Text and/or other creative content from this version of Albuquerque Police Department was copied or moved into James Boyd shooting with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This page was proposed for deletion by Reddogsix ( talk · contribs) in the past. It was contested by Xoloz ( talk · contribs)

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Law Enforcement Start‑class This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. United States: New Mexico Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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) reply

PS - this is a question - if anyone has a real reference, please bring it.

@ Elinruby: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) reply

@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) reply

@ Beanyandcecil: @ Elinruby: 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) reply

@ Activist: 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) reply

• 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) reply

@ Activist: @ Elinruby: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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

@ Activist: 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) reply

@ Elinruby: 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) reply

@ Activist: 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) reply

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)

@ Activist: 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

• @ Elinruby: 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:

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.

@ Activist: 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) reply

• 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) reply

thanks, @ Activist: all help appreciated Elinruby ( talk) 04:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

The defense theory is, I think, that they were protecting the dog and its handler. Elinruby ( talk) 10:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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 reply

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) reply

@ Beanyandcecil: 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) reply

@ Elinruby: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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

@ Beanyandcecil: 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

• • @ Beanyandcecil:@ Elinruby:, 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) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby: 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) reply

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) reply

@ Elinruby: 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

• • 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) reply

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 @ Activist:. 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby: 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

He says shotgun Police version is that of course he meant Taser shotgun. Secondary sources very mixed and I believe the ones that scoff at the police version, esp given the DoJ report specifically condemning APD practices with respect to the mentally ill. I have removed "[Taser]" from the quote. Elinruby ( talk) 07:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply

It's not necessary that he use the word "Taser." It's not that it's the "police version" it's that it's a reasonable conclusion to come to after listening to the conversation between the officers and reading the transcript of it I've located several sources that support that Sandy was talking about a Taser shotgun, not a standard shotgun. I'm going to add a few paragraphs to the Article and move a sentence that does not belong where it is. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 04:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

He doesn't say it and I am against it appearing between quotes, even in brackets. There were different interpretations in the press. Chris Ware's response was "I thought you guys had less-lethal?" which doesn't seem to fit youru scenario Elinruby ( talk) 03:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I clarified the statement about the Taser shotgun. Various "reputable sources" say either "shotgun" or "Taser shotgun." It now says, "Sandy told Ware that Boyd was 'a fucking lunatic' and that he planned to shoot Boyd 'in the penis with a Taser shotgun here in a second." Some reputable sources leave the word "Taser" out of this statement and some include it"

While you may be against it, "reputable sources" report it both ways. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

if we must spend three paragraphs on this then I guess we must ;) Do you agree he doesn't say the word? That's the reason for the brackets, right, that it's an explanation and even if he didn't he didn't say it it must have been what he meant because he has a Taser shotgun and an assault rifle, right? Elinruby ( talk) 07:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby: Just some more evidence as to the meaning of Sandy's statement on this. On the courtroom video of the opening statements, published, 9-19-2016, the prosecuting attorney, in describing Sandy's actions says, "... looking to shoot Mr. Boyd with a Taser shotgun." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCuh9XKJP80&list=PLuNw9FRRRYk7wLTODjtDDAgHrGfjWmRR2#t=1080

It's not even disputed by the prosecution, yet here some are arguing about his statement. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 15:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Again, you're in primary sources, and it's not just here that it's disputed. Jeff Proctor at KRQE has it the other way, for one. There were at least three stories at the time about what the video says; it is hard to hear. I discount the State police officer's interpretation, which doesn't match the audio and probably has elements of thin blue line to it, plus he and Sandy are friends. My position is this: Sandy doesn't SAY Taser so why inject the word into a quote? I am trying to accomodate your objection that you think he means Taser shotgun though by asking the above question. What he DOES shoot Sandy with, that's an assault rifle, is that right? Not a shotgun? Elinruby ( talk) 19:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:elinruby wrote, "Again, you're in primary sources"

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:elinruby wrote, "Again, you're in primary sources"

Yep. They're not prohibited by Wiki policy and frequently, as here, they're far more reliable than many secondary sources. It's correct that Sandy does not says the word "Taser" at this moment. Yet there are many sources that quote him as saying this, that do not have the word in square brackets (meaning that it's 'assumed' that's what he meant, including this one). http://krqe.com/2016/09/26/murder-trial-for-former-albuquerque-police-officers-to-resume-monday/ . So much for the Wiki policy and your repeated allegation that secondary sources are more reliable than primary sources.

@ Beanyandcecil: I feel you there but we need to use secondary sources as much as possible. The article has not yet been visited by the wikipedia correctness police but it is likely they will be by after the verdict. I will agree that the secondary sources disagree on several points and may well be wrong on others. Usually when there is a complete head-butting over facts, those of us who try to mediate these things suggest including both sets of facts if there is suffficent weight on both sides. That is usually unwieldy tho. I suggest we try to agree on what is correct. Elinruby ( talk) 06:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

This is not just 'related information,' rather it's VITAL. It's one of the reasons that the first degree murder was dropped from the list of charges against Sandy. With just the statement, without his true meaning we have, "I'm going to shoot him in the penis with a shotgun ..." But when his meaning is put into the context, it's obvious that he's NOT planning a use of deadly force. It's a stupid thing to say, no question, but does not show deadly intent or a plan to use deadly force against Boyd.

The statement that Sandy said "Taser shotgun" is not true, no matter how many secondary sources make the claim. It's an assumption made by analyzing the transcript of video from Ware's dash cam. In it, Ware, questions Sandy's meaning of his statement, 'shoot Boyd in the penis' and Sandy affirms his meaning as using the Taser shotgun for this.

Right. But Ware swears that Sandy actually *said* the word Taser. Elinruby ( talk) 06:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Here is the transcript from the dash cam recording regarding this exchange.

• Sandy: What do they have you guys doing here?
• Ware: I don’t know. The guy asked for state police.
• Sandy: Who asked?
• Ware: I don’t know.
• Sandy: For this f***ing lunatic? I’m going to shoot him in the penis with a shotgun here in a second.
• Ware: You got uh less-lethal?
• Sandy: I got…
• Ware: The Taser shotgun?
• Sandy: Yeah.

From this site: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/officer-sandy-murderer-james-boyd-stated-shoot-penis-hours-killing/

This conversation was going on when Sandy was gearing up to go up the hill from the parking lot. He was handling his Taser shotgun at the time. See page 4, line 11-18 https://lintvkrqe.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/apd-transcript-sandy-20140407.pdf It's reasonable to assume he was referring to using the weapon he had in his hands at the moment. The prosecutor said during the preliminary hearing that he said he "was going to shoot [Boyd] in the penis with a Taser shotgun."

so.. this is the version that I believe, although most transcriptions have an (inaudible) notation in there also. (So what are we arguing for?) I removed this as a reference from the article because the article itself is not exactly neutral and somewhat wrong (murder assumes facts not in evidence for example). However, I do not question the video, as it matches the one from youtube (comments about this in a separate section below).

Elinruby wrote, " and it's not just here that it's disputed. Jeff Proctor at KRQE has it the other way, for one. There were at least three stories at the time about what the video says; it is hard to hear. I discount the State police officer's interpretation, which doesn't match the audio"

LOL. Based on what do you "discount the ... interpretation?"

Elinruby wrote, " and probably has elements of thin blue line to it"

Just more conjecture with nothing to back it up. Sounds like 'bias' to me. You said earlier that you were not 'emotional' yet here we have a judgment about honesty based on 'feElings.' He made the statement both under oath and during the investigation.

Elinruby wrote, "plus he and Sandy are friends."

Yep all the more reason to understand that he's joking around with Ware and that there was a complete absence of an intent to use deadly force against Boyd at this point.

Elinruby wrote, "My position is this: Sandy doesn't SAY Taser so why inject the word into a quote? I am trying to accomodate your objection that you think he means Taser shotgun though by asking the above question."

First I'm hardly the only one who has come to this conclusion. The prosecutor in the case agrees with me and it's certainly in the best interest of her case for it to mean 'deadly force.'

Second, because the Article initially completely omitted what Sandy and Ware have both said the actual meaning of the statement was and contained only that he planned to shoot Boyd with the shotgun in the penis, giving his comment an insinuation of deadly intent. That was not what he meant as he testified to, under oath.

I realize you're unfamiliar with Albuquerque and the history of this is mostly NOT in wikipedia so I understand why you don't share my deep cynicism about the adorable idea that a police officer would never lie under oath. Elinruby ( talk) 06:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC) 06:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Elinruby wrote, "[D]eep cynicism? [A]dorable idea?" no evidence of bias there! </sarcasm>

In any case, I'm well aware that sometimes LEOs lie both on investigations and under oath. I've had it happen to me during my investigations. But your apparent assumption, tantamount to an accusation that it happened in this case, display an AMAZING amount of anti−LEO bias, at least in this case. There is NOTHING but your bias to support this allegation. Of course, if you have something that show this, please show it to us.

I find it amazing that due to "history" you have automatically assumed that anything untoward of this nature occurred here. Just because the DOJ found that OTHERS on the APD have a 'practice of excessive force' does NOT mean that these officers did. Yet you don't hesitate to paint them all with a broad brush. That's wrong, and that filter has affected your attempts to remain neutral. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 09:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

How this for a compromise? I'm going to change the entry to reflect his exact words, include the part of the transcript that addresses this, and a statement that the meaning of his statement has been interpreted by many, including the prosecutor in the case, to mean 'Taser shotgun.'

Elinruby wrote, "What he DOES shoot Sandy with, that's an assault rifle, is that right? Not a shotgun?"

Technically no, but commonly, yes. The correct definition of an "assault rifle" is one that fires fully automatically. That is, pull the trigger once and it continues to fire until it empties the magazine. What Sandy has is a "Modern Sporting Rifle," a 'replica' of an "assault rifle," aka an AR-15 or clone. The major difference is that it fires one shot per trigger pull, but cosmetically, it looks like the 'assault rifle' version, but it functions differently. But the politicians have demonized the term to mean 'guns that look like assault rifles,' and so that's become the term that's in common use. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 05:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

My point is, it would not be described as a shotgun, right? I have been editing there, see what you think before you jump into stuff. So please discuss. I will be around at least another hour and possibly on and off for longer. I would like to get this article right before a verdict. I am about to put in a cite for Jones' attorney and add the KRQE interpretation. Elinruby ( talk) 06:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I find it amazing that someone who doesn't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun is passing judgment on LE tactics on a barricaded suspect and LEO interactions between the police and mentally disturbed, dangerous, assaultive suspects. But I see it quite a bit. I guess I shouldn't be surprised when people with no expertise do this, but I am. I wouldn't ask my plumber for a second opinion on my heart surgery, my landscaper for advice on what siding to put on my house, or the burger flipper at McDonald's for advice on how best to train my dog. But that doesn't stop, or even slow some folks down from what we see here.

welcome to wikipedia. Elinruby ( talk) 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

You may find this amusing, but in reality it displays an astounding arrogance that these folks know better than people who have been trained and educated for this job and, many of whom, have been doing the job for decades. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 22:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Far from what is seen on TV and in the movies, LE tactics are a complex and difficult subject that holds people's lives in the balance. No deployment is perfect. No two deployments are the same, and there are only generalities and guidelines. There are no hard and fast rules to go by.

I don't think I have ever said this. Would you please stop mansplaining this incident to me? I have asked you nicely several times now. I can't believe you think you know what happened yet are missing huge chunks of information because you won't read the DoJ report. It takes issue with several aspects of APD that are highlighted in this incident. Elinruby ( talk) 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I never said that you said this. Not sure what "mansplaining this incident to me" means, can you explain please? I disagree that I'm "missing huge chunks of information because [I] won't read the DoJ report." The DOJ did not address this incident in their report. However, if you'll supply the link and direct me to specific areas that you're now referring to, I'll take a look. Each UOF is properly judged ONLY on it's own merits and shortcomings, not a general examination of a LEAs practices. This is a bit like judging a given individual of a race by the actions of other members of that race. You know what that's called, right? Beanyandcecil ( talk) 22:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

To address your question, that's correct, neither the Taser shotgun, nor the beanbag shotgun should be described as a rifle. I can't stick around any longer, I'm headed for bed. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 09:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

tsk. You misunderstand again. See edits to article for the point of this question -- that he has three weapons and the two that could be described as a shotgun are his less-lethal weapons, which I sorta already suspected. Just trying to use that expertise you keep talking about. Elinruby ( talk) 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm happy to share my expertise. I find it highly amusing though that you only accept it when it's 'convenient' for you and reject it when it disagrees with your vast expertise on tactics and tools, Oh wait!?

If you want specific answers, I suggest you ask specific questions, rather than hope that I'll guess your meaning from vague references.

And while you're here − I've asked you well over a dozen questions and I'm pretty sure that you've answered only one of them. The majority of them have gone unanswered. You've said (to the effect) that you want this editing to be a cooperative effort, but if you won't answer my simple questions, how is that supposed to work? Beanyandcecil ( talk) 22:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I am not aware of any unanswered questions. You said this to @ Activist: also; perhaps you are confused. There have been quite a few where you dismiss the answers, though. The DoJ report for example *does* mention this incident, for example, although because of the timing they don't give it the same review as the other unconstitutional use of force incidents they analyzed. It also specifically mentions Sandy. The ROP unit was disbanded because of this incident in the context of the report. They are scathing on the subject of the mentally ill, and of the way SWAT and ROP officers invite themselves into lethal cover situations. Off the top of my head. Ad for your weird assertion that it is somehow racist to applaud this trial, I really don't know what to sat. Dit you say you were british? It's usually American kids who spout the innocent until proven guilty thing. This is not a court of law. The standard to follow here is BLP not some half-baked concept of the rights of policemen. Elinruby ( talk) 08:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Elinruby: Elinruby wrote, "I am not aware of any unanswered questions. You said this to @ Activist: also; perhaps you are confused."

Really? You think that I [am] confused?" Allow me to refresh your memory. Here's the list of questions that I've asked you. To make it easier, I'll place them into bold. Some of them will need background so you know what the questions refer to. On many of them I even pinged you, to draw your attention to them.

• Remember the Ferguson incident? (This was in reference to your absurd assertion that somehow just because something is edited and published that it's "true)."
• 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? (This and the next two questions came when you didn't know what they could arrest Boyd for).
• Or is some sort of custody more likely?
• You do realize that sometimes LE lies to get people into custody without a fight, right?
• When does it occur? (This question and the next one came after you asked me "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?) You did answer regarding the "Booyah." Here's what you wrote, "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" Have you had an opportunity to "look into this?"

I should have addressed this when you first wrote it − I tend to question the veracity of an editor who uses "a random internet person ... " as a source for information about an incident. I know that you didn't put the Booyah statement into the Article, but it would be impossible for it to have not affected how you regard the incident. There's that bias showing again.

• What's the "story" about the party?
• 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? This came when you made this statement, "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."

This comment bring up another question that I should have asked when you wrote it. Do you think that there's something wrong with a LEO who "volunteers" to provide lethal cover?

• No idea what edit you're talking about here. Care to be specific? Some reason that you were not? (This came after you wrote, "Despite my request that significant corrections be noted on the talk page I found another "correction" this morning that I believe to be erroneous and which does not seem to have been noted at all ...")

• ... it does not appear that Elinruby even looked at it. [referring to the externally linked video of the shooting portion of the incident]. I may be wrong about that, it's a guess. If so, Elinruby can you let us know? (This came when you didn't know how many beanbag shotgun rounds had been fired, and I directed you again, to the video that's been linked on the Article, probably since it was first written).
• In this case, where all the primary sources I've cited are original video from official sources such as the helmet cam from the incident and court video from the preliminary hearing, it seems to me to be well within Wiki's policy of appropriate use of them. You seem to disagree but you've never directly addressed this. Can you do so please?
• Of course, if you have something that show this, please show it to us. (This came after you apparently alleged that "a police officer [may have] lied under oath" in this case).
• Based on what do you "discount the ... interpretation?" (This came when you questioned the interpretation of the video ("Taser v. shotgun Taser.))
• Not sure what "mansplaining this incident to me" means, can you explain please? (This came when you asked me to "... please stop mansplaining this incident to me)."

OK. That's about it. There were several more but they were too minor to bother with. I look forward to seeing your answers.

Elinruby wrote, "There have been quite a few where you dismiss the answers, though."

I don't think so. Since you disagree, please do as I've just done, re-ask the questions. I'm pretty good about answering all that are asked of me. Of course, it's possible that I didn't see some.

Elinruby wrote, "The DoJ report for example *does* mention this incident, for example, although because of the timing they don't give it the same review as the other unconstitutional use of force incidents they analyzed. It also specifically mentions Sandy. The ROP unit was disbanded because of this incident in the context of the report. They are scathing on the subject of the mentally ill, and of the way SWAT and ROP officers invite themselves into lethal cover situations. Off the top of my head."

Actually I've addressed this SEVERAL TIMES. Elsewhere I've written that I don't need to read the DOJ report, that I accept its findings that the APD 'was engaged in a pattern or practice of racism and using excessive force.' I've also pointed out that this incident was not addressed in their study of APD, only that it was mentioned. As you point out, this occurred because of "timing." This incident came after the field investigation had been completed, so it was only given cursory examination. But until and unless a federal court finds that this UOF was "unconstitutional" your reference to it as such is both inappropriate and again displays your bias.

But due to your insistence, elsewhere I've agreed to look at the DOJ report if you will "supply the link and direct me to specific areas that you're ... referring to." I know that you've seen that request, because you address a comment I made in it, in your next paragraph. But somehow, you have not supplied that information. Did I miss it?

Elinruby wrote, "Ad for your weird assertion that it is somehow racist to applaud this trial, I really don't know what to sat."

I didn't "assert that [your] applau[se of] this trial [is] racist." Here’s what I wrote, with emphasis so that you can (hopefully) see my meaning. "Each UOF is properly judged ONLY on its own merits and shortcomings, not a general examination of a LEAs practices. This is a bit like judging a given individual of a race by the actions of other members of that race. You know what that's called, right?" There's no accusation of racism, it was a metaphor. I thought that my preface to the question, "This is a bit like ..." would have you realize this, but "Imagine my surprise."

I'll try it another way. You have accepted the finding of the DOJ investigation as have I. The difference is that you are using that finding to broad brush THIS UOF and that's inappropriate, just as judging all members of ANY group by the actions of other members of that group. Get it now? Is EVERY member of the APD a racist and does every member use excessive force?

Elinruby wrote, "Dit you say you were british?"

Which one of us is "confused? " I don't believe that I've referred to my nationality except by vague reference. I am a US citizen, 'born and bred,' as the saying goes.

Elinruby wrote, "It's usually American kids who spout the innocent until proven guilty thing." ROFL. "American kids" That's hysterically funny. The entire criminal justice system and much of the US Constitution is based on that ethos.

Elinruby wrote, " This is not a court of law."

I seem to know that since previously I've written, "Wikipedia is not a courtroom ..."

Elinruby wrote, " The standard to follow here is BLP not some half-baked concept of the rights of policemen."

I'm sorry but I don't know what "BLP" means. Can you give me the definition that you're using please? I searched Wikipedia and here's what came up. /info/en/?search=BLP

• Biographies of living persons
• Barbados Labour Party, the main opposition party of Barbados
• Bougainville Labour Party, in Papua New Guinea
• Beer Lovers Party (disambiguation), name of various political parties
• Berwin Leighton Paisner, an international law firm
• BL Publishing, a division of Games Workshop
• BlackLight Power, a pseudoscientific alternative energy company
• Bell–LaPadula model, in information security
• Braun's lipoprotein, a membrane protein

Any of them?

As to "half−baked concept of the rights of policemen," in this context, "the rights of policemen" are about the same as just about every other person in the US, to be innocent until proven guilty, the right not to be forced to self−incriminate, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 20:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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

@ Beanyandcecil:@ Elinruby: You've once again savaged the article,Beanyandcecil. You've put the specifics about a knife into the lede, which is inappropriate detail in itself for the lede, but none of the standing first three citations say anything about the knife except that it's a "pocket knife," but you finally added one, which mentions that the blade was "about" 3.5 inches. In order to revert your inappropriate edit, I had to read all four citations to determine that what you contended existed was not in fact in the original citations or the one you supplied. Given your deletion of text and another citation shortly prior, you certainly know what's expected of edits, yet you chose to shoehorn in your desired description. I dread having to go through all your edits, one after another, to determine their legitimacy, and don't have the time to do so. You're an ex-law enforcement officer, so you know what the standards of evidence are, so this should not be a novel concept to you. Please stop reverting supported text, and inserting text that is not supported. Thank you. Activist ( talk) 07:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:

Activist wrote, "You've once again savaged the article,Beanyandcecil."

I'll disagree. I think that I've provided balance for the anti−LE ethos that has, until I arrived, permeated this Wiki entry. I don't appreciate your characterization of my editing as having "savaged" the article. Wiki requires that editors assume "good faith" in dealing with other editors. You've certainly failed on that account.

Activist wrote, "You've put the specifics about a knife into the lede, which is inappropriate detail in itself for the lede"

I did that because you, or perhaps Elinruby persisted in characterizing the knife as a 'harmless' "pocket knife" or "camping knife." In truth these are a deadly weapons, prohibited in some jurisdictions, and they were used to threaten to kill, first the Outdoor Space Officers and then other police officers who were dealing with Boyd or who just happened to be in the area. All I did was to provide a complete description of them.

At first all I did was to delete the adjectives "pocket" or "camping" that had been placed ahead of the word, "knife." But that was reverted. And so I accurately and completely described the knives. If, in the lede, you'll agree to just say "folding knife," a neutral term, that will be great. Later, in the body of the Article, it should be described fully. There is no such category in knives as a "camping knife" so that's inappropriate. If you want to add in the description of a pocket knife, that's fine with me.

what's the objection to pocket knife again? Elinruby ( talk) 08:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Elinruby:It seems to be an attempt to mischaracterize a tool that can be used as a deadly weapon, and in fact was used to threaten numerous LEOs. In fact, in many jurisdictions, mere possession of this knife is an arrestable offence, punishable by jail time. (Of course there are exceptions). In the UK, the home of this host, several of the attributes of this knife may get you arrested for mere possession outside the home. Here are three of them. The fact that it's a lock−back knife, meaning that it locks in the open position and a button must be pressed to fold it. The fact that it has a blade that is more than 3" long. And the fact that it has a partially serrated blade.

None of these are violations in NM, where this incident happened, but a huge segment of the readers will read much of the article under the impression that this knife is a harmless tool and that's far from the truth.

Here is a citation from the UK law. "It is illegal to carry any sharp or bladed instrument in a public place (with the exception of a folding pocket knife, which has a blade that is less than 7.62 cm (3 inches)). A lock knife is not a folding pocket knife and therefore it is illegal to carry around such a knife regardless of the length of the blade." https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q337.htm

I have no problem if the neutral term "folding knife," or just "knife" is used in the lede, as long as the full description appears later in the article. But when I removed the adjectives, "pocket" and "camping" and just left the description as "knife" my edits were reverted. In response I put the full description in both places. But either term diminishes it's true characterization. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 13:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Activist wrote, "but none of the standing first three citations say anything about the knife except that it's a "pocket knife," but you finally added one, which mentions that the blade was "about" 3.5 inches. In order to revert your inappropriate edit, I had to read all four citations to determine that what you contended existed was not in fact in the original citations or the one you supplied. Given your deletion of text and another citation shortly prior, you certainly know what's expected of edits, yet you chose to shoehorn in your desired description. I dread having to go through all your edits, one after another, to determine their legitimacy, and don't have the time to do so. You're an ex-law enforcement officer, so you know what the standards of evidence are, so this should not be a novel concept to you. Please stop reverting supported text, and inserting text that is not supported. Thank you."

I apologize for causing you extra work. Just yesterday I found a reference that had absolutely nothing to do with the material that it was supposed to be supporting. I merely deleted it. I didn't come here and complain about "dread[ing]" all that extra work, I just handled it. I think it's part of the work of being an editor. I'd have thought that with all of your experience, that you would too. Imagine my surprise! It seems that you take my presence here personally, perhaps because many of my edits have to do with your postings. My feeling is based on your tone and your comments when how you've addressed me, such as the "savaged" comment, and the fact that you've completely ignored most of the simple questions that I've asked directly of you. Is there some reason that you've not answered them?

In any case, I was clumsy in applying the reference to the description of the knives, that's it. There was no evil intent, I just went to the wrong site, I had several open, and cited that one, instead of the appropriate one. I've corrected that error, and again, I apologize. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 18:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm puzzled how the mention of a "5150" in this article or talk came up. I presume Elinruby didn't introduce it. It's a California Welfare and Institutions Code section that concerns involuntary commitment typically for individuals who are a danger to themselves. I can't imagine that the same statute and number exists in New Mexico. Activist ( talk) 07:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:

I have no idea who brought it here. I didn't introduce it but I don't recall who did either. But again, you tell an incomplete story. The statue covers, as you say, people who are "a danger to themselves," AND people who are 'a danger to others' or who are 'gravely disabled.' But the term has come to a wider usage than just in California. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 18:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

There was testimony last week from an officer who had supervisory authority on the scene who ventured that he was not sure whether there were grounds at all for Boyd to be charged. I can't remember his name, but he appeared tall, thin, very short hair and light brown skin. If he was there, and wasn't certain if there were grounds for arrest, and if so, what they were, that does seem counter to an armchair analysis made 2 1/2 years later, I would think that there was clearly probably cause. Given the uncomfortable situation for him, with Keith Sandy moving in to call the shots, he went to talk to the complainant, Thickstun, more than a hundred yards distant, where he was when the quickly lethal decisions were made. I went back and looked at the helmet cam that is linked at the article, once again, and it appears to me from that perspective that Boyd might have been 40' away when the flash bang device was thrown at him, at a point when he was complying with demands by gathering up some of his possessions and beginning to descend. Activist ( talk) 07:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:

Activist wrote, " There was testimony last week from an officer who had supervisory authority on the scene who ventured that he was not sure whether there were grounds at all for Boyd to be charged. I can't remember his name, but he appeared tall, thin, very short hair and light brown skin"

Then he's an idiot. Boyd threatened the two Outdoor Space Officers with one of his knives, making verbal threats to kill him if he approached. You may have seen the video of that initial contact. In it, the officers are forced to draw and point their guns at Boyd to prevent an attack from hm. That's 'assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer,' although the NM statutes may word it differently. He was also in violation of the local ordinances that prohibit overnight camping. I suggest that you take a look at this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyJWbvk-KY4 It's from the highly anti−LEO site, PINAC (Photography Is Not A Crime) and shows one of their contributors, Charlie Grapski at the area where this incident occurred. At 1:04 on the video the camera zooms in on the sign that's posted at the entrance to the area. The sign is entitled "City of Albuquerque, Open Space Regulations. One of the activities that is prohibited is "camping and fires." Down at the bottom of that sign is this, "city and county ordinances. state statues, and federal laws governing resource protection public conduct and safety apply and violations are punishable by fine and imprisonment." [added emphasis is mine]. So Boyd could have been arrested for the ADW on a LEO and/or for illegally camping. I sincerely hope that someone with half a brain followed that person's testimony and told the jury the truth on this point. It's quite important to the case. Without it, your contention that he was 'being compliant' is correct. But since it's completely wrong, so is your opinion.

It's my understanding that breaking a park rule is not a death penalty offense tho, eh? Please understand that there are many videos. Charlie Grapski has a big archive on YouTube of what purport to be unedited official recordings obtained through open records requests, and also LadyJustice2188 on youtube posts a lot of the same sort of good primary source material. I think KRQE has an archive also. Elinruby ( talk) 08:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby: Elinruby wrote, "It's my understanding that breaking a park rule is not a death penalty offense tho, eh?"

Of course "breaking a park rule is not a death penalty offense." But the contained allegation that this is why Boyd was shot, ignores reality so completely that it's difficult not to fault the author for bad faith. I'll say instead, that it arises from a rather complete lack of knowledge of how LE confrontations of this nature are run, and (I hope) a sense of sarcasm and an attempt to lighten the mood. It certainly has not had the latter effect.

Previously I used this example. "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." I now have to admit that "absurd" is too light of a description of this 'logic,' as is Elinruby's comment here.

Elinruby wrote, "Please understand that there are many videos."

Yes, and? There are many articles too. There are many witnesses, many people with opinions, and many armchair experts with opinions but no education, training, or experience. It's a simple matter to link to any video that's referred to. In all of my mentions of the video, I'm referring to the one that's been externally linked. This one. http://krqe.com/2014/03/21/video-apd-releases-helmetcam-footage-of-shooting/ Beanyandcecil ( talk) 20:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Activist wrote, "If he was there, and wasn't certain if there were grounds for arrest, and if so, what they were, that does seem counter to an armchair analysis made 2 1/2 years later"

You don't even know if he was there? There are at least TWO offenses that Boyd could have been arrested for, one of them a felony in any state.

Activist wrote, "I would think that there was clearly probably cause."

You are correct.

Activist wrote, "Given the uncomfortable situation for him, with Keith Sandy moving in to call the shots, he went to talk to the complainant, Thickstun, more than a hundred yards distant, where he was when the quickly lethal decisions were made."

It sounds as if this was the first officer who was negotiating with Boyd. Based on this and some other things, it sounds as if his feelings were hurt when he was removed from the scene and his testimony was a result. It sounds as if he might be happier working with the mentally ill exclusively. He certainly lacks the necessary knowledge to be a peace officer. He didn't even recognize that a felony had been committed, much less the misdemeanor (probably) of the camping violation.

Activist wrote, "I went back and looked at the helmet cam that is linked at the article, once again, and it appears to me from that perspective that Boyd might have been 40' away when the flash bang device was thrown at him, at a point when he was complying with demands by gathering up some of his possessions and beginning to descend."

That sounds about right, but 'so what?' They didn't shoot him from that distance. The ONLY fired when he was within knife striking distance of the K−9 handler, still in possession of both knives, and still in a threatening, aggressive posture.

And AGAIN you think that "he was complying with demands by gathering up some of his possessions and beginning to descend." Even the officer with the hurt feelings said that he was not going to be allowed to descend the hill until his knives had been removed and he had been patted down for any other weapons that he may have possessed. This is the " partially successful negotiations" that is described in the article. He got Boyd to put his knife in his pocket but when told that he was not going to be allowed to descend with his knives he "called that deal off." I don't understand how you can continue to make this egregious mistake. It's especially troubling since I've described the details in depth in my writing on this page. You've not commented on my statements so either you've not read them or you don't agree. If the latter, I'd expect at least some comment to that effect, but nothing has come from you on this part of the topic. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 18:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I'll read this back and forth later. For now let's agree that any substantive change needs to be noted here. This includes deleting a reference, if you don't mind... usually references get separated from their text when someone else inserts texte and if the original editor doesn't notice you get that sort of "what is this doing here" reference. That said, a lot of the tv articles are rather hastily written, I thought. The longer ones, ie Rolling Stone and the SF New Mexican article I named "sflong" are more likely written on a longer deadline (if we are using life experience intelligently here, let me throw that in as a criteria for assessing accuracy when the sources are contradictory, although as well all know theoretically we don't do this because wikipedia presumes an editor has vetted a secondary source. I think wikipedia is a bit quaint to assume that, which is somethere semi-close to a professional opinion). Anyway, just wanted to clarify that yes, 5150 is California and they use something else in New Mexico. It was the word I could think of at the time and I sometimes speak more colloquially or even vaguely on talk pages than in articles themselves. Anyway, I am back from the stuff that took up a lot of my time this week and am going back to looking at testimony. It's all online; don't know if you guys realize that. Oh and @ Beanyandcecil: I think you might want to check out the very long history of misuse of force in the APD. especially with the mentally ill. Given your background i understand your skepticism but given the officers whose cameras repeatedly misfunction specifically in use of force incidents, and I mean, come on, an officer shoots *three* different guys and is still getting a boilerplate pass that the UOF as you say was justified? I can't go for that. Looking at coverage now. I will be adding references as my primary focus. If I make big changes to the text I will note them. I do think all the detail about the knife should go down to the first reference to him pulling them. And a citation for where you found the detail would be nice, yes. Elinruby ( talk) 02:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Elinruby wrote, "The longer ones, ie Rolling Stone and the SF New Mexican article I named "sflong" are more likely written on a longer deadline"

I only read part of the RS article. It was so highly biased and inaccurate, I had to stop reading, it was making me sick. When the standards of journalism have sunk that low it becomes a bad joke. That magazine has made up articles, and invented sources and 'facts' several times. It's a rag, not worthy of being used as toilet paper.

Elinruby wrote, "wikipedia presumes an editor has vetted a secondary source. I think wikipedia is a bit quaint to assume that"

I've written elsewhere that Wiki's policy on this is rather out of date. It ignores the fact that these days, there are highly biased, anti−government website that are regarded as many as genuine new sites. They're not. They're unreliable, often make up 'facts,' and use unreliable sources. There are still several sites that maintain that Michael Brown (Ferguson) had his hands up, was on his knees and that he was then executed by the police officer. Many people cite such source as if they were reliable, and Wiki policy would allow them to stand as secondary sources in articles. The only thing that can be done is to counter with accurate and genuine news sources. But the readers can still be lead down the wrong path.

Elinruby wrote, "which is somethere semi-close to a professional opinion)."

I think my opinion is about the same. I was a journalism major, was an editor for my university's newspaper, yearbook and magazine, and I worked in print journalism on a newspaper for a large city, for several years.

Elinruby wrote, "going back to looking at testimony. It's all online; don't know if you guys realize that."

No, I did not know that. Can you direct me to that information please? @ Elinruby:

• Nevermind, I found it. Thanks for the info

Elinruby wrote, "Oh and I think you might want to check out the very long history of misuse of force in the APD. especially with the mentally ill. Given your background i understand your skepticism but given the officers whose cameras repeatedly misfunction specifically in use of force incidents, and I mean, come on, an officer shoots *three* different guys and is still getting a boilerplate pass that the UOF as you say was justified? I can't go for that."

I don't need to read anything but the DOJ summary on the APD from their investigation. I'm not skeptical at all about it. I know that every LEA has bad apples on it. It's the human condition. We're just humans, not supermen. But you can't judge this incident based on that report. Each UOF should be judged on its own, not a pattern of what others have done. That's unreasonable and unfair. This incident came after the DOJ investigation had been completed. It was mentioned, in their report, but was not examined. Someone who judges a group of people based on what others in that group have done are called racists. This is similar.

Elinruby wrote, " Looking at coverage now. I will be adding references as my primary focus. If I make big changes to the text I will note them. I do think all the detail about the knife should go down to the first reference to him pulling them. And a citation for where you found the detail would be nice, yes.

The details of the knife are in the corrected link. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 05:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

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) reply

I've deleted the amount, $1.75M, that was alleged to have been asked for in the Boyd family lawsuit against APD. The source cited does not support it. In fact, I've not found support for such a demand in that lawsuit anywhere. Frequently such suits do not ask for an amount initially. Usually that is saved for the last part of a civil trial, if the case goes that far. Can anyone direct us to source that tells what the family demanded in their suit. I'm unable to find the court papers. 05:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanyandcecil ( talk • contribs)

I know I have seen it; if I find a source I'll add it back in with a reference. We don't have any concerns about any of the sources used so far, right? I don't like the Journal and question their impartiality often but the Journal reporter appears to have done a decent job on this story. Elinruby ( talk) 05:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

They asked for "compensatory damages" and a host of reforms in the complaint. I found that last night but I had to reboot and now I need to go. It will be in my restore session when I come back; I'll cite it then. But 1.75m is a very specific number though; I suspect it comes from somewhere Elinruby ( talk) 16:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• I changed the last sentence of the lede to "The caller watched the confrontation from his second-story window and later testified that Boyd threatened the officers." -- this simply because we have gone from "a nearby resident" which makes sense, to "the resident" which doesn't really parse for grammar and makes me want to point out that Boyd might have thought he was a resident too.... Elinruby ( talk)

To clarify, this change affects the last sentence of the first paragraph. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

yes. It is called a lede. Elinruby ( talk) 07:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Welllllllllll, Lede can refer to either just the first paragraph of a story, the first paragraph and the title, or the introductory portion of a story. I'd call the lede in this Article all the information that comes before Contents box. Since there are different meanings to the term, I wanted to clarify where your change was. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 07:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

you're right; I did use it in the journalism sense not the wikipedia one, and yes, on wikipedia that does mean everything before the contents usually. Elinruby ( talk) 08:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• I changed the first part of the first sentence in the last paragraph of the shooting section to "Cautious because the knives still presented a danger," -- I am not quite happy with that but I like it better than what was there. Elinruby ( talk) 07:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I like it. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 07:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

k good. I don't, quite, but we'll let it stand for now then. Elinruby ( talk) 08:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• added detail that Thickstun also made a recording to infobox. I don't have a reference handy but I'll add one when I see the statement again. Elinruby ( talk) 09:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• again in lede, 1st para, threatening one of the officers ---> threatening the officers, not sure "one of" is accurate

• added "reputable media" back in as source for 40 number; these are not wild-eyed blogs or Occupy Facebook pages saying this. Most local media seem to have used this estimate at some point. If we can determine that they were wrong THROUGH VERIFIABLE SOURCES then fine, we can lose that whole sentence. Until then it should not be removed by @ Beanyandcecil: because he finds it unlikely. It may not be how these things are done, but that is sorta why all the concern. This should not be controversial Elinruby ( talk) 16:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I thought it was once and two officers each fired three bullets Elinruby ( talk) 05:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Please, I'm begging you, go watch the video. Here's the link. http://krqe.com/2014/03/21/video-apd-releases-helmetcam-footage-of-shooting/

At 1:28 on the video the officer with the bean bag shotgun says "Beanbag. Right behind you." At this moment he's behind the other officers and is not in the picture. This announcement lets the other officers know where he is and that he's about to fire a beanbag round as opposed to using lethal force. (This announcement lets the other officers know what' he's doing and prevents 'sympathetic fire,' a situation where an officer thinks that other officers have perceived an imminent deadly threat, and so he fires too). At 1:34 he moves up into the picture, and shouts, "Beanbag, beanbag" The front end of his shotgun is in the picture. He then fires three bean bag rounds and announces, "Negative effect."

You are correct that the two officers armed with lethal force fire three rounds each. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)] reply

Again, that would be original research and is not the go-to option. I haven't done anything with this so far, just questioned it. I'd like you to cite the three times though, with the url and time for the video if necessary. But preferably a news source lookit here for template. This is just a minor point and I think the article needs the references I am doing right now more. There may be a better reference out there than the video, see? Elinruby ( talk) 07:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

The video may not be "the go−to option," per Wiki policy, but Wiki does not prohibit its use. At this moment it is the best evidence that exists of what happened and when it happened. You asked for me "to cite the three times though, with the url and time for the video if necessary." I did that when I pointed out to you when, in the supplied video link the three bean bag rounds were fired. Or do you mean that I should put the citation into the Article? The video I cited is in the "External Links" section of the Article.

Here's the Wiki policy on using material like this, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them ... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This video, released by the police department is certainly "reputably published." It is being used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts and can be verified by any educated person ..." and therefore it's within policy to use it in the Article. It's certainly not the entire video of the incident, that's probably hours long, but it does give an accurate depiction of what happened just before, and just after, the shooting segment of the incident. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 17:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

well, reputably published, ha, the court camera is fairly reputable one could presume. I do wonder about editing on some blog sites. I generally figure that a reporter's blog has some authority in his area of specialty, however, and there are a decent selection of genuine online news sites in New Mexico. But the TV stations are also going on blast. I am not sure what part of the RS story you thought was biased; do tell. All of those events did happen, as best I can tell from local media archives. As I have said before, the sort of sources usually considered reliable made mistakes in their coverage, possibly, assuming the 40 number is wrong. But then there is this other story that says that 47 officers showed up for some other SWAT situation the APD got sued for? Christopher Torres was it? hmmm. Anyway, Rolling Stone meets Wikipedia criteria for a reliable source, sorry about that. Feel free to provide your own references btw; I asked for about three. The knife was one, because I see 3.5 inches but where did the rest of that come from? One channel here and another here; also you might want to check out the external links section Elinruby ( talk) 06:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

"An officer threw a flash" -- we know this was Sandy, or at least I do, because he said so. As did some other people, I think. Anyone care if we specify? Elinruby ( talk) 08:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

done (written by Elinruby - moved to new line by BeanyandCecil). Beanyandcecil ( talk) 15:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I think that sack may be a bit regional and I am just guessing that "stuff" means cloth. Open to discussion on this. Leaving for now, but to be clear, we're talking about the blue bag roughly the size of a handbag, right? That might not be cloth either for that matter. It's a quibble, respond at leisure Elinruby ( talk) 09:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Ahh... I have been assuming the blue bag and the duffle bag are different bags, but now that you mention it I don't remember what I would call a duffel bag, either something a soldier would carry or something smaller that is still bigger than a gym bag. Ya, if that's one item, we should standardize, yes. One of the officers called in a Qwest bag but that's regional ah also. How about "blue nylon bag"? Elinruby ( talk) 06:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I changed everything to "blue nylon bag", except for the quote; there I hid "duffel" behind an ellipsis since neither of us thinks it is accurate and the purpose of the quote is to establish a timeline. Open to other suggestions. Elinruby ( talk) 02:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

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) reply

I removed: <ref>{{cite web|last1=Fairbanks|first1=Cassandra|title=Cop Who Murdered James Boyd, Caught Plotting on Dashcam, “I’m Going to Shoot Him in the Penis”|url=http://thefreethoughtproject.com/officer-sandy-murderer-james-boyd-stated-shoot-penis-hours-killing/|website=The Free Thought Project.com|accessdate=6 October 2016}}</ref>; emotional language in the article. Probably put up for embedded state police video, which *is* very pertinent even if a primary source. However the next reference cites the video by itself, without the problems of the article (almost certainly NPOV problem, not RS really) and therefore the Youtube link is better. Needs to be there given the myriad ways the statement is quoted. Elinruby ( talk) 23:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I had some memory this morning that I added this source myself because I felt that it was material that state trooper Chris Ware drove over the narrow winding Tijeras Pass at speed that occasionally hit 120mph. It's not directly relevan, but it is a further somewhat jarring reminder that this was treated as an emergency call, which is why Sgt Ware responds lights and sirens. All he knows is that he is requested and there is a threat to an officer. I did however verify this morning that the youtube video also includes this; possibly it replaces a reference to one of the tv station videos who cut to the statement itself. 02:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

done deal unless there is further comment (Written by Elinruby - moved by Beanyandcecil). Beanyandcecil ( talk) 15:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Beanyandcecil:'s recent edit purporting to address "misinformation" removed a sourced statement and replaced it with another that he presumably believes is less derogatory, in effect changing the sentence that said the rifle had been withdrawn due to reliablity concerns to say that it had been withdrawn due to flagging sales. The cited article does quote Taser as saying this, but further down also adds the further information that use of the rifle was dropping due to reliability concerns. It perturbs me as it highlights the common flaws of his edits on this page: if he accepts someone as an authority, he does not question their version. Furthermore, he is labelling something as "misinformation" rather than reading the entire article to discover the information a few paragraphs further down. This information is not partisan in nature. The article quotes an expert who also happens to be the defense attorney of a defendant in this case.

He insists on inserting an explanation into one of the quote. When I objected to "[Taser] shotgun" because the officer does not in my opinion say "Taser", he reinserted "Taser" without the brackets which is worse, as the brackets at least indicated that the word was imputed. The sentence he has added about reliable source is not encyclopedic and likely to confuse readers who don't follow wikipedia inside baseball.

Despite my request that significant corrections be noted on the talk page I found another "correction" this morning that I believe to be erroneous and which does not seem to have been noted at all. This editor seems to be operating from his personal knowledge and belief about police procedure in Great Britain and to be saying somethign along the lines of "no law enforcement agency would act that way" when the behavior of the APD is exactly the point.

I need to ask @Beanyandcecil again to use his words. He has found some areas for improvement, and his input may well improve the article, provided he can cooperate. I would also like him to try to understand the vast number of sources about this story, some of which contradict one another. He has an annoying habit of urging other editors to "watch the video" and does not seem to understand that there are many videos of the incident alone and many more audio and video recordings of witness statements and trial and preliminary hearing testimony about the incident, all of which are primary sources but imho can be used to some extent given the disagreement in secondary sources over certain details. [User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ( talk) 23:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Elinruby: Elinruby wrote, "@ Beanyandcecil:'s recent edit purporting to address "misinformation" removed a sourced statement and replaced it with another that he presumably believes is less derogatory, in effect changing the sentence that said the rifle had been withdrawn due to reliability concerns to say that it had been withdrawn due to flagging sales. The cited article does quote Taser as saying this, but further down also adds the further information that use of the rifle was dropping due to reliability concerns."

FIRST, we're not talking about a "rifle," it's a shotgun.

OK, true. I'll correct this if you haven't already. Elinruby ( talk)

SECOND, Elinruby falsely claims that Taser Int. blames the "flagging sales" on "reliability concerns." Perhaps It's bias, perhaps it's just a lack of critical reading skills, or perhaps a brain hiccup, but the citation states that this opinion of sales dropping due to "reliability concerns" comes from a sometime UOF expert, NOT from Taser Int. We have no idea how he arrived at such an opinion. It might be his personal experience. It might be something he read on the Web. It might be something he heard from a friend who has a friend who has a cousin who knows a guy!?

The article DOES NOT SAY that Taser Int. makes this statement about why the shotgun was withdrawn from the market. Taser Int. ONLY says "flagging sales," but does not give a reason for the sales drop.

Elinruby wrote, "It perturbs me as it highlights the common flaws of his edits on this page: if he accepts someone as an authority, he does not question their version."

It perturbs me that Elinruby's potential bias, in spite of claims to the contrary, has his cites affecting this Article. Careless, or perhaps biased reading of the citation just discussed, is one example.

Elinruby wrote, "Furthermore, he is labelling something as "misinformation" rather than reading the entire article to discover the information a few paragraphs further down."

The article is not as you've described it. Taser Int. never said that the shotgun was unreliable. They said that the reason for the withdrawal from the market of the shotgun was "flagging sales." They did not give a reason that sales had dropped. Perhaps it was unreliability, or perhaps it was a bad idea, or perhaps it was an idea that was ahead of its time. They didn't say. Elinruby is mistaken, at−best, when this claim is made.

Something can be true and not be confirmed by Taser yanno. I think you need to re-read what I said, if you really think this: "The cited article does quote Taser as saying this, but further down also adds the further information that use of the rifle was dropping..." Nothing there about Taser the company. If you think the attorney for the defense is also biased, go find an analyst report or something that says so. Elinruby ( talk) 11:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Elinruby wrote, "This information is not partisan in nature." I'll accept that there is no conscious bias on Elinruby's part. But since everyone has bias, whether they admit it or not, and given that there have been a couple of prior discussions of this, it's hard to accept that bias is not playing a part in, at least some of, Elinruby's edits. I freely admit my bias, but have been trained to not let it affect my decisions in these matters. I'm looking for balance and fairness.

Elinruby wrote, "The article quotes an expert who also happens to be the defense attorney of a defendant in this case."

That has no bearing on this discussion. Fact is, Taser Int. did not say that there were "reliability" issues with the shotgun.

Elinruby wrote, "He insists on inserting an explanation into one of the quote. When I objected to "[Taser] shotgun" because the officer does not in my opinion say "Taser", he reinserted "Taser" without the brackets which is worse, as the brackets at least indicated that the word was imputed.

My citation of the prosecutor's statement on this was a direct quote from her. Therefore the word "Taser," SHOULD NOT have been place into brackets. It's the prosecutor's exact statement. Unfortunately it's incorrect. It's not what Sandy said, it's what he insinuated. Nonetheless, it's what she said. Elsewhere I've addressed this issue and will fix the citation so that it's appropriate.

Elinruby wrote, "Despite my request that significant corrections be noted on the talk page I found another "correction" this morning that I believe to be erroneous and which does not seem to have been noted at all. This editor seems to be operating from his personal knowledge and belief about police procedure in Great Britain and to be saying somethign along the lines of "no law enforcement agency would act that way" when the behavior of the APD is exactly the point."

No idea what edit you're talking about here. Care to be specific? Some reason that you were not? @ Elinruby:

Elinruby wrote, "I need to ask @Beanyandcecil again to use his words. He has found some areas for improvement, and his input may well improve the article, provided he can cooperate."

LOL. By cooperate, you seem to mean, 'agree with you.' That may happen or it may not happen. At times we may have to agree to disagree. I don't think that you're the arbiter of whether or not my edits "improve the article."

Elinruby wrote, "I would also like him to try to understand the vast number of sources about this story, some of which contradict one another."

Wait, I thought that secondary sources were more accurate than primary sources!

Elinruby wrote, "He has an annoying habit of urging other editors to "watch the video" and does not seem to understand that there are many videos of the incident alone"

I understand "that there are many videos of the incident alone." But ALL of the videos of the actual shooting portion of the incident, and what immediately precedes and follow it, show the same thing. In my citations of the video I've ONLY used the version that has been placed into the "External Links" by another editor so that the timeline is consistent and anyone can follow along.

I think that that is the first video released. It's not clear to me at the moment whose camera it is from. Elinruby ( talk) 10:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I haven't seen any altered videos out there that show, for example, Boyd pulling out a machine gun prior to being shot. If Elinruby can find such altered videos, I suggest bringing them here and showing them to us. Elsewhere, when Elinruby showed a complete lack of knowledge of how many shotgun beanbag rounds were fired because it wasn't discussed in any secondary sources, I made reference to the video that clearly shows exactly how many bean bag shotgun rounds were fired. I even gave a precise timeline of when they were fired and showed what else was going on, to help find them. But since that's a "primary source" it does not appear that Elinruby even looked at it. I may be wrong about that, it's a guess. If so, Elinruby can you let us know? @ Elinruby:

Elinruby wrote, "and many more audio and video recordings of witness statements and trial and preliminary hearing testimony about the incident, all of which are primary sources but imho can be used to some extent given the disagreement in secondary sources over certain details."

As you say both primary and secondary sources are wrong at times. In this case, where all the primary sources I've cited are original video from official sources such as the helmet cam from the incident and court video from the preliminary hearing, it seems to me to be well within Wiki's policy of appropriate use of them. You seem to disagree but you've never directly addressed this. Can you do so please? @ Elinruby: Simply labeling them "primary source" does not give mean that they should automatically be ignored. In many cases they're the only evidence, the only citation possible. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 07:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

First, I did not say they should be ignored. Second, the reason for the policy -- it is a wikipedia policy, as you will discover if we can't resolve this between ourselves -- is to avoid the situation we have here on several points where we seem to disagree on what "really" happened. My proposal was to go to the video as needed to clarify, and possibly supplement the secondary sources. I am not sure what yours is; you seem to want to edit based on your interpretation of one of the 36 videos. They do all show much the same events, but from different angles with varying amounts of obstructed vision. I am done here for now -- I am tired of being jeered at. This is not my first rodeo and I am editing in a neutral manner. I have documented important changes; you have not. I am taking a timeout from the talk page. If you are so sure I am biased then feel free to file a complaint. You might possibly want to read the RS policy before you do. Just saying. Elinruby ( talk) 07:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Posting of personal information[edit] Shortcuts: WP:OUTING WP:PRIVACY WP:DOX "WP:OUTING" redirects here. For the alternate meaning of outing, as in excursion, see Wikipedia:Meetup. "WP:PRIVACY" redirects here. For the Wikimedia privacy policy, see Wikimedia:Privacy policy. See also: Doxing Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors.[under discussion] Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. Any administrator may redact it pending oversight, even when the administrator is involved. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis.[disputed – discuss] The fact that an editor either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for posting the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team. If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly. Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict-of-interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted. Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy.

@ Elinruby: In the second paragraph of "Sandy's intent before shooting," this appears, "Sandy arrived at the scene with a beanbag shotgun, a Taser shotgun and an assault rifle; while some members of the public thought his remark was evidence of intent, only the two less-lethal weapons can be described as shotguns. Some reputable sources, in particular his lawyer and his employer, but also Ware,[23] |aver that Sandy actually said "Taser shotgun" in this statement. ... "

There's a typo that I've emboldened, "|aver" but I can't figure out what you meant to fix it. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 16:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Hey, nice catch. Aver is a word isn't it? -- (checked wiktionary Elinruby ( talk) 16:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)) I think it is a little stronger than "declare" but less than "swore an oath". The pipe is a typo though, probably from when I put the reference in. That statement about thinking intent needs a reference too; it's one of the things I am looking for. I know there are some out there though. If you think aver is obscure, propose another wording, I am not insisting on the word, but the statement should be strong; Ware is described as "adamant" on this point in the cited report Elinruby ( talk) 16:34, 9 October 2016 (Utoo. TC) reply

How about "adamant?" That's the word that appears in the reference. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 21:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC) reply

MMMM it's an adjective not a verb, but ok, go ahead and re-write the sentence; I'll change it if I dislike it. To answer your actual question, adamant is fine depending on what you do with it. I'll check on it in a bit. Still adding in references, tho I will be in and out for the rest of the night -- need to do some other stuff too Elinruby ( talk) 04:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I made the change, please take a look. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 15:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Elinruby wrote, "please don't put two spaces between sentences. This makes my teeth hurt ;)"

That's gonna be hard. I've been doing it just about all of my adult life and that's quite some time. I'll try but occasionally I might forget.

I seem to remember this from a long-ago typing class, but I am pretty sure the WP convention is one. I've been fixing this and was annoyed over it when I wrote this, but the bare urls are more work to fix. Elinruby ( talk) 22:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

"Spaces following terminal punctuation The number of spaces following the terminal punctuation of a sentence in the wiki markup makes no difference on Wikipedia; the MediaWiki software condenses any number of spaces to just one when rendering the page (see Sentence spacing). For this reason, editors may use any spacing style they prefer on Wikipedia. Multiple spacing styles may coexist in the same article, and adding or removing a double space is sometimes used as a dummy edit."

Beanyandcecil ( talk) 00:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Elinruby wrote, " is there any way I could get you to flesh yrls are actually harder our references out a bit? If it's just a bare url somebody is going to have to fix it. I'd appreciate it."

I'm gonna guess that this is aimed at me. On my most recent entry, the video link for the description of the knife, I used the Wiki 'video cite template.' I'll take a look. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 15:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I updated my sources that were just a URL. Pretty sure that I got them all. If you find any that I missed, please let me know. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 02:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I appreciate that; it's housekeeping, but it's housekeeping someone will have to do if we don't. I have been known to use a bare url myself but usually because I need to reboot and am afraid of losing my place if I don't, in which case I try to amend when I come back. Anyway, my point is that it's easiest, usually, if the person providing the reference supplies the details while they have the reference up. At least a title and a publisher -- it's not clear to me who is the author of the videotapes. Elinruby ( talk) 22:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I understand your point, but think there must be a better way to make it. I will ponder this -- it's a lot of text for a tangential point. Elinruby ( talk) 11:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm guessing that this is aimed at me, but I don't know what you're referring to. Can you clarify please? Beanyandcecil ( talk) 14:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

this here:

"There is no statutory requirement that mandates how long investigators must wait before interviewing officers who are involved in shootings. Each law enforcement agency sets deadlines for such questioning. Experts suggest that two sleep cycles elapse before such questioning takes place. Investigators may also benefit by taking a rest before questioning the officers. Stress and fatigue that occur after such incidents negatively affect memory. Recall of details is better after the officer is rested. ^[1] While waiting too long can dilute an officer's recall of an incident, the benefit of allowing and officer to rest and emotionally relax more than pays it off in the ability of those officers to recall details. This is the general conclusion reached after two decades of research on sleep and memory recollection. Controversy about when to conduct these investigations exists due to a failure to comprehend the dynamics of sudden, high-stress, potentially life-threatening episodes. ^[2] The non−profit organization, Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE) recommends that in no case should an investigation of an OIS question an involved officer unless at least 24 hours has elapsed since the incident. They think it is better if 48 or even 72 hours have elapsed. An officer's memory can improve during that time period. ^[3] The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) recommends that a 48 to 72 hour rest period elapse before an officer is questions about OIS incidents. ^[4]"

it almost seems like you are trying to provide expert witness testimony for the defense. Did any of this come up in any legal proceedings in reference specifically to the shooting of James Boyd Or even in any published account of it? Elinruby ( talk) 22:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

in reference to your very long posts, I just spent half an hour scrolling up and down trying to find this text to get the references to appear with it. If you really feel the need to argue line by line yu don't need to repeat the entire prior post afaik -- inline is fine. To be clear, I think these are probably fine references for some more general article, but you don't seem to be talking about the James Boyd shooting here. Elinruby ( talk) 02:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:Elinruby wrote, "this here: "There is no statutory requirement that mandates how long investigators must wait before interviewing officers who are involved in shootings. Each law enforcement agency sets deadlines for such questioning ... "

Now I know what you're referring to. You've done this a couple of times now. Could you please give some reference to the material that you're talking about in these messages? Your reference to "arguing with a prosecutor" didn't give me a clue what you were talking about. Perhaps a quotation from the material that preceded the material in question would help.

Elinruby wrote, "it almost seems like you are trying to provide expert witness testimony for the defense. Did any of this come up in any legal proceedings in reference specifically to the shooting of James Boyd Or even in any published account of it?"

It seems that you have missed the reference that this material was in response to. It came after this statement, "According to the prosecutor at the preliminary hearing, Sandy and Perez weren't separated following the incident and weren't interviewed until two days later."

This statement, made to the judge during the prelim was intended to lead the judge to believe that there was something untoward in the delay in obtaining the officer's statements and/or that they should have been separated. It's included in this article to lead the readers to the same belief, when, in fact, many experts (and I cited them) disagree. I was just trying to balance the statement. I'll await you response, for 24 hours, but I plan to revert your edit, removing this material. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 07:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

yes but please show me where this has anything to do with the proceedings in the James Boyd murder trial? Did anyone anywhere say this, anyone that is not you? if so please provide a reference Elinruby ( talk) 07:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

It's a statement made by the prosecutor during the prelim, so obviously it was intended to persuade the judge to hold the officers to answer at trial. I was merely providing the NPOV that Wiki requires. I'm going to put the material back in. You have not provided any reason that it should not be there and it does provide balance. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 16:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

/* Outing continued POV pushing */

• • @ Elinruby: @ Cecilandbeany: I haven't had time to spend on dealing with issues that have come forth here, as I've spent days driving well over a thousand miles and attending a convention. Before I left I posted some personal information about myself and my history on my own Talk page with my clearly stated intent that as soon as you two read it, I would immediately remove it. It was only meant to contribute toward the context of the discussion. I did not want it preserved. That's my prerogative. I have no obligation to justify my intent with C&B. Unfortunately, Cecilandbeany chose to do quite the opposite, moving it to that editor's own page upon reading what I'd posted, and contrary to my stated intent. That constitutes a violation of Wikipedia policy as below. I've consulted with prominent WP community leaders who confirm that my opinion is absolutely correct. In my opinion, there is no explanation for C&B for doing so, save for purposes of "Outing." Secondly, this or any article do not exist for purposes of serving a particular personal or collective viewpoint. There should not be a "pro" or "anti-" law enforcement perspective here, and the task of editors is to reflect what is available and covered in reliable sources, not to propound a political position in an article. There is no basis for posting personal information about myself that I took pains to clearly restrict solely to both of you. I would like C&B to delete any information which I posted that was clearly intended to be kept private and was only done so for the purposes of advancing thoughts between the three of us. I have no interest in arguing points with any editor whom I feel has been less than collegial and disrespectful of my clear intent. I have no obligation to stop whatever it is I am doing to answer questions that have been put, in particular in an adversarial context and within a format that was not conducive to easy response. I won't be responding to any past or future questions or comments put by C&B because I feel that it would not be productive toward the construction of this or any other article. I've posted the Wikipedia policy below. Thank you. Activist ( talk) 14:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Posting of personal information[edit] Shortcuts: WP:OUTING WP:PRIVACY WP:DOX "WP:OUTING" redirects here. For the alternate meaning of outing, as in excursion, see Wikipedia:Meetup. "WP:PRIVACY" redirects here. For the Wikimedia privacy policy, see Wikimedia:Privacy policy. See also: Doxing Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors.[under discussion] Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. Any administrator may redact it pending oversight, even when the administrator is involved. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis.[disputed – discuss] The fact that an editor either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for posting the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team. If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly. Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict-of-interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted. Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy.

• • • Activist ( talk) 15:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:*First things first. The name is Beanyandcecil, not Cecilandbeany. I'll change the title for you. But I'll not bother to change any errors in your message. You seem to be HIGHLY emotional about this exchange, not a good place to edit from or to carry on a polite and professional discussion.

Activist wrote, "Before I left I posted some personal information about myself and my history on my own Talk page with my clearly stated intent that as soon as you two read it, I would immediately remove it. It was only meant to contribute toward the context of the discussion. I did not want it preserved. That's my prerogative. I have no obligation to justify my intent with C&B. Unfortunately, Cecilandbeany chose to do quite the opposite, moving it to that editor's own page upon reading what I'd posted, and contrary to my stated intent. That constitutes a violation of Wikipedia policy as below. I've consulted with prominent WP community leaders who confirm that my opinion is absolutely correct."

I suggest that you read what you posted below about the Wiki Policy. I'll disagree that what I've done is a violation and here's my argument on this. Here are some pertinent quotations from the policy that you posted, along with my comments. I've emboldened some text to draw your attention to it. I've also placed some information that came from these pages, https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy and /info/en/?search=Privacy_policy

I'd be willing to bet that in your conversation with the "community leaders" you described what you posted on my Talk page as "personal information." It's not, as I'll show you.

• "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information" The only information that I have is what you posted. Therefore it does not meet the definition of "harassment."

• "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph" I have NONE of that information, so obviously I could not post it.

• "Personal information can be anything that can be used to identify an individual, not limited to but including name, address, date of birth, marital status, contact information, ID issue and expiry date, financial records, credit information, medical history, where one travels, and intentions to acquire goods and services." Again, I have none of that information.

• "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia." Nothing in the information that YOU POSTED, places you "at risk of harm."

• "Any administrator may redact it pending oversight, even when the administrator is involved. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing." You did not post what Wikipedia consider to be "personal information," therefore this does not rise to a violation of their policy.

• "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." Since there is no way to "out" you from the material that you posted, it needn't be removed.

Here's what Wikipedia defines as "personal information."

• "(a) your real name, address, phone number, email address, password, identification number on government-issued ID, IP address, user-agent information, credit card number"
• "(b) when associated with one of the items in subsection (a), any sensitive data such as date of birth, gender, sexual orientation, racial or ethnic origins, marital or familial status, medical conditions or disabilities, political affiliation, and religion; and"
• "(c) any of the items in subsections (a) or (b) when associated with your user account."

Here's something else from the Privacy page. "When you make a contribution to any Wikimedia Site, including on user or discussion pages, you are creating a permanent, public record of every piece of content added, removed, or altered by you. The page history will show when your contribution or deletion was made, as well as your username (if you are signed in) or your IP address (if you are not signed in)." YOU created the "permanent, public record," not me.

And so I don't think that this fits the Wiki definition of "personal information" about you, or that it would be improper of me to keep on my personal page.

Activist wrote, "In my opinion, there is no explanation for C&B for doing so, save for purposes of 'Outing.' "

I have no intention of outing you and even if I did, I have no personal information with which to do so. You are not identifiable from the information that you posted. No name, address, email address, phone number password, ID number, etc. NOTHING of a personal nature.

Activist wrote, " Secondly, this or any article do not exist for purposes of serving a particular personal or collective viewpoint. There should not be a "pro" or "anti-" law enforcement perspective here, and the task of editors is to reflect what is available and covered in reliable sources, not to propound a political position in an article."

I agree. I have not placed any such material here. I've posted ONLY what is "available and covered in reliable sources." Since you seem to disagree, please point out where it's happened.

Activist wrote, "There is no basis for posting personal information about myself that I took pains to clearly restrict solely to both of you."

There was no "personal information" about yourself in your message.

Activist wrote, "I have no interest in arguing points with any editor whom I feel has been less than collegial and disrespectful of my clear intent."

If you refuse to discuss editing, then I guess I'll just have to post my edits without discussing them with you prior to doing so. Your choice, not mine. But let's look at the facts here. YOU were the first one to NOT be "collegial" when you complained that I "savaged" an article. I'm sorry that you're unable to handle someone who has a different opinion than yours, but that's life. Your clear intent was to delete your message from your talk page, and I suppose that you've done this, so 'Mission Accomplished.'

Activist wrote, "I have no obligation to stop whatever it is I am doing to answer questions that have been put, in particular in an adversarial context and within a format that was not conducive to easy response."

Of course you don't have to "answer [my] questions." But if you don't answer my simple questions asked directly of you, it speaks to your veracity and how much you can be trusted. How can anyone trust the opinion of someone who refuses to answer such questions? I agree that this format makes it difficult, but I manage to answer all questions asked of me with a very few exceptions. I don't answer stupid questions. I don't answer rhetorical questions, unless I feel like it. I also don't answer personal questions from unfriendlies that have nothing to do with the topic. Generally I don't answer questions from people that have refused to answer mine. I make a exceptions as the mood strikes. But I do answer every real question that I'm asked. Occasionally I miss a question, but if that is pointed out, unless it fits one of the categories listed, I will go back and answer them.

Activist wrote, "I won't be responding to any past or future questions or comments put by C&B because I feel that it would not be productive toward the construction of this or any other article."

OK, your choice. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 03:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:It occurs to me that when Activist wrote this, (just above) "I won't be responding to any past or future questions or comments put by C&B because I feel that it would not be productive toward the construction of this or any other article." that he's abrogated the duties and obligation as a Wiki editor. Editors have a responsibility to discuss differences of opinion as to the editing of articles, and with this statement he's said that he won't.

This is done for personal reasons, and is completely inappropriate. Of course Activist is not required to participate in the discussions about editing. It's just Wikipedia's policy for how editors should arrive at a consensus. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 15:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

It seems to me that @ Activist: seems to feel he is being outed, which is the primary consideration in my mind. You said yourself you were going to post his comments to your page to prove his lack of knowledge, or something of the kind. That does seem like an attempt to intimidate. He is not required to be a subject matter expert; just to attempt to follow wikipedia policy in good faith, which you on the other hand appear to be struggling with. I do also btw feel that some of your remarks to me could be construed as bullying. Please take a deep breath and post about one thing at a time. Elinruby ( talk) 22:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:Activist can feel any way that he likes, that's on him. I'm not responsible for his feelings. But such a feeling, that he is being outed, is completely unreasonable. You saw his message, it contained absolutely no personal information so there's no way that he can be "outed." He's just throwing a hissy fit because he didn't get his way in demanding that I do something. I know that he's not required to be a SME, but he was writing as if he was. That rarely ends well. As to bullying you, I think it's IMPOSSIBLE to bully an adult in this medium. A child, yes. A young adult, yes. But an adult who claims to be mature, nope. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 04:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply

The problem is, the *sources* call it a pocket knife. I will collate mentions of the knife here as an attempt to be systematic while I think about this. Meanwhile, I still don't see a source for that elaborate description of the knife, unless you are talking about the picture of the knife as a court exhibit. And that really won't fly. Possibly I am just repeatedly missing it, but all I see is one article that says it was 3 1/2 inches long. If you do have one could you please point me to it either by posting the specifics here or by telling me the current footnote for it? Thanks.

PS - I looked up the law, which goes back to the 19th century and was amended in the 20th century to make switchblades (only) illegal. A recent court case in Taos also ruled that a pocket knife is not per se a dangerous weapon. Elinruby ( talk)

"knife":

• http://www.koat.com/news/james-boyd-case-resumes-with-officers-testimony/34762470
• https://www.abqjournal.com/854418/crisis-negotiator-at-boyd-scene-testifies.html?utm_source=abqjournal.com&utm_medium=related+posts+-+crime&utm_campaign=related+posts

"two small knives":
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/ex-detective-testifies-he-saw-immediate-deadly-threat/article_6bca0efa-d077-5953-91a0-991fc74d8bd9.html

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:

Elinruby wrote, "The problem is, the *sources* call it a pocket knife."

That's fine for the first reference to it in the lede. I've said this before.

Elinruby wrote, "I still don't see a source for that elaborate description of the knife, unless you are talking about the picture of the knife as a court exhibit."

It's in the video that is part of the news story that I posted.

Elinruby wrote, "And that really won't fly."

Really, why not?

Elinruby wrote, " PS - I looked up the law, which goes back to the 19th century and was amended in the 20th century to make switchblades (only) illegal. A recent court case in Taos also ruled that a pocket knife is not per se a dangerous weapon."

I'm not sure why you bring this up. I've never said that possession of the knife was a violation.

Elinruby wrote, " "two small knives"

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/ex-detective-testifies-he-saw-immediate-deadly-threat/article_6bca0efa-d077-5953-91a0-991fc74d8bd9.html

If you want to change the lede to read "two small pocket knives" that's OK with me as long as the full description of them remains later in the Article. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 04:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

In the section on "Shooting" this appears, "Forensic pathologist Sam Andrews, a prosecution expert witness, testified at the preliminary hearing that Boyd died from gunshot wounds and sheer loss of blood."

I didn't see, in any of the citations for this, anyone using the word "sheer." Did I miss it? If not, I plan to change it to read. "Forensic pathologist Sam Andrews, a prosecution expert witness, testified at the preliminary hearing that Boyd died from gunshot wounds resulting in loss of blood. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 21:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I have come to the conclusion that @Beanyandcecil is here primarily to disrupt constructive edits and seek to present the defendants in the most flattering light. I have patiently asked him questions to determine if it is possible to reach some accommodation with his biases, since he claims to only want to arrive at a factual portrayal. He interprets this as ignorance and is now berating me for not taking his sarcastic rhetorical and off-topic questions literally.

He has repeatedly ranted on about the arrogance of those who would question the rights of policemen, and wants "pocket knife" changed, since he thinks the appellation shows bias, even though that is what many of the sources call it. We are now having to poll all the sources in response to this specious notion to see which is more often used. His basis for the claim of bias is that this knife would be illegal in the UK. It was quite legal in New Mexico. He also seems to think that we shouldn't cover trials, even those as notable as this, until there is a guilty verdict. At least I *think* this is why he keeps saying "innocent until proven guilty" but given my experience in the past week he'll probaby call me ignorant for saying so. I have persisted as long as I have with this editor, because he *has* made a handful of useful edits, and pointed out a couple of actual problems. And yet and yet he refuses to use secondary sources and cannot seem to set his biases aside. It's been an interesting illustration wikipedia has certain biases. I'm done.

I need to go but wanted to correct the above --- last line was intended to read "illustration of why wikipedia has certain policies." Elinruby ( talk) 19:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

A few comments in respasonse to actual issues I saw in today's wall of sarcasm:

• mansplaining - here, I googled that for you.
• on "sheer loss of blood" - if you change that I will revert you and seek help with your behaviour; at a minumum this requires discussion. I do, yes, realize what the forensic pathologist said, since I cited his testimony for that statement. (see mansplaining, definition of, at above link) The change you want to make distorts what he said. Boyd died from blood loss. The blood loss was caused by the gunshot wounds yes, but the reason those killed him was the amount of blood he lost before he even got to the hospital. Watch the video of his testimony all the way through. Elinruby ( talk) 01:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• booyah: I think I saw this on the social media feed of one of the journalists, but I don't remember which one so at the moment I can't swear to it. The remark appears to have been excluded from evidence, as the version played in court (Sandy's cross) has this captioned as "inaudible", which it clearly is not. I smell a motion in limine.

I'll reread your hateful screed later and possibly add more answers above if I find any more actual questions in your disorganized mess of a complaint post. I mean seriously. Have I ever heard of Ferguson? Doh. Elinruby ( talk) 01:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:

Elinruby wrote, "I have come to the conclusion that @Beanyandcecil is here primarily to disrupt constructive edits and seek to present the defendants in the most flattering light."

Thanks for sharing your opinion, but it's wrong. I'm here to provide balance, to see that both points of view are presented. It seems to me that you just don't want that to happen.

Elinruby wrote, " I have patiently asked him questions to determine if it is possible to reach some accommodation with his biases, since he claims to only want to arrive at a factual portrayal. He interprets this as ignorance and is now berating me for not taking his sarcastic rhetorical and off-topic questions literally."

I've answered every one of your questions that I've seen. As I said, if you think that I've missed any of them, simply show them to me and I'll answer them. Contrary to your opinion, none of my questions that I just REASKED you are "sarcastic, rhetorical [or] off−topic." Each one of them would illuminate the article or provide information as to your knowledge and background on topics that you are critiquing. One thing that's important that both you and Activist lack is any education, training or experience in LE matters, especially of this nature. And one thing that you both have, is a heavy anti−LE bias.

Elinruby wrote, "He has repeatedly ranted on about the arrogance of those who would question the rights of policemen"

I'll give you ten Pinocchios for this. IN TRUTH I've used the word "arrogant" ONCE, not as you've claimed "repeatedly." Such baseless accusations are based on FEELINGS not on reality. Not unusual for the highly biased! Details are important, but not to Elinruby when she's on a rant, as now.

But that's just a side issue. I've said NOTHING about the rights of policemen, except that they have the same right as everyone else. Apparently you're using the phrase in some other way, but I don't know what it is. Can you clarify please?

Elinruby wrote, "and wants "pocket knife" changed, since he thinks the appellation shows bias, even though that is what many of the sources call it. We are now having to poll all the sources in response to this specious notion to see which is more often used."

Another ten Pinocchios. I've said at least twice now that the term "pocket knife" is perfectly acceptable in the lede. The thorough description of the knife should be given when it's discussed later.

Elinruby wrote, "His basis for the claim of bias is that this knife would be illegal in the UK."

Gonna have to disagree. I mentioned that ONLY to show that it was a dangerous weapon, not a harmless pocket knife.

Elinruby wrote, " It was quite legal in New Mexico."

Yes, I know.

Elinruby wrote, " He also seems to think that we shouldn't cover trials, even those as notable as this, until there is a guilty verdict. At least I *think* this is why he keeps saying "innocent until proven guilty" but given my experience in the past week he'll probaby call me ignorant for saying so."

Not "ignorant," just wrong. I've used material from the trial in this matter, as sources in most of my edits, so this is just so much nonsense. I'm saying that BOTH sides, that means both the prosecution and the defense side of the trial, should be presented. But you don't seem to want that.

Elinruby wrote, "I have persisted as long as I have with this editor, because he *has* made a handful of useful edits, and pointed out a couple of actual problems. And yet and yet he refuses to use secondary sources and cannot seem to set his biases aside. It's been an interesting illustration wikipedia has certain biases. I'm done."

Ten more Pinocchios. FACT IS I've used secondary sources in MOST of my edits. Occasionally it's appropriate to use primary sources and they are not prohibited by Wiki policy. In many cases, given that there are dozens of whackadoo website covering this trial, they are more useful.

Elinruby wrote, "A few comments in response to actual issues I saw in today's wall of sarcasm:"

Nope, no sarcasm, but nice way to avoid answering many of the questions.

• Elinruby wrote, " mansplaining - here, I googled that for you."

Thanks. But the definition doesn't apply here. I have no idea of your gender and since you know little of these things, I'm doing my best to educate you. A perfect example was when you didn't know that a beanbag shotgun was not a rifle. You asked specifically and I responded.

nor would I be comfortable discussing my gender or any other personal detail with you with you given your behaviour with Activist. But my gender doesn't enter into the appellation, just yours. And btw, I asked specifically about this before I made changes in the article. I wanted to be sure you and all current editors agreed. You're the one who inferred ignorance and told me how arrogant I was to even be trying to tell this story. Elinruby ( talk) 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby: Elinruby wrote, "nor would I be comfortable discussing my gender or any other personal detail with you with you given your behaviour with Activist."

• I could care less about your "gender or any other personal detail." I asked both you and Activist for some information about your education, training and experience on LE matters that were involved in this incident. Both of you were passing judgment on the actions of the officers in this incident and I was curious as to whether you had any actual knowledge or if, as I thought, your knowledge came from TV and the movies. Activist decided, for reasons known only to him, to go off on tangent that had nothing to do with this discussion in any way. Then he decided that he was going to delete that information when he should have known that anything written on Wikipedia becomes permanent. ANYONE could search his revisions and find that material. He called it "personal information" and DEMANDED that I delete it from my personal talk page. He blockquoted Wiki policy basically threatening me, but as with some other areas, he got it completely wrong. There was ABSOLUTELY no "personal information" in his message.

Elinruby wrote, "But my gender doesn't enter into the appellation, just yours."

• It depends on which definition is used. If one uses the first (usually the preferred definition) you get "defined as "to explain something to someone, typically a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing." The second definition given is this, "Lily Rothman of The Atlantic defines it as 'explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman' " The rest of the article you link contains many references to a man explaining something to a woman. So we can see that the term INCLUDES both of our genders. I'd appreciate if it you'd stop the sexist comments please. They're rude and have no place here.

Elinruby wrote, "And btw, I asked specifically about this before I made changes in the article. I wanted to be sure you and all current editors agreed. You're the one who inferred ignorance and told me how arrogant I was to even be trying to tell this story." Elinruby ( talk) 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• I didn't "infer" ignorance. You clearly demonstrated it. You had no idea that a beanbag SHOTGUN was actually, as the name of the device states, a shotgun. You thought that it might be a rifle. And the ignorance that was obvious was limited to that, not a general comment about your level of intelligence. Some people can't tell the difference between being called ignorant and being told they are ignorant of certain facts.

• I still think that it's arrogant of someone whose knowledge of tactical matters comes from TV and the movies to judge professionals who have been educated and trained on the topic, and who have been doing it for many years. But I realize that having watched Adam 12, qualifies many people for this. At least they think it does. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 08:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

• Elinruby wrote, " on "sheer loss of blood" - if you change that I will revert you and seek help with your behaviour; at a minumum this requires discussion."

I put the query in the talk section so that it could be discussed. You've provided a source that uses that description, so I'm fine with leaving it as it is.

Elinruby wrote, "I do, yes, realize what the forensic pathologist said, since I cited his testimony for that statement. (see mansplaining, definition of, at above link) The change you want to make distorts what he said."'

It's not that I want to make a change, it's that the links that were cited, didn't support the statement. AS I SO CLEARLY WROTE.

I don't think you've listened to the entire statement. Please provide a link for what you're talking about so I can verify it's even the trial testimony, not the preliminary hearing. Elinruby ( talk) 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Elinruby wrote, " Boyd died from blood loss. The blood loss was caused by the gunshot wounds yes, but the reason those killed him was the amount of blood he lost before he even got to the hospital. Watch the video of his testimony all the way through.

Wait, you're using a primary source after all the times you've badmouthed them? LOL

dude, I have not "badmouthed" them. Just said that wikipedia policy is to use them with caution. Elinruby ( talk) 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Elinruby wrote, " booyah: I think I saw this on the social media feed of one of the journalists, but I don't remember which one so at the moment I can't swear to it."

Yeah, that's a great reference.

You ASKED me how I was doing on that. This is the talk page. I have established that it played at trial with a different caption. I will let you know when I find the original caption. Again, I am not getting paid for this and I do have other things going on in my life. 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, " The remark appears to have been excluded from evidence, as the version played in court (Sandy's cross) has this captioned as "inaudible", which it clearly is not." .

'Hearing' "Booyah," especially in light of my explanation for your error, displays amazing bias against the officers here. But this is getting redundant. Deny your bias all you want, your words speak volumes about how you actually feel.

Elinruby wrote, " I'll reread your hateful screed later and possibly add more answers above if I find any more actual questions in your disorganized mess of a complaint post."

Why am I not surprised at your reaction to being called out repeatedly.

Elinruby wrote, " I mean seriously. Have I ever heard of Ferguson? Doh."

WOW! Just wow. First, that was NOT my question. Second, what I actually asked was, "Remember the Ferguson incident?" I then went into an explanation of exactly what I was referring to, one of the problems with secondary sources. Then I wrote, "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." But it appears that somehow, you completely missed the point I was trying to make. At times I wonder if this is intentionally done to avoid answering question.

Throughout the abuse heaped on me from both you and Activist, I've remained polite and professional, but my patience is wearing thin. If you, like Activist, don't want to discuss edits with me anymore, and based on your continual inability to see, for example, that several times I've said that "pocket knife" is perfectly OK, that's fine with me. It makes editing much easier on me. I'll just do the edits without bothering to discuss them with you. Please let me know if this is what you want. The ONE TIME you actually responded to a query about an edit, where I'd put it in Talk to be discussed, you threatened to report me, if I made the change. Why would you think I'd put it in "TALK if not to discuss it? Beanyandcecil ( talk) 05:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I inserted a link directing readers to the video for the description of the knife, instead of just the news article. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 15:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

https://www.abqjournal.com/864931/jury-in-pere-zsandy-murder-trial-resume-deliberations.html

not able to edit right now, will come back to this tho Elinruby ( talk) 23:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I've updated the article in the Criminal Charges section. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 02:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Added another update. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 13:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Elinruby: Deletion of non-RSS, instea OR, description of pocket knife beyond textual description within citations provided. Additions of such interpretations are in direct contravention of Wikipedia conventions.

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This prevents editors from engaging in original research. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Editors should not use a video as a citation to present their own interpretation of its content.

Activist ( talk) 11:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:The video clearly shows that the knife has a partially serrated blade. It does not require any "original research or specialist knowledge" for a reader to see that this. It's not my "own interpretation" of the video that the blade is partially serrated any more that it requires "special education" to see that the officers shoot their guns at Boyd in the video of the incident.

I'll revert this deletion. Knowing that the knife was serrated gives the readers a clearer picture of the danger the officers faced. Hiding it, as you've done, denies them knowledge, the opposite of the purpose and intent of Wikipedia. The serrations makes the knife more deadly because it increases the cutting ability of the knife, makes it more difficult to stop the bleeding from a wound from such a knife, and causes more scarring, due to the tearing of the flesh that results. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 12:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree with @ Activist:; this is the epitome of OR. Elinruby ( talk) 16:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

You keep repeating this, and similar comments about "OR" (original research) as if it was prohibited by Wiki Policy. It's not. Recognizing from a video that this knife is serrated does not require "interpretation" or "specialist knowledge." Therefore it's not against policy and is permitted. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 17:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:Here are some quotations from Wikipedia about "Original Research." I've placed emphasis to draw attention to important passages.

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. [1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented ... "

The information about the serrations on the blade is in a video that is part of a " " reliable, published source exists." Several times now I've "cite[d] reliable, published sources that are directly to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." . The video is part of a news story and is not prohibited.

"Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided."

There will not be "multiple interpretations." because people can clearly see that the blade is serrated.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge ... "

I have made "straightforward descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further specialized knowledge."

BTW what's the difference between this and you adding the quotation from the K−9 handler who you claim said, "Bang him?" You haven't even provided a citation for the statement. You tell us it came from a video! Isn't that OR? It appears to be, yet it seems to be OK. Is there a double standard here? Beanyandcecil ( talk) 18:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:Activist I just noticed that you reverted my edit regarding the knives being serrated. I reverted your inappropriate and undiscussed edit.

You've refused to respond to my comments in this section. Wikipedia Policy directs editors to discuss such differences and not engage in edit warring, as you've done. There are only three of us involved in the recent editing of this topic. The "consensus" that you referred to in your edit, involves two of the three, and those two have already demonstrated that they've been allowing their biases to influence their editing.

Here's a summary of my reasoning for including this information in the article. This reference is not a violation of the "No Original Research" policy for reasons that have been clearly detailed above. To review them – the fact that the knives are partially serrated is not my "interpretation" and that fact is not open to any other interpretation. It did not take any "specialist knowledge" to make that observation, one has only to look at the video that's part of the sourced link. The fact that the knives are partially serrated is a "straight forward descriptive statement of fact that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge ... " as Wikipedia requires for the use of Original Research.

I suggest that you watch the video, http://krqe.com/2016/09/26/murder-trial-for-former-albuquerque-police-officers-to-resume-monday/ paying particular attention to the still photo of the knife that's shown at about 0:34.

If you continue to revert this material I will report it. Please discuss the matter here. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 17:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:In the third paragraph of the lede it says this, "Boyd eventually said he would depart, picked up some of his possessions, and took a step downhill. Weimerskirch said "Bang him." Sandy threw a flash-bang device at him, and Rick Ingram ..."

I have not heard this on the video. The statement is not repeated in the "shooting" section, or anyplace else, and there is no source for it. I do hear someone say "Do it." an instant before the flash−bang is thrown. If no one can provide a source, I plan to modify it. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 15:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

It's in Sandy's testimony at trial and also I think Weimerskirch's at the prelim. Actually tho on cross Sandy admitted Weimerskirch actually said "Bang this fucker right now" Or possibly motherfucker; I'd have to check. Elinruby ( talk) 16:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:OK. Sounds like OR to me, and you haven't even provided a citation for it. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 17:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:It's been over 24 hours since you said that you'd look into this. Have you had a chance to do so? Beanyandcecil ( talk) 18:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

24 hours is not an extraordinary amount of time; I've allowed months. In this article. We're not getting paid for this. And I have already given you the source. Sandy said he said "Bang him". In the cross the prosecutor played the video and he had admitted the actual sentence was "bang this fucker right now". Or possibly motherfucker; that's what I would have to check, but I don't think correcting this the article's most urgent problem. If you want to fix the quote go get 'em. It might be Sandy's testimony part 6. But that is a guess. Definitely one of the later chunks of testimony, since it was on cross. I actually think we should wait a day or two for the secondary sources to catch up, personally. Elinruby ( talk) 19:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Activist:@ Elinruby:Elinruby wrote, "24 hours is not an extraordinary amount of time; I've allowed months."

I see no reason to "allow months." You're right it's not "an extraordinary amount of time." but there is no reason that an un-sourced statement, particularly one that is this inflammatory, should be allowed to stand. But if it's as you claim, that's it's on the video of someone's testimony and has not been cited by a reliable source, according to you, it's OR, and therefore not permissible to use.

That is not what I said. Elinruby ( talk) 18:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Forty-eight hours should be sufficient.

Says who? I have seen this before as a minimum when people are edit-warring on very controversial articles like Donald Trump's biography. Hopefully we can adult better than *that*. Again, people who edit Wikipedia are volunteers and not necessarily available on your schedule. Elinruby ( talk) 18:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Says me. Being a Wiki editor carries with it an obligation to follow through. If someone says that they're going to do something, it should be done in a timely manner and "months" is not timely. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 05:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Why is it OK when you do it, but when I do it, there's all kinds of hassle?

Please define "it" Elinruby ( talk) 18:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Elinruby wrote, "In this article. We're not getting paid for this. And I have already given you the source."

Sorry but telling me where you think it was said does not constitute the Wiki requirement to provide a source. Provide a link and I'll add it to the Article to save you the time and trouble.

Sigh, please see separate section below. I've lost track of the times I have

Elinruby wrote, "Sandy said he said 'Bang him'. In the cross the prosecutor played the video and he had admitted the actual sentence was 'bang this fucker right now'. Or possibly motherfucker; that's what I would have to check, but I don't think correcting this the article's most urgent problem."

There's no reason that more than one correction can't be done at one time. If my reference to the "partially serrated blade" is OR, and is prohibited, certainly, so is this.

you're equating a photograph to differences in transcription. One of these things is not like the others

find a transcript that says it then, or a secondary source. But I don't think you can use an image. Elinruby ( talk) 00:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ Activist:@ Elinruby:If you can find some Wiki policy that prohibits the use of a photo that's in a video, then please show it to us. Ditto for the requirement to find a transcript. Absent that, it's perfectly acceptable. And your statement that you "don't think [I] can use an image" is interesting, but unless you can support it with a Wiki policy, it's meaningless. The photo is part of a news story and part of the description is given in the body of the text. Just because the photo is shown in a video, does not negate its use. The photo does not require any interpretation. Any educated person can clearly see that the knife is serrated without doing any specialized research. 07:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

yeah? Associated Press and at least one television station are not educated according to you, since they confused a rifle and a shotgun. And your original description was longer than just "serrated" also. Elinruby ( talk) 18:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

YES, that's correct. Much of the media is VERY ignorant of the topics of firearms, shooting, tactics, and equipment used by LE and the military. The use of double spaces makes your teeth hurt, but by comparison, it's nothing. When the media, with their ability to spread information, OR MISINFORMATION, around the world in a moment, make these kinds of errors, or demonstrate ignorance, it's quite something else again. I expect confusion between "shotgun " and "rifle" from the average person. I don't expect it from the media, given their power. But they disappoint me continually. It's especially egregious when their ignorance leads them down the wrong road and they end up giving out bad information that leads their listeners astray. Such misinformation accompanied by speculation, feeds into the fear, ignorance and at times, hysteria, of the public.

Journalism used to be an honorable profession who primary guidleine was 'The three most important characteristics of journalism are accuracy, accuracy and accuracy.' Sadly it's now become 'if it bleeds it leads.' Combine this drive to 'out−sensationalize' the other news outlets and to sell advertising and you get a horrorshow.

Theodore H. White said, "The power of the press in America is a primordial one. It sets the agenda of public discussion; and this sweeping political power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk about and think about – an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties and mandarins." Beanyandcecil ( talk) 14:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Elinruby wrote, "If you want to fix the quote go get 'em. It might be Sandy's testimony part 6. But that is a guess."

Sorry I'm not going to go do your research.

I don't understand why this is even an issue. The fact that he was given an order might even be good from a defense POV. Elinruby ( talk) 00:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ Activist:@ Elinruby:It's an issue because it's inaccurate. I don't hear anyone say, "Bang him." I do hear someone say, "Do it." That being said, perhaps it was said below a level that the helmet cam could pick up. I'll be happy to look at the video you've suggested. But if, as you say I can't use the video to describe the knife as being "partially serrated" you certainly can't use the video to show that someone made a statement. You don't get to have it both ways. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 07:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Elinruby wrote, "Definitely one of the later chunks of testimony, since it was on cross. I actually think we should wait a day or two for the secondary sources to catch up, personally."

I doubt that any secondary source will quote it. That looks like the sort of inflammatory rhetoric the press uses to drive up readership and get people emotionally involved. In any case, there's no need to wait for something that may never happen. If you can't find the source in another 24 hours I plan to delete the statement. If you find it later, you can reinstate it.

On this statement, there is no question, that it's a violation of Wiki policy to include it in this Article.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The guideline in this page discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception ..."

yes. Didn't we agree that court-published videotaped testimony was reliable? Please see citation in separate section below. Or do you dispute that this is an accurate recording? I don't understand why you are telling me this. -08:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if we agreed to this or not, but I'll agree now. But it does not have to be "court−published." As long as it's a reputable news source that's showing it, it's reasonable to assume that they've not tampered with it. Therefore it's "reliable." Hence the description of the knife that's observable without interpretation, is permitted under Wiki policy. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 17:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply