was just in worse mental condition than anyone you've encountered.  It's one thing to deal with these folks when in a calm, fairly controlled situation.  It's quite another to deal with them, in the field, when they're at their worst.


 * Activist wrote,  "Let me be clearer. I took a grand total of two of those hundred plus people in my vehicle to the emergency room to get an MD to okay a 5150 so as to hold them until they got back on the planet, because they were completely unable to clearly communicate or to keep themselves from being harmed. They were a danger to themselves and remained so until properly medicated. Involuntary medication in California presents a very high bar to clear. A great many of the people with whom I dealt were in far worse mental condition than was Boyd when he presented on the hilltop." 


 * Of course this doesn't address what I was talking about. This is getting to be a habit with you.  AS I SAID,  "THAT'S GREAT!"  but your statement has nothing to do with this situation or this discussion.  FACT IS you have no idea how impaired Boyd was, or how his condition compared to people that you've dealt with.  No one is capable of giving a diagnosis based on a few seconds of video, but you seem to think that you can!?  Boyd was OBVIOUSLY a danger to others, he assaulted, with a knife, the first two officers that were sent to deal with him.  By your own admission, the people you transported in your car were a danger to themselves, not to you or others.  Wondering, how many of the people you transported in your car were still armed with knives and had used them to threaten others?


 * Activist wrote, '' "I don't have any more time to spare, I seriously doubt if I'm going to change your mind one bit about anything: ;;


 * Not with a discussion that doesn't address what's being discussed. Not with completely erroneous theories about how  "simple geometry"  controls terminal ballistics, not by consistently changing the topic, and not by refusing to answer simple questions that are asked directly of you.  As a trained investigator, having been a part of many dozens of these investigations, my mind has always been open, and it's that way now.  I'm ready to change my mind if the situation warrants it.  But your method of discussing the matter, flitting all over the place, bringing up irrelevant matters, as if they were important and not acknowledging my questions, isn't gonna do it.


 * Activist wrote,  "... and I've neglected what I need to do to prepare to drive 1000, miles tomorrow." 


 * Hope you have a great trip! That's a long haul for one day.  I've done it, but it ain't fun.


 * Activist wrote,  "I am not anxious to share my personal history on an article's Talk page." 


 * '' "I can't imagine why, but that's fine with me. I do object to you deleting the comments after I read them.  I see no reason why you'd want to do so.


 * Activist wrote,  "I asked you to get back with me and I didn't hear from you for about a week." 


 * I'm sorry. Sometimes I don't have time to get respond quickly.  But in this case, I've been here every day for several days now.  I just didn't see your request.


 * Activist wrote,  "I should have put it on my own talk page and pinged you and Elinruby whom you presume is male. Maybe you know something I don't." 


 * I didn't see your request for me to get  "back with"  you. As to Elinruby's gender, are you not aware that 'the masculine form includes the feminine?'  Or are you being politically correct?  As to  "know[ing] something that [you] don't,"  I'm quite sure the both of us know lots of things that the other does not, but again, it's irrelevant.


 * Activist wrote,  "One last thing. I did presume something not in evidence. I figured Albuquerque paid the family $5 million and agreed to change procedures because of a jury award." 


 * I think you said this twice, and each time I corrected you. FINALLY you admit your error.  And this is not merely assuming  "something not in evidence."  it's fabricating, or accepting some urban legend as fact, and then repeating it over and over.  I doubt that this is the first time you've made reference to it.  AND it's colored much of how you think and what you've written.  It assumes a massive amount of prejudice against the officers and the city by a jury that never even existed.  When you brought it here in our discussion, you were quite nasty as you recited the untruth.  It shows that you are reacting to this situation from an emotional, rather than reasonable, rational, and logical place.  Not to worry though, it's fairly common these days.


 * Activist wrote,  " But the City would have never have settled unless they presumed, given the facts as produced by discovery, that the jury might grant a far larger award." 


 * That's always a concern, but even if they had a dead bang case, it's often cheaper to settle out of court, even of this amount, than it is to fight such a case. I'd place the figure for such a fight at about the $5 million figure and there's no worry about a runaway jury.  Settling has them paying out the same amount, makes for good will with the general populous and costs the same as fighting.  Cities, after all, are fiscal entities and they have to do what is cost effective.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * hi, have you seen the DoJ report? Elinruby (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No I have not. But I have no issue with their finding.  But they did not address this incident and what happened before it, has no bearing on it.  Incidents like this one must be investigated without regard to what came before them or what came after them. Beanyandcecil (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

thank you. I used to live in Albuquerque and was very perturbed by this case. The online video and 911 tapes all point to the conclusions you and I reached but Wikipedia in its innocence presumes that the Albuquerque Journal is as a secondary source more objective. The question about court cases was heartfelt. I once took a couple of parking tickets to court, and *they* are in that database. So if you can help please do. I'll try to get to this again soon as I know that two of the police officers are going on trial soon. Elinruby (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC) PS don't be so hard on subsequent editors -- most of them were probably similarly perturbed but did not know wiki syntax/policies. Elinruby (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia owes you. What an immense cleanup you did. The problem is with unregistered users, you can't write them to give them a clue, so you can't tell if it's laziness or actually being naive about the process. There are some very good reporters on this beat in Albuquerque, Scott Sandlin with the ABQ Journal for instance. She's a whiz! But papers, pressed for profits, are shedding ace writers like a labrador in the desert. An award winning investigative reporter in a faraway city wrote me a few weeks ago, when I tipped her to a minor blip in one of her stories.  She said, "Our dirty secret is that we no longer have copy editors." They cost more than owners think they should have to spend, or something like that... Activist (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * fact is, tho, that most local media at the time parroted the police version that he was a dangerous criminal. And what I mentioned above is strictly speaking original research. Still, years have gone by and the family has won a lawsuit, so matters may have improved. And yes, I have run into my share of opinionated wikilawyers. Feel free to edit further if ya want, but I'll try to pitch in. I am trying to finish up some half-done translations today tho Elinruby (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The LEOs were WAY out of control, though, as was exposed by Boyd's death on camera. Bad administration, able business agents fighting their PD cases. The two from Boyd's case are on trial right now, after the killer of Hawkes?, got reinstated. 20:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * yep the cop who shot Mary Hawkes got his job back, based on the argument that it wasn't fair to penalize him for something everyone was doing. Seriously. Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2016

JAMES BOYD Register Number: 41172-074 Age: 	40 Race: 	White Sex: 	Male Released On: 05/02/2014 (Could have had a case closed when they found out he was dead, two months prior.) Hmmm.
 * I looked on my database. For some states, like AZ, it's very good. Others, not so much. NM is probably one. I got zero for Boyd. That may mean it's worthless in NM. However, he had broken some cop's nose. I figured it could have been a parks violation, so checked the federal inmate locator. Could this be him? I checked the federal SS death index and didn't find him as James Boyd. I went through the middle initials, as I didn't have his, after NMI, and got burned out by the "C"s. He would have been born in 75 or 76.  So I found this:
 * possibly. Age looks roughly right. I'll let you know when I'm back in this ... seems to me I saw a middle name somewhere, also. Check Facebook? Not a reliable source of course by it may give you a hypothesis to verify. In related news, Mary Hawke does not have an article. Elinruby (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC) PS took a quick look. Autopsy report has middle initial M; not sure yet what it stood for. Age 38 dob 4/8/75. I looked at http://metro.nmcourts.gov/ -- where you would expect to find this sort of minor offender for Albuquerque and www.nmcourts.gov, which is statewide, since apparently he was once arrested at White Sands. Wait maybe I have something in Alamogordo using M.... possibly I didn't before? Will update article if I do. Elinruby (talk) PPS lede says Matthew--if I let that stand I probably was able to verify it. Elinruby (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I brought the article up to date with yesterday's testimony and cleaned up still more of the text and citations. Activist (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks, all help appreciated Elinruby (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

dubious tag on statement about dropping the knife
I put the tag on as I recall, and nobody has responded to it in a year. The statement that he appeared to drop the knife is vague considering the number of versions of police video in which the editor might have seen, or thought he'd seen, this. It is not clear to me what happens to the knife, but the police witnesses appear to be unanimous that he was still holding at least one. I believe the statement that he'd dropped it may have been wishful thinking for somebody indignant about this case. I don't nonetheless subscribe to the notion that he still posed a threat, face down with three bullets in him. But I am going to remove that statement since I don't see sources that say it and if the editor was looking at the video that would be original research, which wikipedia frowns upon and this is probably a poster child for why. Elinruby (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If you look at the helmet cam video, in the process when Boyd is shot/mortally wounded, beanbagged and chewed, he falls on his stomach and says "Don't hurt me," and "I can't move." Officers go to him intending to remove the knives from his outstretched hands. One LEO says to another, "step on his hand" and a knife is taken from his right hand. At this point, Boyd is suffering massive and ultimately fatal internal wounds and his right humerus is shattered, to the extent it needed to be amputated as ER doctors were trying to save his life. With the amount of damage his upper arm has suffered, I doubt that it didn't destroy the nerves that might have allowed him to open or close his right hand. Another officer I believe appears to have then removed a knife from his left hand, but I'm not sure if that was it. He had also been shot in the left arm, but the damage was not as extensive as with the right. There doesn't seem to be any resistance with the left arm, voluntary or reflexive. Both hands are brought around behind his back to be cuffed. All that I assume is SOP, in such a situation with a downed, armed suspect. In yesterday's testimony, by the way, there is LEO reference to discussion about whether or not Boyd might have committed a crime for which he might be arrested: Illegal camping did not provide such cause. So his status would have depended on what behavior might be construed as a threat to the officers, any of which would constitute assault. Just before the attempts to taze him and the flash bang, he clearly is saying that he did not want to hurt anyone and "I am not a murderer." He sounds remarkably calm and deliberative to me, for a psychotic person. The prosecutor or her co-counsel correctly imply, I believe, that his apparent physical and spoken intent was to walk down the hill. He had shouldered his backpack, and he then began picking up objects that were not knives from the ground to his right with both hands. One looked like it might be a long white thermos. If he were intent on attacking, it would seem to be unlikely that he would have encumbered his hands. They had pulled officer/negotiator Mikal Monette (sp?) out of the situation, though he had apparently succeeded in convincing Boyd to follow orders. My impression was that Officer Keith Sandy was intent on exercising a use of force, rather than allowing a peaceful resolution of the situation. An officer who until shortly before had been effectively controlling the situation left without a clear explanation and had walked downhill a considerable distance to speak with the resident who had called in the illegal camping complaint on Boyd. One wonders if this was consciously or unconsciously intended to allow Sandy to assume control and/or, if he sensed what was coming. Monette was referred to in the testimony on the afternoon of September 29, 2016, in the trial of the two charged officers, and his name was in the complaint in the lawsuit brought by Boyd's brother against the ABQ PD/City. In previous situations, he had invariably been successful in numerous negotiations. The testimony given by the officers, seemed not to be perjurious, per se, but rather crafted toward giving such an explanation of events that would best somehow confer a veneer of legitimacy to all the LEO actions at the campsite. It appeared somewhat to be focused toward creating reasonable doubts in the minds of those in the jury, that the thrown flash bang grenade, the tazing attempts, and the rifle shots could be construed as having a legitimate basis. The defense only needs to convince a single juror to get a hung jury, or for all, to get an acquittal. Activist (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The defense theory is, I think, that they were protecting the dog and its handler. Elinruby (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems a stretch, but they've been stretching, all right. The helmet cam doesn't clearly show how far Boyd was from the LEO's, including the K9 officer, but it was quite a distance. They could have backed up a bit while he passed with no problem. The flash bang was hugely inappropriate and set off the chain of events leading to Boyd's death, in my opinion. I think Boyd kept both knives, but they were described as "pocket knives," that is, w/o a locking blade, so less lethal. The prosecution is doing a good job, but cases like this often tend to be biased, in my experience, jurors giving the LEOs the benefit of the doubt. I wish I had time to watch the proceedings. It took them 45 minutes after Boyd was shot to get him to the E.R. From the helmet cam, you can see that they spent time going through his belongings at the campsite, pulling back covers, while he lay handcuffed and dying, I presume. Activist (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't tell which crisis officer almost got him to leave
If anyone notices please note this. I have verified that the sentence is correct according the the reference provided.

Also, a technical point: crisis negotiators are part of SWAT, and this testimony says they were not deployed. So apparently he talked to two officers with crisis internetion training but not a crisis negotiator exactly? (?) Elinruby (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Conjecture, misquotations, and shambles
This entry is full of conjecture, misquotes, and unsubstantiated opinions that do not belong in an encyclopedia entry. For example, the "Shooting" section states, "Some who have watched the video believe that the dog bit Boyd's hand, but most think it at Police demanded Boyd drop the two camping knives he was carrying." The video clearly shows that Mr. Boyd was never bitten on the hand, The autopsy does not mention it, there is no citation given for this opinion, and the rest of the sentence makes no sense. Another example, the article states, "There were no visible knives in his hands when an officer said 'Do it!' " The actual quotation cited does not contain the word "visible" and it's presence makes little sense. I'm going to do some general cleanup. Beanyane source ifdcecil (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I was looking at that also Elinruby (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The part about the dog biting his hand was, I think, already here. I was questioning it the other night, and now that I recall I went to see whether I could find a reference for the dog attacking the backpack, which is what I think happened. I got interrupted at that point, so I am probably the source if there was something half-baked there, sorry about that. That is still what I think happened, tho, that the dog bit the backpack, pending evidence to the contrary. I don't remember where visible came from; let me go look at the citation. One thing that bothered me about the account a few days ago was that if you believe he had a knife in his hand when he was on the ground then he must not have dropped that knife at least. Although Activist has a good point about the damage to his had, but officers might not realize this either. Elinruby (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The first several times I watched the video, I thought that the dog bit Boyd on his right hand when he first approached him. There's something going on there but it's difficult to see exactly what it is.  But since that time, I've read the autopsy report and there's absolutely no mention made of any damage to either hand.  I've been to dozens of autopsies and they examine every square inch of skin so I doubt that it was missed.  These forensic specialists even had another doctor watching over their shoulder.  I don't think that the dog grabbed part of the backpack.  The video shows that Boyd dropped it to the ground before the dog got to him.  When the dog reaches him, it's on the ground to Boyd's right side, when that occurs.  A dog of this quality, would definitely leave some marks if he bit unprotected bare skin, as on the hand.  Perhaps not puncture wounds, but definitely bruises and abrasions.


 * The video of the incident is linked, in the Article, at this site. CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VIDEOI suggest that you take a look at it maximized, on a large screen, not your smart phone, focusing on what can be heard and seen between 1:13 and 2:43.  At this point the shots have been fired and Boyd has fallen to the ground.  At 1:13 an officer is heard to say,  "He's still got the knife in his hand."   A few seconds later another officer asks,  "Is he moving?"   The first officer answers,  "His hand(s), but he's still armed."   The first officer says,  "Get your hands out.  Drop the knife."   At about 1:28 another officer (I think) says,  "Hands out to your side and drop the knife."   After the first beanbag round is fired at about 1:37 two officers (separately) say,  "Drop the knife."   This statement is repeated after the second bean bag round is fired.  The dog is then deployed.  As the officers move up, towards Boyd, someone, I think it's the handler, at 2:04, says,  "Alright he's bit.  Somebody step on that right hand real hard."   This request was probably made because, when they arrive at Boyd the handler will be focused on his dog, not watching for movement of Boyd's hands.  The handler is (as is appropriate) the first to arrive at Boyd.  He has to control his dog so that members of the team are not bitten by him.  As they move forward, one officer, at 2:11 says twice,  "He's got a knife in each hand."   They could not see the knife in Boyd's left hand because they were slightly downhill from him and it was concealed by his right shoulder.  He is lying face down with his feet generally towards the officers, and his left hand is wrapped under his head so that the hand is on the ground and is above his right shoulder area.  Another officer repeats this statement but (I think) there's a questioning tone in his voice.  Perhaps he's asking for confirmation?  At this point in the video both knives can clearly be seen shining brightly as they reflect the light from the officers' weapon mounted lights.  When they arrive at Mr. Boyd, the handler is the one who steps on Boyd's right hand, pinning it, and the knife it contains, to the ground.  Another officer removes the knife from Boyd's left hand and tosses it away to the left and uphill from their location.  At 2:38 another officer removes the knife from Boyd's right hand.  [Of course, all of these times are approximate and maybe off by ± a second or so].  Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, the issue here is that the gavel to gavel coverage is giving us video, which wikipedia is leery of as a source. Secondary sources are generally preferred and the stuff you are talking about is original research. I'll look tho, for the sake of getting it right, because there really is a lot of material and almost all of the reporting is mutually contradictory. Then we need to find a reference that is correct, however. Meanwhile here, let's say starting at 26 minutes, the officer collecting forensic evidence testifies that the dog took the blue Qwest bag (not the backpack). A little earlier he testifies that Boyd was wearing multiple layers of clothing and while one probe came back from OME with the clothing, the other was recovered on the ground at the scene. I think I got the dog stuff from a report in one of the Santa Fe papers so that's not the source II was talking about yesterday, but it seems worth noting as I am looking at stuff. Elinruby (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancies in the article
At one point the article says, "...officers fired a Taser." At another point it says, "... two Taser weapons were fired at him. One missed, and the other struck his loose sweatshirt and failed to shock him." There is no citation given for the second statement and I've been unable to find such a reference. Unless someone can supply it, I'm going to delete the second reference.

I've also not found any citation for this statement from the article, "Its handler believes it may have accidentally stepped on one of the Taser electrical leads, or in some other way accidentally been Tasered." In fact, stepping on one electrical lead will not result in any current being delivered. It requires two leads for this to happen, otherwise the circuit isn't completed. Can anyone direct me to a source for this statement regarding his dog "panicking" from the handler? Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC) h


 * I have not found the secondary source for the dog stepping on the probes (there is no lead, if you mean the wires from a traditional Taser). I swear there was a story in the Santa Fe New Mexican ;P I'll find it yet. But meanwhile I did find a couple of sources for the handler's belief the dog has tazed and so re-added that statement with the references. Elinruby (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It's from the K9 officer's statement to the homicide detective, I believe; his concern was why the dog did not do what it was supposed to. It is true that it needs a source and I am not sure whether I failed to provide it or someone removed it, as sometimes happens in controversial articles. In any event, let's just say I wrote that and am confident I can provide a source, say tonight. I am on my way out the door and can't get too immersed in this right this sec, but I wanted to answer you, say thank you for your edits, some of which seem well-taken (I am only saying "some" because I haven't looked at them all) although I though you have too much detail about the knife in the lede and I don't know that "threatened" has a source other than possibly self-justifying officer statement. I don't have time to address that either, but in case you are here before I am tonight, I propose moving that to the body, where he produces that knife. Elinruby (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC) PS I believe there was only one Taser; possibly it was fired twice, not sure, don't think that one was me Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's hard to tell from the video. The officer with the Taser shotgun may have fired very soon after the flash−bang was thrown and again after he moved up, just before the fatal wounds were fired.  I've not found a reference to it anywhere.


 * I have my own theory as to why the K−9 did not perform well and it has nothing to do with Tasers. In order to be shocked by a Taser, he'd have to step on both leads and that's unlikely.  He doesn't show any reaction that I can see, but the video is so jumpy and the dog is so far away that it might have happened.


 * Thanks very much for your kind words about my edits. I struggle with the formatting and yesterday I linked the wrong source, causing Activist quite some irritation.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I've changed some wording related to the Taser shotgun. The Article said that the X-12 had been '' "withdrawn from the market over reliability concerns." '' That's not what the citation says. Per the citation,  "Taser International discontinued its X12 shotgun, according to the company’s own literature. It cited 'flagging sales."  ' Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"Negotiations" or "unsuccessful negotiations?"
One editor writes, "After more than three hours of negotiations, officers fired Tasers, threw a flash bang device and a police dog was sent to bite him." I added the word "unsuccessful" so that the statement read, "After more than three hours of unsuccessful negotiations, officers fired Tasers, threw a flash bang device and a police dog was sent to bite him."

The initial statement makes it sound as if the officers decided that three house of negotiating was 'long enough' and so they escalated the force. That's not what happened. The negotiations, including some with trained mental health professionals, were UNSUCCESSFUL and Mr. Boyd decided that he was going to walk down the hill. The officers could not permit that, and since it was getting dark, and it would be unsafe for them, the public and Mr. Boyd, to allow this, they they tried to take him into custody using first, less lethal force and finally, with lethal force. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * why would not the officers not be able to permit that? That was the whole *point* -- that he couldn't camp there. Easy to lose sight of that when they sent 41 officers to tell him so, I know, but... It does seem to me from a close reading of the sources that that is exactly what happened. They lost patience. Elinruby (talk)


 * They would not permit it for several reasons. First: in such tactical situations LE (Law Enforcement) sets up an inner and an outer perimeter.  The first is to contain the problem.  The second is to ensure that if the person being dealt with escapes the inner perimeter, he's still contained by the outer perimeter.  The outer perimeter also ensures that other people, not involved, do not enter the inner perimeter and interfere with the officers who are directly dealing with the situation.


 * Second: The officers on the inner perimeter, and many of them on the outer perimeter knew of Boyd's violent history. He had used an edged weapon to cut a citizen and had punched a police officer, breaking his nose.  He was well known by LE for countless threats of violence in many other situations.  At the scene he threatened to kill any officer who approached him.  He made threats to kill the officers, one source estimated it, 19 times.


 * Third: There were hikers all over the area.  The outer perimeter officers kept them away from the scene, but their safety could not be ensured if the officers had allowed Boyd, still armed with at least two knives, to walk down the hill, thereby breaking both the inner and the outer perimeters.  They did not know at the time whether or not he possessed additional weapons because he had not allowed them to pat him down for them.


 * Fourth: The safety of the officers could not be ensured if they allowed Boyd to walk down the hill.  The area is full of cactus and is hilly, rocky and wild.  There are only a handful of trails through the area.  They are narrow walking paths a few inches wide, here in the US, commonly called "single track."  At the inner perimeter location officers could spread out on the flat area and several of them could cover Boyd at any minute.  If he had been allowed to walk down the hill, it would have been impossible for more than one or two officers to cover him at any given moment.  Anyone with LE experience would call such a movement "a nightmare."


 * Fifth: it was far more than merely not allowing him to "camp there."  They intended to take him into custody for a mental health evaluation.  He was clearly "a danger to himself and to others."  I can't imagine the carnage that might have occurred if a citizen had walked up on him.


 * The official report is that there were 19 officers, not 41, involved in the incident. At such scenes other officers may drift by, but they are not directly involved.  The only place that the number "41" appears is on the family's lawsuit, which was settled out of court.  In such filings it's common to allege that huge numbers of officer were present.  Usually they are named "John Does 20-40" to allow people to be added to the suit as their names are learned.  In any case, your statement is wrong on its face.  APD did not send "41 officers to tell him" that he could not camp there, they sent two.  When Boyd threatened to kill both of them with a knife, and he aggressively threatened them with it, thereby committing a felony, assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer, HE escalated the situation.


 * Far from "los[ing] patience" in this situation, the officers spent over three hours trying to reason with him. They called in mental health professionals to try and talk him down.  But they could not get through to him.  Neither they, nor the officers could get through to him.  They either asked or ordered him to put down his knives about 33 times but he refused.


 * In similar situations in more urban areas it's not unheard of for these situations to go on for days. I've sent out for burgers, coffee, soft drinks, and pizza on a couple of them that I was directly involved in.  In more urban areas LE will set up lights if none are present to better help them control the scene.  But in this situation, they're in a wild, unimproved area, and setting up lights was not possible.  The sun was setting, you might have noticed at the end of the video how dark it had gotten, and they could not allow the situation to continue into darkness.  That would negatively affect the safety of all concerned, to a huge amount.  You also may have noticed that the sun had set before the actual confrontation that took Boyd's life.  There was no more time to spend on this situation.  It had to be brought to a head.  EVEN SO, the officers still tried to use less lethal force, they threw a flash−bang device in the hope that it would startle Boyd into not resisting their movement to take him into custody.  They fired a shotgun Taser but it had no effect.  (Are you aware that standard Tasers have a 20% failure rate – that is they have absolutely no effect on the subject they are used on?  Are you aware that the shotgun Tasers have even a higher failure rate)?  And they used a police dog to either take him down or at least provide a distraction that they hoped would enable them to wrestle him down and take him into custody.


 * The officers spent over three hours negotiating with Boyd, and he did not make a single concession to improve the situation. And so, since the sun had set and darkness was fast approaching, the situation had to be ended.


 * It seems that like many, you simply don't understand the complexity of LE tactical situations. Most of the public's education on such matters comes from TV and the movies.  There's nothing wrong with that, and I'd not expect the average citizen to know or to understand them without some training, education and experience.  But judging these kinds of situations from such a position, often leads one astray. Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ya, I was gathering you are law enforcement; that's actually good because the article was leaning too far the other way when I got here, for example the sentence I took out about dropping the knife. I am primarily concerned with making the article as accurate as possible, because, in my personal opinion, what really happened was egregious and not something I feel comfortable with having happen in a city people that know me know that I love. But that also means weeding out any inaccuracies that can be used to discredit this account. In fact, you almost sound like you might be from APD, which would, btw, be ok as long as you say so, just as it is ok for me to say I am furious that this -- any of this, the DoJ report, any of it, happened in a police department that --- let's just say I am appalled by APD on many levels and on second thought I can't tell that story because it could conceivably compromise someone else's privacy. I don't like APD, as an organization, because I believe the DoJ report and also because I have seen very apathetic responses to actual crimes. But I have also seen a couple of APD officers handle things very well a couple of times and I also have nonetheless used what social media influence I might have to urge people to call them with what they might know about a road rage incident on I-40 that wound up getting a little girl shot in the head. I am not hating on anyone who doesn't go around shooting people for no reason. Or interested in anything but having this article be exactly right. So. If you are APD, say so and any change you can make a case for will get made, but certain rules apply, not sure what they are exactly. So, now that that is out of the way, let me see your questions again. Hmm, I think I will do a paragraph break here for readability, too. Elinruby (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 1.Wait, all we are talking about here is whether to add unsuccessful? I might not actually be against that, but it does sound like we have completely different perceptions of these events and should probably chat about them here.
 * 2.Re: inner/outer perimeter, sure maybe but the problem we are trying to solve here is that park rules say you cannot camp without a permit, right?
 * 3.I was looking for the police reports on those Albuquerque incidents and and not finding them. Do you know what's up with that? Also the incident at Holloman sounds considerably different depending on whether he was "trying to get into", "walked up to the gate of" or somehow already on the base when he told people he was on a mission from Gerald Ford. I mean, I grant you he was looney toons, schizo-affective disorder not schizoprenia, though, there is a difference. Do tell on the threats of violence on countless other occasions. I think we already have the incident at the firestation, right? What else? So, 19 times is interesting but where does it come from? I know Thickstun, who was filming this from his house, testified to hearing this once. It is possible that someone else, maybe McDaniel, testified to this as well. I think that was a question I had, because I think I found only one short reference to his testimony at hmmm, I think it was at the preliminary hearing. This is probably a good place for a paragraph break. Elinruby (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4. About secondary sources, you do realize that the standard for "true" on wikipedia is "because here is something edited and published that says so", right? Not life experience or something so and so said to me once. The problem here is that some of the secondary sources disagree, as in my Holloman example above. Re hikers, doesn't that place close at dark, theoretically anyway? Wouldn't any perimeter have been also been behind Boyd then, since presumably hikers would have been coming back down the mountain to their cars? Also, according to Thickstun, Boyd had been there a month. Without wreaking havok among the local hiker population, or surely we would be hearing about it. Right? But it's suddenly a tac-alert? I have watched multiple videos of the incident several times and I lived for quite some time in Albuquerque. One house was I lived in was also the last street before open space off Tramway, though in that case just outside city limits. I know what the trail probably looked like, but I have never been to this particular trailhead, I don't think; I lived further north. Elinruby (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re 5150: If you say so. Maybe you are right, but I have not seen that (mental health check) mentioned anywhere. See secondary sources, above. The only thing I have seen about intentions going in was a) they called officer Sandy to bring his recalled weapon and expired ammunition to the location because regular APD units had withdrawn the X12 from use. Sandy then says he wants to be lethal cover, gives the Taser to someone else, both of these after telling a state trooper that he planned to shoot Boyd in the penis. That's what we know about intentions so far. He'd apparently already had quite a few mental health evaluations already and had recently been determined incompetent and untreatable. If they knew him as well as all that -- which I am willing to believe -- then they knew that already too. Do you know that the sergeant in charge declined crisis negotiators? That two officers with crisis intervention each made some headway with Boyd? And were then pulled off? Do you know that Perez says Booyah after he shoots the guy? There is a story about Perez's birthday; have you heard about that? Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re number of officers:The number 41 is indeed from the family's filing. Rolling Stone also says this but that is probably also where they get forty. If you don't like 40, chose some other number that you think is true, and we can talk. I think I saw that one or two of the ones on the family list were dispatchers, for example. But we need some number there because imho the sheer number of guns pointed at a disabled citizen is notable. "Two" doesn't work though because those were not APD officers. They are fully commissioned but they work for the Parks and Open Space department. Re knife: yes. A pocket knife. Re:dark - yes. Sandy, yeah the guy who volunteered for lethal cover and announced he was going to shoot Boyd while he was still down in the street, threw the flash-bang, because he wanted to get things done with because it was getting dark.
 * Boyd did make a concession -- he agreed to come down. Remember, his position was that he had every right to be where he was and he wasn't someone APD could order around because in his mind he somehow outranked them. As for tactical situations. no, I have never had a law enforcement point a gun at me. I'll address issues above in those sections Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , I'm a bit upset by the comments and the editing here. It's my opinion that Elinruby ("ER") has gone to great lengths to get this right, to be objective, to be neutral. ER has been meticulous in exhaustively reviewing those available materials to a degree that I've rarely seen in 10 years of editing Wikipedia. I don't see that to be the case with Beanyandcecil, ("B&C") whose edits seem to me as if they're written by defense counsel for the shooters. Here we're expected to "assume good faith," but that doesn't rule out any exercise of legitimate skepticism. The shooters were indicted due to the existence of probable cause, and a jury found the City to be liable for the excesses that produced this awful death to the tune of $5 million, almost three times the damages for which the Boyd estate asked. None of this happened because there were hikers supposedly stumbling into danger on the scene. None of it happened because it was dark, as the sun had barely gone down. None of this happened because the negotiations were going nowhere. (Use of the term "unsuccessful" does not seem to rest on RSS.) None of this happened because responding officers were endangered. Reliable sources in the media seem to have given the indicted duo the benefit of the doubt. If anything, to me it appears command was inappropriately assumed because at least one individual for whom the public and Wikipedia readers have been given a context, seemed anxious to engage in a "turkey shoot." ER puts the question regarding disclosure of a potential COI on the part of B&C. I believe that's a legitimate question and deserves an honest response. I also won't have time for perhaps a week to address this, point by point, but I would suggest that standing down would be useful at this point to arrive at a constructive solution to the differences of opinion. Wikipedia readers are not going to be deciding on the merits of any case, whether for exoneration, conviction or inconclusively producing a hung jury. Jurors, who have been explicitly warned not to read anything about the case before them aren't going to be reading this. Testimony has been completed and the final arguments and judge's instructions should send the case to the jury tomorrow. Activist (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Activist wrote,  "I'm a bit upset by the comments and the editing here." 


 * I'm sorry to have upset you. I think that Elinruby has done a great job too.  But I think there's room for improvement.


 * Activist wrote,  "It's my opinion that Elinruby ("ER") has gone to great lengths to get this right, to be objective, to be neutral. " 


 * I'm sure that he has. But he's gotten some facts wrong and I think that his emotion has crept into the editing to some degree, It's small, but it's there nonetheless.


 * Activist wrote, '' "ER has been meticulous in exhaustively reviewing those available materials to a degree that I've rarely seen in 10 years of editing Wikipedia.


 * That may be true but he's gotten some things wrong. It doesn’t appear that he's closely watched the video of the shooting because he's factually wrong in several places.  I'd suggest that you take a look at my response to him, that I wrote just prior to this note.
 * The entire city did a frame-by-frame analysis of the first video released on Facebook, and more of the same on Twitter. I am actually not kidding. And this went on for quite some time especially since police officers were *still* shooting people in dubious circumstances. I don't know which helm cam video you are looking at, is the issue as I see it. I also wish you would quit describing the terrain to me. Yes, I have examined it carefully. Google earth and topographical maps and many versions of the video. I added some very detailed descriptions of the area to the external links section. It seems to me me you are the one who doesn't understand the terrain or you would have understood what I said about hikers, and I don't think that you did. I have not watched *the video* in quite some time because days of it is enough. I think you are attributing writing to me that I only edited. Or maybe not, shrug, as even just you and I talking makes clear, there are many interpretations of the same evidence apparently. But given the confusion in the sources about the timeline I saw no point in spending hours on it until some things became more clear. Oh and getting back to APD employment for a minute, if you are not employed by them or under contract to them then I accept that since I am assuming your good faith and you say so. I have found you ok to work with so far (except you keep implying I am emotional) and have no evidence to the contrary. I do have to mention though that if you DO have some affiliation, that would be ok, but only as long as you disclose it.

Elinruby (talk)


 * Activist wrote,  "I don't see that to be the case with Beanyandcecil, ("B&C")" whose edits seem to me as if they're written by defense counsel for the shooters. " ''


 * Thank you. I take that as a compliment.  The proceedings under discussion are adversarial in nature.  It's impossible to present the facts of this situation without presenting both sides.


 * Activist wrote,  "Here we're expected to "assume good faith," but that doesn't rule out any exercise of legitimate skepticism." 


 * I'm all for  "... any exercise of legitimate skepticism."  but to exclude the other side of that skepticism, is unfair to the readers.


 * Activist wrote,  "The shooters were indicted due to the existence of probable cause" 


 * Yes, that's correct. But they have not yet been convicted and there are many who think that they acted appropriately.  Until and unless they are convicted they should be afforded their constitutional right to be 'innocent until proven guilty.'  Wikipedia is not a courtroom and so, it's inappropriate to provide only comments that are against the interests of the officers.


 * Activist wrote,  "and a jury found the City to be liable for the excesses that produced this awful death to the tune of $5 million, almost three times the damages for which the Boyd estate asked." 


 * Here's an area where you seem to be completely wrong. As I've previously written I'm unable to find any reference that supports this.  IN FACT, as I've previously written to you, a Google search for "james boyd lawsuit Albuquerque" reveals dozens of news reports from all kinds of media that says that the lawsuit WAS NOT won by the Boyd family.  ALL of the reports that I've found say that the family and the city settled out of court for $5 million.  Even Facebook, famous for getting facts wrong, supports my position.  In a note here dated "08:17, 5 October 2016" I said basically the same thing, and asked you to support your claim.  You have failed to do so.  And so, I'll ask again.  Please show us some references that support this claim.  I'm sure that you're a very busy person, but I wonder, have you read my recent response to you?


 * Activist wrote,  "None of this happened because there were hikers supposedly stumbling into danger on the scene." 


 * So you are capable of predicting where and when hikers will appear on a given scene? Somehow I don't think so.  The fact is that it's a clear and obvious possibility.  It's an outdoor recreation area close to a major population center, that is frequented by many.


 * Activist wrote,  "None of it happened because it was dark, as the sun had barely gone down." 


 * That's correct, it was not yet dark, but the sun had set several minutes before the officers tried to take Boyd into custody, and it soon would be. It's tactically stupid to wait until the condition that you want to avoid exists, but it seems that's what you're advocating with this comment.  In most such areas it gets dark very soon after the sun sets.  There are no street lights in the area.  There is no 'cityglow' where nearby street lights and lights of nearby businesses light up unlit areas so brightly that it's relatively easy to see one's surroundings.  This area is on the outer edge of the city limits and once the sun goes down, it gets very dark.


 * Activist wrote,  "None of this happened because the negotiations were going nowhere. (Use of the term "unsuccessful" does not seem to rest on RSS.)" 


 * RSS? Do you mean 'Rich Site Summary?' if so, I don't know what you mean. If not, I'm not getting the reference.  Can you clarify please?  But I'll disagree with the rest of your statement.  The officers were "unsuccessful" in getting Boyd to put down his knives and allow himself to be searched.  They were going to take him into custody for his ADW (assault with a deadly weapon) on the Open Space Officers.  It's also possible that they were going to place a hold on him for a mental health evaluation.  Contrary to your opinion, if Mr. Boyd had simply allowed this search, we'd not now be discussing it.  He'd have been arrested and taken into custody with a minor note in a local newspaper, if that much attention was paid to the story.  IN FACT, the negotiations WERE  "going nowhere." 
 * I think he is saying reliable sources, which is a term of art of wikipedia Elinruby (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Activist wrote,  "None of this happened because responding officers were endangered." 


 * I'll disagree. I suggest that you take a look at the video that's been linked in this discussion and in the Article.  Look at how much distance there is between the officer, particularly the K−9 handler who is distracted and paying attention to his dog, and Boyd, who is at that moment armed with two knives.  It's apparent that you know little of such tactical matters or you'd not say this.  But just to be sure, and since you have many opinions about this incident, I'll ask you the same questions I asked of Elinruby.  Do you have any education, training, or experience in such police matters?  The military?  Anything?  You seem to be giving opinions on tactical situations and I'm wondering where you obtain your expertise in them?


 * Activist wrote,  "Reliable sources in the media seem to have given the indicted duo the benefit of the doubt." 


 * That's because in the US, people are considered to be innocent until they are proven guilty.


 * Activist wrote,  "If anything, to me it appears command was inappropriately assumed because at least one individual for whom the public and Wikipedia readers have been given a context, seemed anxious to engage in a 'turkey shoot.' " 


 * I'd guess that you're referring to Sandy's reference to shooting Boyd with his Taser shotgun. But since I don't want to waste my time, I'll wait for your response.  Meanwhile, I suggest that you read my comments on this to Elinruby.  I doubt that you'll come up with anything that he's not said about it.


 * Activist wrote,  "ER puts the question regarding disclosure of a potential COI on the part of B&C. I believe that's a legitimate question and deserves an honest response." 


 * I'd bet that COI means 'Conflict of Interest.' But I don't know what  "B&C"  refers to.  Please clarify.  In any case, I'm pretty sure that I've answered every question that Elinruby has asked of me.  It's possible that I've missed one.  If so, please let me know.
 * it's you silly, he's just saving his carpals Elinruby (talk)
 * Activist wrote,  "I also won't have time for perhaps a week to address this, point by point, but I would suggest that standing down would be useful at this point to arrive at a constructive solution to the differences of opinion." 


 * So, because you're going to spend time elsewhere we should sit on our hands for a week, until you get back? I'm sorry but I see no reason for this.  I doubt that I have much more editing on the article so that will probably slow down due to natural causes, but the rest of us might continue to talk among ourselves.


 * Activist wrote,  "Wikipedia readers are not going to be deciding on the merits of any case, whether for exoneration, conviction or inconclusively producing a hung jury. Jurors, who have been explicitly warned not to read anything about the case before them aren't going to be reading this. Testimony has been completed and the final arguments and judge's instructions should send the case to the jury tomorrow." 
 * I doubt that the jury will read this entry, especially since they've been admonished, as you've said,  "not to read 'anything' about the case."  But I have no idea, and neither do you, how many others will read this while you're busy elsewhere.


 * Meanwhile, I've asked you some questions in this note, and in some other notes too, that I hope you'll answer when you get the time. Beanyandcecil (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am retired LE with 30 years on the job. I retired with the rank of sergeant.  My experience, as regards this discussion, includes:  serving as department Rangemaster, SWAT team, FTO (Field Training Officer), OIS (Officer Involved Shooting team), K−9 handler and trainer, and UOF (Use of Force) Instructor.  Now that I've retired, and while I was on the job, I worked as a legal consultant, a court recognized expert on firearms and edged weapons, general UOF, and K−9 matters.  I was not with APD, although I do have some inside contacts there.


 * Elinruby wrote,  "just as it is ok for me to say I am furious that this -- any of this, the DoJ report, any of it, happened in a police department that --- let's just say I am appalled by APD on many levels" 


 * The police department for the city that I live in, was policed by a world class department. Agencies from around the world sent its members here to learn from special teams and special desks (specialized assignments).  But they've suffered through several riots, and at least one (perhaps two) consent decrees from the DOJ.  They too were told that they had patterns or practices of racism and using excessive force.  I was privy to many of their investigations and knew many of the officers involved.  Occasionally the charges made by the DOJ was accurate, but more often the DOJ was 'engaged in a pattern and practice of political correctness,' and lacking in reality.  That is just one reason that incidents involving UOF must be judged on an individual basis, not the results of a DOJ study that speaks to generalities.  Training officers 'not to be racist,' is a waste of time and funds.  The world will always have racists, it's impossible to weed them out.  The best we can do is to be aware of it, minimize it and 'police' it whenever it appears.  I have no problem in firing LEOs who do the wrong thing, if the act was done purposefully.  Officers who have not been trained or who make honest mistakes should be disciplined and retrained.  I'm not one of those who automatically 'backs the blue' or who tries to cover up wrongdoing.  LEOs who do this are a very small minority.


 * Elinruby wrote,  "I am not hating on anyone who doesn't go around shooting people for no reason. Or interested in anything but having this article be exactly right." 


 * I'm with you on this.


 * Elinruby wrote,  " 1.Wait, all we are talking about here is whether to add unsuccessful? I might not actually be against that, but it does sound like we have completely different perceptions of these events and should probably chat about them here." 


 * Yes, if you're referring to the difference between "negotiation" and "unsuccessful negotiation" in the article, that's the difference. Without the "unsuccessful" adjective, it sounds as if there was some arbitrary time limit on how long they'd negotiate.  Or it sounds as you've said,  "They lost patience." "   This was hardly such a matter.  I've already spoken to the reason that they decided to move from conversation to taking Boyd into custody.  There are sound and reasonable tactical reasons for this to have occurred.  Your opinion is just that, opinion.  It's based on your emotions regarding this case and is conjecture.  I think that it gives the reader a feeling about the incident that may or may not be true.  I think it places a bias on the article that should not be there.  Inserting the word "unsuccessful" is factual and accurate and removes the emotion that readers may feel without it.


 * Elinruby wrote,  "2.Re: inner/outer perimeter, sure maybe but the problem we are trying to solve here is that park rules say you cannot camp without a permit, right?" 


 * Well, that's what started the call. I'd bet that when the Open Space Officers arrived they only wanted to move Boyd out of the area where it was illegal for him to camp.  Had he moved his camp a couple of hundred yards (perhaps less) he could have spent the rest of his life there, camping was legal near where he was encamped.  But when they contacted him, he escalated it into a felony – 'assault on a police officer with a deadly weapon.'  (The penal code of that jurisdiction may call it something else, but the crime is still the same), by threatening to kill those officers and threatening them with a deadly weapon, his knife.  Not seeing this, as seems to be the case here, has lead some astray.


 * Think of a shoplifter who kills the officer who comes to take him into custody, and is then lawfully and properly shot by other officers when he shoots at them. There are those who will say that he 'was killed for shoplifting,' but of course that's absurd.


 * Elinruby wrote,  "3.I was looking for the police reports on those Albuquerque incidents and and not finding them. Do you know what's up with that?" 


 * I have no idea where such reports might be. I think it was you who surmised that they might be destroyed if the party is deceased.  But that's not the policy anywhere that I know of.  I guessed earlier that, because there were no criminal charges filed, that he was placed on a mental 'hold,' that due to HIPPA rules, the files are not available.
 * no, there's one for a Las Cruces case that says he was found incompetent so that's not it. I wonder if maybe this is the part where he insists on being Abba? I'll try that in a bit. Elinruby (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Elinruby wrote,  "Also the incident at Holloman sounds considerably different depending on whether he was "trying to get into", "walked up to the gate of" or somehow already on the base when he told people he was on a mission from Gerald Ford. I mean, I grant you he was looney toons, schizo-affective disorder not schizoprenia, though, there is a difference." 


 * I'm not familiar with this incident. I've only studied this contact with APD.
 * you see my point though? Elinruby (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Elinruby wrote,  "Do tell on the threats of violence on countless other occasions. I think we already have the incident at the firestation, right? What else?" 


 * There are several reports of LE being called to a library and several of him accosting people on the street. I don't have these citations and they may have come during testimony at the trial.
 * mmmmm ok if you call that countless. I have those in there. Elinruby (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Elinruby wrote,  " So, 19 times is interesting but where does it come from?" 


 * I recall seeing an exhibit during the trial, presented by the defense, that made that claim. Another slide said that the officers asked, or told Boyd to put down his knife 33 times.  I realize those statements are evidence and not proof.
 * well if it was the defense attorney it's not evidence either, but it's not proof, no. It's possible they enumberated them in court though. But yes, I confirm seeing those #s from the defense 10:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Elinruby wrote,  "4. About secondary sources, you do realize that the standard for "true" on wikipedia is "because here is something edited and published that says so", right? Not life experience or something so and so said to me once. The problem here is that some of the secondary sources disagree, as in my Holloman example above." 


 * Yes, I get that standard. Witnesses will rarely agree down to the smallest details.  Heck, sometimes they disagree as to the largest details.  Different viewpoints, sometimes based on where someone is standing, and in what direction they are looking, means that they will have different perceptions.  In the recent Charlotte shooting the police said the man had a gun.  His wife said it was a book.  No book was found.  A gun was found.  It contained the man's DNA and his fingerprints.  He was also wearing an ankle holster.  As the saying goes – Who you gonna believe, the wife or your lying eyes?


 * Remember the Ferguson incident? One witness claimed that Michael Brown had his hands in the air, was on his knees when he was executed by Officer Darren Wilson.  But that was completely discredited by other witnesses, and perhaps most importantly by the physical evidence from the autopsy.  Yet it was the spark for the activist organization BLM (Black Lives Matter) and is based on the false narrative, "Hands up.  Don't shoot."  This chant and the 'hands up pose' has been seen at virtually every demonstration since.


 * Elinruby wrote,  "Re hikers, doesn't that place close at dark, theoretically anyway?" 


 * Yes, but relying on that to guarantee that no 'late leavers' are present means that someone might be placed into a deadly situation. Where I worked we had several parks that closed at sunset.  On an average week, we'd chase as many as a dozen people out who 'hadn't read the sign, forgot what it said,' or 'just didn't care.'


 * Elinruby wrote,  "Wouldn't any perimeter have been also been behind Boyd then, since presumably hikers would have been coming back down the mountain to their cars?" 


 * This is just tactically too much to expect from even the best trained officers. You'd want to still maintain both the inner and the outer perimeter.  That means two groups of officers, both in front of and behind Boyd, moving at about the same pace that he was, while avoiding allowing him to get too close to them, avoiding stepping into the cactus or tripping on the rocks that covered the area.  All the while keeping four inner perimeter officers (two with less lethal and two with lethal force options) covering him.  This would have a constant danger of crossfire, where Boyd would be in between two groups of officers.  There are those who will say that LEOs took the job, knowing that it was dangerous.  To them I say, that, yes, I knew it was dangerous.  But there's a big difference between taking necessary risks and taking UNnecessary risks.  This mobile, dual−layer perimeter is in the latter category.


 * If, while moving down the trail, the officer anticipated that Boyd would take THIS trail but suddenly he veered off onto a fork in the trail, both perimeters might collapse. And given his unpredictability, this would greatly increase the danger to him and the officers.  A basic rule of these situations is that you don't allow the subject to move out of the inner perimeter.


 * Elinruby wrote,  "Also, according to Thickstun, Boyd had been there a month. Without wreaking havok among the local hiker population, or surely we would be hearing about it. Right?" 


 * We can't know why it never happened. Perhaps neither God nor the DOJ ever gave a him a 'go code' for any of the hikers.  Perhaps they recognized him for the disturbed person that he was and 'the word was out' so that everyone avoided him.  But it's just conjecture.  He had a violent history.  It's the nature of LE work to 'hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.'  They knew of his past assaults, one with an edged weapon and of his previous assault on a LEO.


 * Elinruby wrote,  " But it's suddenly a tac-alert?" 


 * At the outset it was just two officers who in all likelihood just going to ask him to move along. I've occasionally helped these folks load property into their shopping carts to speed things up.  But when Boyd escalated to deadly force and assaulted the officer with a deadly weapon, it escalated.


 * Elinruby wrote,  " I have watched multiple videos of the incident several times and I lived for quite some time in Albuquerque. One house was I lived in was also the last street before open space off Tramway, though in that case just outside city limits. I know what the trail probably looked like, but I have never been to this particular trailhead, I don't think; I lived further north." 


 * Here's another video done by a contributor to PINAC (Photography Is Not A Crime – generally regarded as an anti−government organization) where the narrator goes to the area where Boyd was camping, walks up the trail, and examines the area of the shooting. Unfortunately it's highly biased against the police, but it does give a good overview of the area.  CLICK HERE TO SEE THE VIDEO


 * Elinruby wrote,  "Re 5150: If you say so. Maybe you are right, but I have not seen that (mental health check) mentioned anywhere." 


 * Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing it written down anywhere. Perhaps it came from my own experience.  Nonetheless, the officers planned to take Boyd into custody after his ADW (Assault with a Deadly Weapon) on the Open Space Officers.  I don't think it matters whether they planned to book him at the jail or place a psychiatric hold on him.  But tell me, after expending this many resources on him, after spending over three hours negotiating, After he threatened to kill two LEOs, after he pulled a knife on those LEOs, do you really think they planned to just escort him off the hill?  Or is some sort of custody more likely?  You do realize that sometimes LE lies to get people into custody without a fight, right?


 * Elinruby wrote,  "The only thing I have seen about intentions going in was a) they called officer Sandy to bring his recalled weapon and expired ammunition to the location because regular APD units had withdrawn the X12 from use. Sandy then says he wants to be lethal cover, gives the Taser to someone else, both of these after telling a state trooper that he planned to shoot Boyd in the penis." 


 * It's clear that he was referring to using his Taser shotgun for the 'penis shot.'
 * not to me, and this point is controversial Elinruby (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Elinruby wrote,  "That's what we know about intentions so far. He'd apparently already had quite a few mental health evaluations already and had recently been determined incompetent and untreatable. If they knew him as well as all that -- which I am willing to believe -- then they knew that already too." 


 * You know as well as I do, that such a prognosis can change as the condition changes. Just because that's the information from last time he was seen, hardly means that's the case now.


 * Elinruby wrote,  "Do you know that the sergeant in charge declined crisis negotiators? That two officers with crisis intervention each made some headway with Boyd? And were then pulled off?" 


 * I'm familiar with both of these parts of the incident. The  "crisis negotiators"  were from another team within the department.  One team was already on scene and involved with Boyd.  As with horses, 'you don't change negotiators in the middle of the stream.'  The  "two officers [who you say] with crisis intervention [training who had] ... made some headway with Boyd"  really hadn't.  He agreed to walk down the hill but when told that he had to surrender his knives, Boyd refused to do so and declined their invitation.  The last negotiator was pulled off when it started to get dark and the supervisor decided that more negotiation was not going to accomplish anything, and that it was time to take Boyd into custody before it got any darker.


 * Elinruby wrote,  "Do you know that Perez says Booyah after he shoots the guy? There is a story about Perez's birthday; have you heard about that?" 


 * I have not heard about the  "Booyah."  When does it occur?  But given the intensity of the situation and knowing the reactions of people who have been fortunate enough to survive them, I'm not surprised.  Such responses at having survived lethal situations, are quite common.  Various people have various reactions to stress.  I've seen anger, tears, uncontrollable shaking, a desperate need to phone a spouse and tell them that they're OK, cursing, laughing, urination, defecation, complete calm, an extreme need to talk, an inability to talk, and more.  Some of them, given the time and situation, seem quite out of place, but until someone has been there, one does not know what the reaction will be.  Witness otherwise ordinary people who rise to the occasion, and display uncharacteristic courage and heroism, and others, who flee at the first loud noise.


 * What's the  "story"  about the party? [My response to Elinruby continues after the next section]. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ADDITI0NAL INFORMATION REGARDING MY PREVIOUS STATEMENT.


 * I've just discovered where this comes from. The statement is wrong.  At no time does Perez, or anyone else, say "Booyah."  When the K−9 handler sends his dog, there is some confusion on the dog's part.  At the start instead of watching Boyd, he watches the flight of the flash−bang.  When he's released, he runs towards the location where it landed.  Then he moves towards Boyd.  He runs to him but does not immediately bite him.  Instead he returns to the handler who attempts to direct him to Boyd.  Instead the dog picks up a stuff sack that Boyd has dropped, and brings it back to the handler.  When he does, the handler crouches down and says "FOOEY" in a loud voice.  This is at about 1:01 on the video.  That command is how many LE K−9 handlers say "NO" to their dogs, to let them know that they've done the wrong thing.  The handler then tries to physically get the stuff sack away from the dog.  While he's distracted from Boyd, and is doing this, the cover officers fire.  At 1:04 the handler says it again, apparently still trying to get the stuff sack away from the dog.


 * I understand the confusion over this and I think that it's a combination of not knowing the details of working a LE K−9 and the bias that seems to permeate this Wiki entry. Some people seem to want to believe that the  'bloodthirsty bad police officers are celebrating at having taken a life.'   But the truth is that some do not understand the inner workings of LE K−9's and are allowing their bias and emotions in this case, to control their perceptions.  Would that people could set their emotions aside when evaluating these situations.  But I've found that this is virtually impossible for some folks.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I do my best so please stop with the talk about biases. It's annoying since I don't think it applies to me. If you are not an APD employee and not involved with these events then I don't think you have a conflict of opinion, though you clearly have strong opinions that *probably* stop short of a bias, maybe. Of course, for all I know you were thinking of me when you wrote the above ;) which is why wikipedia recommends keeping it to secondary sources and arguments about specific criteria and reliable sources etc. Hopefully we're all grown-up enough here to not need any of that mediation though. I want the article to be correct, although I have an opinion about what happened, and you say the same and so does . So let's do it. But since apparently we disagree we're going to need to use the talk page more than we have been. Just saying. You're about to get a bunch of notifications, if you're watching the page.. Tired of answering now, off to work on actual page.


 * Elinruby wrote,  "I do my best so please stop with the talk about biases. It's annoying since I don't think it applies to me." 


 * I'm sorry but  "bias"  applies to all of us. No one is free from it.  We all prefer one flavor of ice cream, one kind of food, one kind of car, one kind of movie.  If not those things, then it's something else.  To be fair in these matters, one must be aware of it and purposefully put it aside.


 * Elinruby wrote,  "If you are not an APD employee and not involved with these events then I don't think you have a conflict of opinion, though you clearly have strong opinions that *probably* stop short of a bias, maybe." 


 * I'm not and never have been  "an APD employee."  I am a retired LEO, with 30 years on the job.  I spent time on an OIS (Officer Involved Shooting team) so I'm trained in these matters.  I've also worked K−9, SWAT, and as a UOF (Use of Force) instructor, and I’m trained in knife combatives.  I've testified as an expert on K−9 and UOF in Superior Court.  I have found LEOs to be at fault in shootings, so I've worked both sides of these incidents.


 * Elinruby wrote,  "Of course, for all I know you were thinking of me when you wrote the above ;) which is why wikipedia recommends keeping it to secondary sources and arguments about specific criteria and reliable sources etc. Hopefully we're all grown-up enough here to not need any of that mediation though." 


 * It was a general statement about the tone of the article. I wasn't laying the responsibility for my perception of bias in the article at any single editor's feet.  I apologize if you took it that way.  It wasn't my intent.


 * On another note, I think that Wiki's policy on secondary sources being more reliable than primary ones, at least as far as the helmet cam video of this incident, to be out of date. The video is indisputable as a record of what happened.  Of course it's not the whole story, it's just one POV, from one angle.  But there are dozens of highly biased, anti−LEO websites who have misreported what it shows.  One example is the previously discussed 'hearing' of "Booya" a celebration, when it was actually the K−9 handler correcting is dog.  I've seen people all over the Net decrying the police officer for 'celebrating at having killed a mentally ill homeless man,' when in fact, they're completely wrong about what was said, and the reason for it.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Elinruby wrote,  "Re number of officers:The number 41 is indeed from the family's filing. Rolling Stone also says this but that is probably also where they get forty. If you don't like 40, chose some other number that you think is true, and we can talk. I think I saw that one or two of the ones on the family list were dispatchers, for example. But we need some number there because imho the sheer number of guns pointed at a disabled citizen is notable." 


 * I think I saw a slide during the trial that said '20 officers.' I think that's a reasonable number.  I used fewer but then I never had a situation like this, on this type of terrain.  In an urban environment it's easier to secure a location.  I've had subjects who decided to go 'walkabout' and that greatly complicated the situations, but still it's easier in a city, than in the boondocks.
 * still finding sources that say 40, not sure how to resolve this right now, but leaving for the moment. Elinruby (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You think it's a reasonable number for # officers at a given time over the time period? Just trying to get my mind around it. I may have seen that # also, but need context. I'll get back to you on this. Elinruby (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Elinruby wrote,  " 'Two' doesn't work though because those were not APD officers. They are fully commissioned but they work for the Parks and Open Space department." 


 * Yes, and they were present while it was still a simple call.


 * Elinruby wrote,  "Re knife: yes. A pocket knife." 


 * You keep minimizing the danger by calling his weapon(s)  "a pocket knife." . As I've added to the article, this was a "lock-back, folding pocket knife with a 3 1/2" (8.9 cm) partially-serrated blade."  The fact that it locks open means that it will not close on your fingers if you apply force in the 'wrong' direction.  It increases its utility as a weapon.  The blade is long enough to cause death either by a slash to the neck or a stab to the chest or abdomen.  The blade is long enough to reach internal organs.  It is capable of inflicting death or serious injury.  The serrations that make up about half of the blade, inflict a jagged wound that is difficult to repair, difficult for someone in the field to stop from bleeding, and if the injured party recovers, usually leaves a horrendous scar.  In many jurisdictions a knife that is only 1/2" (1.3cm) longer is a violation of the law.  They can be confiscated and the person carrying them, can be arrested.  So many people carry a knife that is just shorter that that length.  But I don't know the law in NM or the City of Albuquerque.


 * Commonly a "pocket knife" has a fairly short blade, often less than 2" − 3" (5cm – 7.6cm) and is not capable of reaching the internal organs of a human. It can still cause serious injury or death if veins or arteries that are near the surface are severed.  Commonly they do not lock open.  In many jurisdictions, the possession of a knife whose blade locks in the open position is a violation.  Again, I don't know the law in NM or the City of Albuquerque.
 * I see you moved the knife detail, thanks Elinruby (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am trained in knife combatives as well as knife defense. A blade of that length would not be my first choice if I had to defend myself or if I planned on attacking someone, but it would certainly do the job, if needed.  At close ranges a knife is a highly dangerous weapon.  More so than even a holstered gun.  Lots of people survive what should be deadly gunshots.  No one survives having their carotid artery cut in two.  Gun run out of ammunition and they sometimes malfunction.  Knives never 'run dry,' and it's very rare that they stop working in the middle of a 'job.'


 * Elinruby wrote,  "Re:dark - yes. Sandy, yeah the guy who volunteered for lethal cover and announced he was going to shoot Boyd while he was still down in the street, threw the flash-bang, because he wanted to get things done with because it was getting dark." 


 * You seem to think that allowing this to continue in the dark would be 'no big deal.' I'm wondering, do you have any education, training, or experience in such police matters?  The military?  Anything?  You seem to be giving opinions on tactical situations and I'm wondering where you obtain your expertise in them?


 * Elinruby wrote,  "Boyd did make a concession -- he agreed to come down. Remember, his position was that he had every right to be where he was and he wasn't someone APD could order around because in his mind he somehow outranked them." 


 * C'mon Elinruby, the thoughts of a mental patient can't possibly control such a situation.


 * Elinruby wrote,  "As for tactical situations. no, I have never had a law enforcement point a gun at me." 


 * I have several times. For awhile in my career I worked undercover and looked like someone that LE should be talking to.  I was careful to move slowly and deliberately and to obey the commands given to me.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

During the opening arguments of the trial the prosecutor, presented a slide showing what she determined there to be 19 officers present at the scene of the confrontation, stating, ''"All of these men at the time of the shooting, surrounded him. He was in the middle, and all of these officers had encircled him." '' She then presented a slide that showed that 19 officers were present.

Here's where it occurs. http://www.koat.com/news/james-boyd-case-chief-eden-to-testify-monday/34504164#t=21

I'm going to place this information into the Article under the "Shooting" heading. Beanyandcecil (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I edited what you put there a little but I don't think I changed your intended meaning. My theory is that 40 is the number involved in some way, or present at some point; 19 may have been the number there at a given point, but I am not seeing a source that says this yet. Meanwhile, I need to check the citation but I agree that it is material that she said this. Elinruby (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's a bit of my expertise. I've seen this dozens, perhaps hundreds of times in the course of my career.  Most sources that I've seen talk about their having been at most 19 officers "encircling"  Boyd during this incident.  There were other officers down in the parking lot, and who were coming and going but they had nothing at all to do with the negotiations with Boyd, with the final confrontation, with the shooting, or with the immediate aftermath.


 * The "40" probably comes from the family's lawsuit, where it's to a lawyer's advantage to name (often as "John Does #20-40") far more officers than were involved in the incident. Sometimes this is because he knows that other officers were involved but does not know their names.  But usually it's just to stir up the jury pool, the public, and the press with just how badly their client was outnumbered by the big, bad police.


 * On incidents I've run, or been present at, afterwards I've seen lawsuits that placed the number of officers present as high as 100! That's over 90% of the department and would include, all the detectives, all of the patrol officers, all of the traffic officers, and all of the administrative officers!  That's physically impossible because only about 1/3 of those officers are on duty at any given time, especially after normal business hours.  Such numbers are not based in reality.  If there were 40 officers involved in the incident you know, if you're being honest, that the prosecutor would have used that number on her slide.  She would have told the jury that figure, because it would influence them.  But she didn't.  She realized that the accurate number was 19 and THAT is what she presented as evidence in the case.  She also knew that had she used the  "40"  the defense would have shown her to be 'padding' the numbers, and that would hurt her case.  I'm not going to change the Article, but that  "40" figure is nothing short of bu** sh**.  Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

POV template
I am supposed to be somewhere else right now but I flagged this because of many small changes I can't address right now that add POV problems and sometimes error. The stuff I just removed about the DA for example -- would have been a POV issue anyway but an investigation sais she DIDN'T DO it. More later. Elinruby (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am home earlier than I expected and am going through the article for missing references. Elinruby (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

booyah
I've seen this in captions so if I misheard I have company. Perez also *was* a Marine. I suppose that the version I saw may have been captioned by a random internet person not a court or police employee; I'll try to look into this.Elinruby (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"The interaction continued with a different team"
I wish there was an award for euphemism..... Ingram, Perez, Sandy and the K-9 were not a team. Sandy testified that he did not know that Perez was there. The tactical and SWAT team were both trying to set up a plan, and had not been been advised that Sandy and the K-9 officer were also planning strategy. Sandy's own supervisor said Sandy was focussed on providing lethal cover. Elinruby (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)