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. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was
proposed for deletion by
Reddogsix (
talk ·
contribs) in the past. It was contested by Xoloz ( talk · contribs) |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Hello, Shooting of James Boyd. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I know that Elinruby has asked me not to ping her anymore but I’m going to do so now because this is a major rewrite and I'd like to get input from both her and Activist.
@ Activist:@ Elinruby: The lede in this article is too long and contains too much detailed information that is repeated later in the article, where it belongs. The lede at this time is about 620 words. This rewrite is about half that. If there is no discussion, I'll replace the original lede with this one in about a week.
Beanyandcecil ( talk) 14:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
too closeand that Sgt. Fox relieved him after this happened, and sent him down the hill. I thought that he continued to negotiate for awhile after Sandy moved him back. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
snicker? ... part of the problem?Again you display both, your bias and how little you understand these situations in general, and this situation in particular. By the time Weimerskirch moved up the hill, it had been decided that the negotiations had failed and since the sun had already set and it was about to get dark, it was time to go to the apprehension phase of the deployment. Weimerskirch made a few comments to Boyd that some sources have called negotiation but they did not convince Boyd to surrender. He then went to apprehension. That's why he was called to the scene in the first place. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
'I really do have to go but I am very happy to see the constructive tone here, didn't see anything I completely hated, really really gotta go. Will make this a priority when I am back. Elinruby ( talk) 14:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Idealis a word that's very rarely used in standoff situations. Almost always, there is room for improvement. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
-- not currently in article - Monette's comment that schizophrenics hate to be touched (possibly lower down, a bit in the weeds)
hate to be touched.I think he's wrong, I just looked at about a dozen sites on schizophrenia. Not one of them described this as a symptom. Not one of them even mentioned it at all. When did touching him become an issue? Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
blow uphappened NOT because schizophrenics "hate to be touched" but because he was mentally ill, thought he was variously the DOJ, on special assignment from George Bush, that he outranked the officers, and more. It had nothing to do with Monette's unsupported opinion that "that schizophrenics hate to be touched." If you want to put that statement in, find some RS that supports the claim. I've been unable to find such a source. The law allows, and good common sense requires that LEOs search people they come upon in such circumstances, for offensive weapons. When they tried to search Boyd to ensure the safety of all concerned, he
blew up. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 13:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
-- expect you won't want this in lede, but it's important context. Discuss.
-- Jury vote not so much imho but you seem to like that, so... discuss?
I started on shooting itself, but that's right, I'm proposing we take it out. But let's see if we can agree on these:
producingthem for 'show and tell.' Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
-- we agreed that the bag was not a duffel bag and you seem fine with calling it a blue bag
blue bag.It's not very descriptive. The term that I originally applied " stuff sack" is a common term, it's on point, and there's even a WP page on it. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
[A] reusable grocery bag? No it wasn't. Those are described on WP as "a type of shopping bag which can be reused many times. It is an alternative to single-use paper or plastic bags. It is often made from fabric such as canvas, natural fibres such as Jute, woven synthetic fibers, or a thick plastic that is more durable than disposable plastic bags, allowing multiple use. Reusable shopping bags are a kind of carrier bag, which are available for sale in supermarkets and apparel shops." There's a photo on this page that may help you. /info/en/?search=Reusable_shopping_bag
a reusable grocery bag.Beanyandcecil ( talk) 13:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
-- what exactly the dog did is a bit hazy, but at *this* point he does not bite.
hazythat he picked up the blue stuff sack and brought it to his handler. It's obvious from the autopsy report that the only dog bites that Boyd sustained were on his lower right leg, and those occurred after he was shot. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Real, non-sarcastic questions:
multiple shootings.I am friends with two officers, one involved in seven shootings, and the other in five. Both of them are known as "hard chargers," meaning that every day they go looking for criminals to take to jail. They study crime patterns in their cities, and so they stay in areas where the crimes are being committed. They are among officers who have the highest arrest stats on their departments. They work assignments that are likely to take them into areas of higher risk than other officers, special teams such as following career criminals, cross−agency narcotics interdiction units and K−9. If an officer just drives around "chasing radio calls" the chances of him being involved in a shooting at all, are small. Usually it's the guys who are looking for criminals that wind up in the shootings. But, at the same time, it can happen to anyone, anytime. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
mentally illis too broad. You've defined Albert Redwine as being mentally ill and have insisted that his shooting be included in this discussion for that reason. Yet I've seen nothing that says that he was mentally ill. I've asked you to provide some support for that claim, but I've not seen anything that supports it. I've read that Albuquerque has a problem created by politicians who turned off funding for mental health programs and so those folks are now 'running the streets' untreated and unmedicated. They cause issues, people call the police, and they often don't comply 'normally' with commands. That can escalate to ugly problems, as with this incident.
Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November. 2016 (UTC)
[D]epressedis not "mentally ill." persons who are mentally ill may be depressed (or they may not be). But someone who is
depressedis not automatically mentally ill. The description of his shooting does not belong here. Neither, for that matter does the shooting of Mary Hawkes. There is no description of her as being mentally ill either. I have no issue with either the first two paragraphs or the last one that appears under the heading of "History of APD Police Shootings" but neither shooting belongs there. They only serve to color the article against the police. Neither shooting was ruled out of policy. Do you have something that says that they were? Perhaps a lawsuit that the city lost? Beanyandcecil ( talk) 14:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
other point, not currently in article, is the militarization of the APD. It is also important to realize that this began after two officers were shot, and Ray Schultz vowed he was going to make sure officers were safe. Elinruby ( talk) 22:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like references for any answers that should go in the article. I am going to go think about article structure. I think we should probably just do the organization of the entire article. And please discuss at the talk page before any substantive changes now; I'm trying to trust you but yu haven't made it easy ;) Elinruby ( talk) 22:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Now that I have waded through a lot of the material, I recognize some of the names on the family lawsuit defendant list are homicide investigators (Stone for example) so yeah, going with 19 and I removed this sentence: "Some reputable media have reported that there were more than 40 officers present.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://krqe.com/2014/10/07/boyd-shooter-welcome-to-rop-mistakes-now-cease-to-exist/ |title=Welcome to ROP |publisher=KRQE}}</ref>. "Reputable media" is a wikipedia concept, also, which readers may find sounds a bit strange. The story is otherwise good and KRQE provided some of the best coverage so I want to preserve the reference, which I suspect was used elsewhere and if so those footnotes will break Elinruby ( talk) 08:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I am still open to the idea that 41 responded total but only 19 of them were on duty and not all of them were on the mountain at the time of the shooting.has the public picturing James Boyd standing alone on the side of a hill, surrounded by 41 police officers. That's not what happened. But if you consider the source of that number, the attorney for the family who sued the APD, it serves him well. The problem is that he's about as far from a RS as one can get. It's to his financial benefit to make the police looks as bad as possible. But the problem starts when what is sometimes considered a reliable source, such as Rolling Stone Magazine, cites that number but doesn't bother to attribute it to any source, instead writing, " "... with as many as 40 police officers reportedly joining the standoff. Which is a lie! Then Wiki editors quote it, as if it was fact, compounding the lie and misleading the readers. If that number was accurate, and 41 LEOs had Boyd surrounded, the prosecuting attorney would have used that number in her case in chief. But instead, she used the accurate number, "19." The
sources aren't unanimousbecause they quoted an unreliable source, the Boyd family attorney. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 07:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
the section about Brandenburg has been edited to the point where we have four paragraphs about an accusation being made and and one sentence saying oh by the way the attorney-general found that the accusation was unfounded and made for political reasons. @ Beanyandcecil: this needs to be walked back and if you don't I'll be going through there with a weed-whacker, which is what it needs. Elinruby ( talk) 17:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
four paragraphsin the Article. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 08:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
... only moving the sections [I] don't like? I moved material that obviously did not belong in the section. I'm completely neutral about the material that I moved. It had to do with Officer Monette, NOTHING to do with the special prosecutor. Yet you moved it back! Beanyandcecil ( talk) 08:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
depressioninto a mental illness but there's no RS that supports it. You could put every shooting that APD has ever been involved in, but to be pertinent to the article, I think, they need to be people who had mental illnesses. Redwine does not qualify. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 08:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Activist:@ Elinruby: I've done a rewrite of the lede, incorporating Elinruby's comments.
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. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was
proposed for deletion by
Reddogsix (
talk ·
contribs) in the past. It was contested by Xoloz ( talk · contribs) |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Hello, Shooting of James Boyd. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I know that Elinruby has asked me not to ping her anymore but I’m going to do so now because this is a major rewrite and I'd like to get input from both her and Activist.
@ Activist:@ Elinruby: The lede in this article is too long and contains too much detailed information that is repeated later in the article, where it belongs. The lede at this time is about 620 words. This rewrite is about half that. If there is no discussion, I'll replace the original lede with this one in about a week.
Beanyandcecil ( talk) 14:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
too closeand that Sgt. Fox relieved him after this happened, and sent him down the hill. I thought that he continued to negotiate for awhile after Sandy moved him back. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
snicker? ... part of the problem?Again you display both, your bias and how little you understand these situations in general, and this situation in particular. By the time Weimerskirch moved up the hill, it had been decided that the negotiations had failed and since the sun had already set and it was about to get dark, it was time to go to the apprehension phase of the deployment. Weimerskirch made a few comments to Boyd that some sources have called negotiation but they did not convince Boyd to surrender. He then went to apprehension. That's why he was called to the scene in the first place. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
'I really do have to go but I am very happy to see the constructive tone here, didn't see anything I completely hated, really really gotta go. Will make this a priority when I am back. Elinruby ( talk) 14:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Idealis a word that's very rarely used in standoff situations. Almost always, there is room for improvement. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
-- not currently in article - Monette's comment that schizophrenics hate to be touched (possibly lower down, a bit in the weeds)
hate to be touched.I think he's wrong, I just looked at about a dozen sites on schizophrenia. Not one of them described this as a symptom. Not one of them even mentioned it at all. When did touching him become an issue? Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
blow uphappened NOT because schizophrenics "hate to be touched" but because he was mentally ill, thought he was variously the DOJ, on special assignment from George Bush, that he outranked the officers, and more. It had nothing to do with Monette's unsupported opinion that "that schizophrenics hate to be touched." If you want to put that statement in, find some RS that supports the claim. I've been unable to find such a source. The law allows, and good common sense requires that LEOs search people they come upon in such circumstances, for offensive weapons. When they tried to search Boyd to ensure the safety of all concerned, he
blew up. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 13:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
-- expect you won't want this in lede, but it's important context. Discuss.
-- Jury vote not so much imho but you seem to like that, so... discuss?
I started on shooting itself, but that's right, I'm proposing we take it out. But let's see if we can agree on these:
producingthem for 'show and tell.' Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
-- we agreed that the bag was not a duffel bag and you seem fine with calling it a blue bag
blue bag.It's not very descriptive. The term that I originally applied " stuff sack" is a common term, it's on point, and there's even a WP page on it. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
[A] reusable grocery bag? No it wasn't. Those are described on WP as "a type of shopping bag which can be reused many times. It is an alternative to single-use paper or plastic bags. It is often made from fabric such as canvas, natural fibres such as Jute, woven synthetic fibers, or a thick plastic that is more durable than disposable plastic bags, allowing multiple use. Reusable shopping bags are a kind of carrier bag, which are available for sale in supermarkets and apparel shops." There's a photo on this page that may help you. /info/en/?search=Reusable_shopping_bag
a reusable grocery bag.Beanyandcecil ( talk) 13:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
-- what exactly the dog did is a bit hazy, but at *this* point he does not bite.
hazythat he picked up the blue stuff sack and brought it to his handler. It's obvious from the autopsy report that the only dog bites that Boyd sustained were on his lower right leg, and those occurred after he was shot. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Real, non-sarcastic questions:
multiple shootings.I am friends with two officers, one involved in seven shootings, and the other in five. Both of them are known as "hard chargers," meaning that every day they go looking for criminals to take to jail. They study crime patterns in their cities, and so they stay in areas where the crimes are being committed. They are among officers who have the highest arrest stats on their departments. They work assignments that are likely to take them into areas of higher risk than other officers, special teams such as following career criminals, cross−agency narcotics interdiction units and K−9. If an officer just drives around "chasing radio calls" the chances of him being involved in a shooting at all, are small. Usually it's the guys who are looking for criminals that wind up in the shootings. But, at the same time, it can happen to anyone, anytime. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
mentally illis too broad. You've defined Albert Redwine as being mentally ill and have insisted that his shooting be included in this discussion for that reason. Yet I've seen nothing that says that he was mentally ill. I've asked you to provide some support for that claim, but I've not seen anything that supports it. I've read that Albuquerque has a problem created by politicians who turned off funding for mental health programs and so those folks are now 'running the streets' untreated and unmedicated. They cause issues, people call the police, and they often don't comply 'normally' with commands. That can escalate to ugly problems, as with this incident.
Beanyandcecil ( talk) 06:21, 9 November. 2016 (UTC)
[D]epressedis not "mentally ill." persons who are mentally ill may be depressed (or they may not be). But someone who is
depressedis not automatically mentally ill. The description of his shooting does not belong here. Neither, for that matter does the shooting of Mary Hawkes. There is no description of her as being mentally ill either. I have no issue with either the first two paragraphs or the last one that appears under the heading of "History of APD Police Shootings" but neither shooting belongs there. They only serve to color the article against the police. Neither shooting was ruled out of policy. Do you have something that says that they were? Perhaps a lawsuit that the city lost? Beanyandcecil ( talk) 14:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
other point, not currently in article, is the militarization of the APD. It is also important to realize that this began after two officers were shot, and Ray Schultz vowed he was going to make sure officers were safe. Elinruby ( talk) 22:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like references for any answers that should go in the article. I am going to go think about article structure. I think we should probably just do the organization of the entire article. And please discuss at the talk page before any substantive changes now; I'm trying to trust you but yu haven't made it easy ;) Elinruby ( talk) 22:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Now that I have waded through a lot of the material, I recognize some of the names on the family lawsuit defendant list are homicide investigators (Stone for example) so yeah, going with 19 and I removed this sentence: "Some reputable media have reported that there were more than 40 officers present.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://krqe.com/2014/10/07/boyd-shooter-welcome-to-rop-mistakes-now-cease-to-exist/ |title=Welcome to ROP |publisher=KRQE}}</ref>. "Reputable media" is a wikipedia concept, also, which readers may find sounds a bit strange. The story is otherwise good and KRQE provided some of the best coverage so I want to preserve the reference, which I suspect was used elsewhere and if so those footnotes will break Elinruby ( talk) 08:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I am still open to the idea that 41 responded total but only 19 of them were on duty and not all of them were on the mountain at the time of the shooting.has the public picturing James Boyd standing alone on the side of a hill, surrounded by 41 police officers. That's not what happened. But if you consider the source of that number, the attorney for the family who sued the APD, it serves him well. The problem is that he's about as far from a RS as one can get. It's to his financial benefit to make the police looks as bad as possible. But the problem starts when what is sometimes considered a reliable source, such as Rolling Stone Magazine, cites that number but doesn't bother to attribute it to any source, instead writing, " "... with as many as 40 police officers reportedly joining the standoff. Which is a lie! Then Wiki editors quote it, as if it was fact, compounding the lie and misleading the readers. If that number was accurate, and 41 LEOs had Boyd surrounded, the prosecuting attorney would have used that number in her case in chief. But instead, she used the accurate number, "19." The
sources aren't unanimousbecause they quoted an unreliable source, the Boyd family attorney. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 07:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
the section about Brandenburg has been edited to the point where we have four paragraphs about an accusation being made and and one sentence saying oh by the way the attorney-general found that the accusation was unfounded and made for political reasons. @ Beanyandcecil: this needs to be walked back and if you don't I'll be going through there with a weed-whacker, which is what it needs. Elinruby ( talk) 17:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
four paragraphsin the Article. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 08:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
... only moving the sections [I] don't like? I moved material that obviously did not belong in the section. I'm completely neutral about the material that I moved. It had to do with Officer Monette, NOTHING to do with the special prosecutor. Yet you moved it back! Beanyandcecil ( talk) 08:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
depressioninto a mental illness but there's no RS that supports it. You could put every shooting that APD has ever been involved in, but to be pertinent to the article, I think, they need to be people who had mental illnesses. Redwine does not qualify. Beanyandcecil ( talk) 08:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Activist:@ Elinruby: I've done a rewrite of the lede, incorporating Elinruby's comments.