June 8th, 2014

Citizen Video Evidence Exonerates New Mexico Activist Group 187

By Charlie Grapski
See Video of Events Below

Prof. David Correia Arrested for Battery on a Police Officer at Albuquerque Mayor’s Office: See Video of Events Below

On Monday, June 2nd, thirty-two concerned citizens went to the office of Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry, who was scheduled to have a budget meeting that afternoon, in order to seek an audience with the Mayor or to submit their statements in writing.  An hour later thirteen were arrested – one charged with felony battery on a police officer.

They were met almost immediately with force aimed at preventing them from even entering the office at the direction of Chief Administrative Officer Robert Perry.  The result was that the citizens, being threatened with arrest for merely entering the office, conducted an impromptu “sit-in” in the office stating, when told that the Mayor was out of town, that they would wait for him. 

Nearly a half hour later thirteen of those who initially entered the office, who remained behind when the majority of the group went outside to the City’s Civic Plaza to participate in a press conference, were forceably detained within the office when police “locked-down” the Albuquerque/Bernanillo County Municipal Building.  

Six women and six men were arrested and taken to jail for three misdemeanor offenses: Criminal Trespass, Interference with a Public Facility, and Unlawful Assembly together with Intent.

While a thirteenth member, of what has become known as the Burqué 13, was arrested and charged with a felony – battery on a police officer.  The sworn arrest complaint, sworn to as true under oath by Officer A. Jaramillo, who did not arrive until long after the factual allegations made actually occured, states that University of New Mexico Professor David Correia intentionally pushed through the crowd, forced open a “security door” to allow the group to enter a “secured area,” and then with his arms raised bumped his chest into plain clothes Albuquerque Police Officer, stated to be a member of the Mayor’s “security” deployment, C. Romero.  Romero, it is claimed, was knocked off balance by Correia’s blow before he could attempt to “restrain” Correia while informing the citizens that they were welcome in the lobby but not within the office.

The problem with the official story is that video evidence taken by citizen journalists and cell-phone video of one of those who sought to deliver a message to the Mayor completely conflict with the sworn arrest complaint filed against Correia.


In fact what several videos show is that long before Officer Romero engaged with the citizens they had already entered the office via the main entrance – a glass door embossed with the seal of the City and stating “Office of the Mayor Robert Berry.”  Benjamin George arrived first, opened the unlocked door, and “smiled at the members of staff, who smiled back” as he and others entered.  But that’s when the trouble began.

Without stating, as is sworn as true, that he was an APD officer and that the people were allowed only in the lobby – Romero is captured on cell-phone video only now released that shows that he, in fact, was the one who physically engaged Correia.

Correia initially faced the group of citizens who were being trapped in the narrow hallway beyond the door leading to a public waiting room, adorned with columns and cases full of public art, which had doors around its perimeter to the offices of the Mayor, his Deputy and Chief of Staff Gilbert Montano, and Chief Administrative Officer Richard Berry. 

Correia is clearly audible on the video stating that the citizens were attempting to have a “public meeting” with the Mayor and would not be forcibly barred from attempting to meet with or present their written concerns to the Mayor.

At that point Officer Romero is visible approaching Correia from behind, without identifying himself, and physically grabbing him.  Correia immediately raises his arms in a gesture to indicate that he was not attempting to resist or forcefully confront Romero.

Contrary to the sworn complaint that Romero sought to prohibit Correia and the others from entering – not only were they already within the door and in the office but Romero is shown aggressively dragging Correia, arms still raised, back down into the back of the office where he detained Correia for about three minutes threatening to arrest him. 

At one point this encounter with Correia and Romero are joined by the Mayor’s Deputy and Chief of Staff, Gilbert Montano, which takes place while the others in the group begin chanting in the background as they gather in the waiting area.  One woman, 67 year-old Nora Anaya, whose nephew was brutally shot by APD nearly 25 years ago while driving his girlfriend, who had been shot at a party, to the Emergency Room (both died as a result), chained herself to one of the art supporting columns in the waiting area.

Montaño is clearly overheard stating to both that he was attempting not to make arrests but to “de-escalate” the rapidly growing tensions.  Romero objects but moments later Montaño allows Correia to rejoin the citizens, now engaged in a sit-in where they read aloud complaints and selections from the recent scathing investigative findings of the Department of Justice, which concluded that the APD engages in a systematic abuse of deadly as well as non-deadly force and has been responsible for unnecessary citizen deaths in nearly half of the 25 fatal shootings between 2010 and March of 2014 – when another fatal shooting, this time of a homeless man, James Boyd, for unlawful camping in the Sandia foothills on the Eastern boundary of sprawling Albuquerque, occurred and set off a wave of protests that brought the chronic problems of the APD to the nation’s attention.

Moments after that Montaño is again seen stating his objectives are to “de-escalate” rather than amplify the problem – one of the concerns addressed by the Department of Justice – to CAO Robert Perry.  Perry is seen at the start of the videos directing the police to try and forceably remove the citizens from the office and states to them repeatedly that they are “done” and they “had their chance.”  Perry almost leads an officer, seen charging towards another of the citizens arrested, to violently engage in an arrest.  Perry confronted Joel Gallagos first with the demeaning reference as “son” – to which Gallagos states he “ain’t no son” but a grown man – then responds by employing a racial slur, very offensive in a state with a large Native American minority, of “chief.”Contrary to the sworn complaint against Correia the sit-in is allowed to continue for nearly an hour before military clad and armed S.W.A.T. forces were deployed and the arrests of the thirteen now locked inside were made.

Thirteen citizens are arrested for trespassing at the Mayor's office as militarily clad and armed officers lock-down building.

Thirteen citizens are arrested for trespassing at the Mayor’s office as militarily clad and armed officers lock-down building.

The video evidence once again demonstrates the power and importance of citizens who video record official acts in being able to reconstruct the actual facts of an event and to contradict official statements used to portray them as “disruptive” and to justify arrests.

Following this story will be a detailed analysis and critique of the allegations against Correia and the other twelve using two of those videos.  One, captured on the cell phone of Caden Rocker, who describes the effort as an attempt as a concerned citizen to deliver in person a letter he had written to the Mayor addressing concerns about the police brutality in Albuquerque.

Rocker’s video, newly released, shows – within the first thirty-three seconds, the entirety of the events of the claimed battery by Correia.  When placed in conjunction with another video, made by citizen journalist Charles Arasim, working for photographyisnotacrime.com, which captures most of the confrontation between Romero and Correia in the back of the room and the de-escalation efforts attempted by Montaño – the veracity of the sworn complaint against Correia is undermined.  This calls into question the legality of the actions of City officials and APD in making not only the felony arrest of Correia but also those of the others in the Burqué Thirteen that afternoon.

The City Council declared for the second time in a row that they were cancelling the City Council meeting, claiming concerns for the safety of the Councilors and the public, which would be rescheduled, without following the City’s Charter, Ordinances and Rules required to do so, but as a “special meeting” in which the citizen’s right to general public comment would again be prohibited.  That meeting is scheduled for Monday June 9th and several of the citizens, who have been mischaracterized as being intentionally disruptive, have submitted a statement, modelled on the language and logic of America’s Declaration of Independence, saying that they would not do anything to address their concerns at the Council meeting but would rely on their presentation of the series of legal violations in the Council’s recent actions as submitted as evidence of a “long train of abuses and usurpations” submitted to a “candid world” to view the facts for themselves and see what the citizens believe is the justness in their cause and the misrepresentation of their efforts.  The citizens claim, supported now by documented evidence, this is one reason why in addition to the Department of Justice’s condemnation of the behavior of the APD, that they both fear the police and distrust the City’s Mayor and Council.

Considering thirteen people were unnecessarily arrested with one charged with a felony, there now appears ample evidence to support these concerns, given that they did not invade the Mayor’s office as falsely alleged, they merely stayed in an office they had the lawful right to enter.

ANALYSIS OF VIDEOS PROVING INNOCENCE OF THOSE ARRESTED ON FALSE ALLEGATIONS

ANALYSIS

ROCKER VIDEO

ARASIM VIDEO

SWORN COMPLAINT

COALITION STATEMENT TO THE MEDIA

* We are non-violent.
*We as a community want to feel safe with APD, not terrified.
* There is no police accountability in Albuquerque.
* The DA has not prosecuted one killer cop.
* Mayor Berry has not implemented any substantial changes.
* The DOJ reports that the APD top brass sides with officers even when evidence proves otherwise.
* APD hardly ever releases lapel-cam footage, and when they do, it is damning.
* In 200 cases randomly investigated by the DOJ, only one percent of non-lethal incidents were justified.
* Non-violent protesting is disruptive? What about the $30 million lost in lawsuits that could have gone towards improving our community?
* We demand better training for police officers.
* We demand indictments for all police officers guilty of murder
* We demand a complete overhaul of APD.
* We demand an INDEPENDENT oversight commission with the ability to investigate, discipline, and fire officers.
* We want to live in a community not a militarized state.

The Burqué 13 

Nora Anaya

Sue Schuurman

Barb Grothus

Kathy Brown

Ilse Biel

Bill Bradley

Jim Bowes

David Correia

Joel Gallegos

Mayan Trujeque

Oscar Chavarria

Talia Madrid

Jonathan Dunn


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • Jim Holmes

    Once again, cops are proven to be LIARS. So what else is new?

  • http://www.policemisconduct.net Film The Police Always

    So will this cop be charged with official oppression? He should be fired!

    • Haywood Jablomi

      Unfortunately he will be promoted, but not as much because he didn’t kill anyone. If he did, he would be promoted to “Assistant Chief”. As it goes in the Federal Government, now begins the search for the guilty, the prosecution of the innocent and the promotion to all those with no involvement.

  • Mike Ross

    *blinks*

    “…a racial slur, very offensive in a state with a large Native American minority, of “chief.” ”

    Now my native language is Scottish English. But that word would have no racist connotations for me, ever. Not in a million years. ‘Chief’ is just a friendly informal mode of address, suitable for both strangers and intimates.

    “Sorry to bother you, which way is 3rd Avenue?”
    “No problem chief, turn right there, go three blocks, you’re on it”

    It’s the precise equivalent of ‘pal’, ‘mate’ or ‘buddy’. “Hey buddy how’s it going?” “Hey chief how are you?”. I use it to all ages and races, but only to men.

    Does ANYONE here consider it racist? Really? Is this another bit of American usage I’ve managed to avoid learning?!

    • PalmettoDude

      So you would have no issue visiting your Irish neighbor and saying “Sorry to bother you Mic, but which way is…” ?
      Most Americans (not of Irish ancestry) don’t quite get what the fuss with Mic is.

      “Excuse me Chief,…” in NYC probably won’t be thought about twice
      The same in New Mexico would viewed quite differently.

      • Charlie Grapski

        In the American SW – where the Native Americans were subjected to official genocide and then remained a struggling minority – the term “chief” was often used derogatorily against such persons.

        • Mike Ross

          That’s interesting. So it’s real. I didn’t know that. It’s used as I described in Scotland, and has been for…. longer than I’ve been alive… where Native American issues and culture couldn’t be further from most people’s minds. And I’ve heard it used the same way in New York, as nothing more than a friendly way of addressing someone, frequently a stranger on the street, when you don’t know their name.

          • Charlie Grapski

            Different contexts have different meanings. Its kind of like if I said to an English woman I would smack her “fanny” – its much more offensive than if you said it to an American woman. Because its got a different meaning.

          • ENTWAFFNUNGDERGESTAPO!

            those english. . .

            . . . they have a different word for EVERYTHING

          • Charlie Grapski

            There is also a difference in how a sound is used. A bunch of Micks is equivalent to a bunch of N’s.

          • Charlie Grapski

            Like Wop for an Italian, Kiek for a Jew, Hun for a German, Jap for a Japanese person, Paki for a Pakistani, I could go on.

          • kraz

            Also Wop. Kiek, Hun…

          • Mike Ross

            Yes, ANY term – pretty much – can be used pejoratively, I agree. But if someone calls me a “fucking inbred drunken Jock” it’s not the ‘Jock’ bit that will get them a punch to the throat!

          • Stuart O’Steen

            And in this country, Mike, “jock” simply means athlete. It can be said with a sightly derogatory sneer or with real admiration, but there’s not much negative semantic weight in the word. Calling you a “hagistani” might be funny in Scotland. I don’t know. It’s funny here, but I wouldn’t think about calling you that for fear that it might be really offensive. Or maybe “porridge wog”? Or “sheep shagger”? Or maybe there aren’t really any derogatory terms for Scots that are sufficiently hurtful that they mean a whole lot. There really aren’t any for white Americans, though there might be one or two for a subset of very poor and under-educated white Americans.

            So, in any event, I would never, ever, ever call a Native American “chief.” But I would call a white friend that, and have. It’s all in the context, and it’s a context someone in New Mexico would know very well.

          • Mike Ross

            Oh the term for me that would be derogatory – but could also be used in a friendly way – is ‘teuchter’ (pronounced ‘choochter’) – which is lowland Scottish slang for a Highlander. If someone calls me a ‘bloody teuchter’ I’ll call them a ‘fucking sassenach’. Sometimes used in a way that carries the implication of lack of intelligence or sophistication: “That’s a very teuchter (stupid) way of doing that!”.

            “porridge wog”? Never heard that in my life. Or “hagistani”.

            I have heard “bog arab” as a derogatory term for Irish.

            White is interesting. Here in NZ, if you’re white, you’re pakeha – the Maori word for us. Exactly the equivalent of the Hawai’ian ‘haole’ – white man. Can be used in a friendly way, a factual way, or a derogatory way; pakeha is absolutely not a toxic word. You see it printed in the papers all the time. Yesterday there was a headline about how a film made by two pakeha won the Maori film festival.

          • kraz

            It’s funny that you can spell out mick but can’t spell out nigger even though you’re just using it in the context of educating someone..

          • Charlie Grapski

            Funny? I can spell out “nigger” in that context with no problems. What is your point?

          • kraz

            Well you didn’t before… “There is also a difference in how a sound is used. A bunch of Micks is equivalent to a bunch of N’s.”
            My point was exactly what I said. Not sure how to make it clearer. And I really meant people in the US as a whole, not you specifically even though I did say “you” in my comment. It’s more curiosity than anything else for me. personally. Like why is one ok but another is not?

          • Charlie Grapski

            I would have used a “short-cut” in all the others too – if I could have communicated the idea. You understood what I meant. That’s all that should have mattered.

            To prove the invalidity of making that claim against me – I responded as I did. I would prefer not to do so if avoidable. Unless it is necessary to communicate. But I have no fear of speaking my mind.

            I just think of all of what is contained in the above story – something other than this would deserve attention.

            But I answered based upon the “me” implied in the use of “you” – the particular you were referencing. I have now, I believe, made my point and – so far as I am the subject – I believe countered any criticism you may have.

          • kraz

            There was no criticism meant towards you personally. I already said that. I am sorry if you took it as such and I am sorry if it came across like that. I think the post I made quickly after kind of says that. I don’t post on PINAC to make enemies or try to put people down. I pointed the question at you because you were the one that said it. It’s been something that’s always made me wonder and so I asked. I’ve always seen it as a kind of double standard I guess. Also, it had to do with the discussion taking place about the word “chief” so it was not out of context.

            Yes, I did understand what you meant but that was not my point. And just because of “all that is contained in the story above” does not mean someone cannot post a question off topic like the one I responded to. I think what the citizens in Albuquerque are doing is amazing and I see it as a possible start to people in other towns and cities doing the same and I have already spoken about that.

          • Charlie Grapski

            Its all OK. I don’t take any of it personally.

          • kraz

            I’m glad :) It wasn’t meant to be.

          • Charlie Grapski

            And I understand your question/point. I merely wanted to make clear to all my personal position.

          • Charlie Grapski

            Not sure what happened thought my response was submitted:

            There is no problem kraz – I don’t take any of it personally, and I now understand your point and purpose better. I merely wanted my particular position on that known for anyone to see.

          • kraz

            I should actually change “funny” to interesting because I hear this all the time. People will say every derogatory name in a discussion except for the unmentionable “N word.”

          • JohnLloydScharf

            I consider New York to be a foreign state filled with paranoids with narrow minds that would make a redneck look cosmopolitan.

      • Mike Ross

        That’s an excellent example! I’m Scottish, and have been addressed as ‘Mac’ before, or, in England, ‘Jock’ – (Jock being the common vernacular for ‘Scotsman’ in English slang, because of course all Scotsmen are named ‘Jock’ :) )

        Similarly an Irishman maybe be ‘Mick’ or ‘Paddy’.

        I wouldn’t and don’t take the slightest offence at any of the above.

        • Charlie Grapski

          But in 19th Century America – when Irish immigrants were generally mistreated – this was used in a pejorative manner.

          • Difdi

            And at one time being called ‘nice’ would be grounds for a duel to the death. But you’ll notice people don’t kill eachother over being called nice anymore.

            Word meanings change as languages drift. Things that used to be insulting aren’t any more…things that aren’t insulting now might become that way in the future.

            What matters is word meaning now, not what it was or might become.

        • Dylan

          I’m not from the US, grew up in Ireland (republic), and now live Down Under. Agree that not everyone Irishman would take offense to being called ‘Mick’ or ‘Fenian’, but I would if it was from someone I didn’t know in the same way that I would take offense to being called ‘son’ or ‘chief’ by an unfamiliar. Plenty of African-Americans seem not to mind being called ‘nigger’, but it doesn’t really make it okay does it?

          • Charlie Grapski

            But what if someone called you an Orangeman? That certainly would be something that Mike might recognize. Not an insult in the six counties among some. But the rest of the people there and in the Republic would be offended in being mischaracterized.

          • Dylan

            I have to confess to not fully understanding those dynamics. I would imagine a Catholic paramilitary member probably wouldn’t be too happy to be called an Orangeman, but my understand is that members of the Orange lodge are generally proud, if somewhat discreet about their membership. I think the meaning (at least what I took) behind your original comment if fair, that a little bit of name-calling is not really that significant in the context of this whole affair, even if it was the cops antagonising the protesters.
            Based on what Charlie has printed, the cop who made the statement deserves to be investigated by internal affairs, at the very least- which though it might sound minor would be bloody stressful to have to go through.

          • Dylan

            Sorry, thought I was replying to Mike.

            By ‘those dynamics’ I mean Northern Ireland.

            Don’t get me wrong, he may well deserve much more than an IA investigation.

            Cheers, Dylan.

          • Charlie Grapski

            Oh – the person who used “chief” in that manner (and you can hear his tone is derogatory) is not a cop – but the person who directed the cops – the second under the mayor.

          • Charlie Grapski

            That’s what I meant – that a Catholic called an Orangeman would not be happy by it. Its not the same as a racial slur – but the point is that words can be used in a way that a person feels offended – while OTHERS would not have a problem with it. It the particulars of the person and the context that matter.

          • Dylan

            Agreed!

          • Mike Ross

            Yes I would, and it would never be used as such. Used to an Orangeman, it would be correct. Used to anyone else, it would be simply… wrong. Would result in puzzled bemusement as much as anything else. Not an insult, just… bizarre and wrong. ‘Prod’ would be insult word. Can be used as friendly slang (meaning ‘Protestant) but much more used as a sectarian insult or taunt.

          • ENTWAFFNUNGDERGESTAPO!

            i’ve always wondered if this means that irish catholics are forbidden from attending Syracuse Univ?

          • Mike Ross

            Fenian is different. That’s generally a very clear insult, a political insult.

          • Stuart O’Steen

            Dylan, whether an African-American takes offense (and justifiably, GREAT offense) at being called the n-word has to do with context. A good friend, probably African-American, can call another African-American that word and it’s usually fine. A very, very good white friend might be able to do the same. Other than that, though, it’s a horrible racial slur.

            Look, no one expects people to understand all the cross-cultural meanings of words. If you used the n-word in a thick, Scottish accent, I’d assume you just didn’t know what you were doing, and I suspect many, if not most, African-Americans would react the same way. Call an African-American a “wog” in this country, and he might laugh. It’s a funny word. Call him a “jungle bunny,” and you’ll likely have a fight on your hands.

    • Charlie Grapski

      Well are you a Native American – “chief” ? You are learning a bit about another culture – that is unique to the American SW.

      • Mike Ross

        The day I stop learning they can tie a tag to my toe :)

        • Charlie Grapski

          agreed

    • frank-kintz

      The government is trying to get the Washington Redskins to change their name because it is offensive to Native Americans.
      Yes calling a Native American ” Chief” is like using the N word to a black person in areas where there is a large Native American population.

      • Mike Ross

        I have a couple of friends, not close however, who are Native Americans. I knew about the Redskins causing offence. I’ve seen this:

        But I’d NEVER heard a whisper of ‘chief’ being used as an insult or racial epithet. Until now.

      • Happy Tinfoil Cat

        What about the Kansas City Chiefs? I have never seen chief used as a derogatory term. It’s PC nonsense.

        • inquisitor

          It doesn’t matter what you think, but what a Native American would think.
          They consider it derogatory, but don’t make too much a big deal about it because it is just another example, to them, of how the arrogant white man disrespects himself.

          • theaton

            I live in the New Mexico and work with many Native Americans, Navajo, Hopi, Apache and other tribes. None of those I work with are offended by “Redskins” or “Chief.” They don’t even see whites as arrogant.

          • inquisitor

            …they got you fooled white man.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Yeah, you would be amazed at what you can learn when you aren’t “offended.”

    • Charlie Grapski

      And if you listen to the video – you will hear the tone it was used in.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      It is extremely racist. It’s not as bad as redskin, but close. It’s probably the equivalent of sambo instead of the N-word.

      • Guest

        You’re out of your mind.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          Oh? Why is that? Do you know more about Indians than I do?

          • Guest

            Maybe not. But I know more about calling people “cheif” and “boss,” and being called “chief” and “boss,” to know that it doesn’t have to have anything to do with indians. Comprendo chief?

          • Mike Ross

            That’s a point. Actually I sometimes use ‘boss’ too. Boss, chief, pal, mate, buddy, mac… pretty interchangeable.

            But it’s clearly a word that had very different connotations in places I’ve never been. We do NOT all speak the same language, and allowance needs to be made for that.

            Language DOES change. It can bifurcate. Here’s an example from the UK:

            Yid:

            (1.) derogatory/slang term for ‘Jew’.
            (2.) nickname for supporters of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.

            Forty years ago the second meaning didn’t really exist; only the first. Now it’s prevalent. Spurs fans are ‘Yids’ to themselves and to their friends and enemies alike.

          • Voice-of-Concern

            “Chief” is extremely racist, in the location and context it was used in the above video. Time to work on your reading comprehension, if you want us to respect your comments as other than bigoted blather.

          • inquisitor

            You are simply wrong in your assertion.
            Comprendo asshole?

          • MongoLikesCandy

            I’ve no problem with calling someone “chief” instead of “boss”. UNLESS THEY MIGHT BE NATIVE AMERICAN. It kinda makes a big difference. And sometimes people will mean the former, not realizing that they are talking to a Native American or just not thinking about it like that.

            Cops would know when they are using a racial slur.

      • Mike Ross

        Interesting. ‘Redskin’ is a word I would certainly NEVER use; your comparison with the N-word is apt. It was once a disrespectful word in common use, today it’s a grave racial insult. This I know.

        But ‘chief’… well I grew up with it having nothing other than a friendly meaning in Scotland, and likewise in New York, where I lived for 15 years. And certainly NOTHING to do with the Native American meaning of ‘chief’.

        I guess it must be a regional thing. Important to know!

        • inquisitor

          Using the term “chief” to denote a Native American Indian within the United States is racist.

          Charlie and ex-cop are most correct in this regard.

          Yes, one can call a person “chief” which can also mean “boss”, but to say it to a Native American who actually does not hold the title of tribal chief is racist as it has a history of being used in a derogatory manner.
          And when one refers to or addresses an actual tribal chief it is usually followed by their proper name.

          There really isn’t much more to say about it in this regard.
          It is what it is.

          • Mike Ross

            Well it’s complicated even further by the fact that I’m a fireman and use ‘Chief’ (uppercase but you can’t hear the difference!) in that context too :D

            In casual use it doesn’t (where *I* was raised) mean ‘boss’, as in your boss at work. You could use it to a friend or colleague – or to your boss if on friendly terms – but It’s most commonly used as a friendly term for a male stranger whose name you don’t know. “Hey pal you dropped your wallet”. “Hey chief you left the cap off your gas tank”. “Hey mate can you tell me how to get to Kings Cross?”.

            (The equivalent friendly terms for a female stranger would sound archaic and sexist to American ears: ‘hen’, ‘dear’, or ‘hun’ could all be used.)

            Now that I know how offensive it can be I think I’ll simply refrain from using it with strangers at all in the USA; I do NOT want to offend someone who carries Native American blood!

          • putaro

            Friendly? I always thought it was sarcastic when you used it on an adult. It’s the kind of thing you’d call a young boy.

          • Charlie Grapski

            One word can have multiple meanings – the key is which meaning is INTENDED by the speaker.

      • DesertRattt

        Anyone tell the US Navy that. I addressed all sorts of people, including the occasional American Indian as Chief…still do. Its the accepted form of address to a CPO of various grades.

    • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

      As a life long native Texan, I’ve never considered nor known anyone else to consider “chief” to be a racial insult. I’m with the Scot on this one.

      • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

        I will say that “chief” can have a bit of a patronizing connotation, same as “son” depending on how it is said.

        • Mike Ross

          ‘son’ yes maybe… especially in the diminutive. “Watch your step, sonny!”

          But ‘chief’… don’t think I’ve ever heard or known it to have anything other than a friendly meaning.

          • inquisitor

            Right, we got that, you never heard of it until now.
            Consider yourself…informed…and act accordingly.

          • theaton

            Informed by whom?

        • inquisitor

          But not to a Native American who does not hold the title of chief…stupid.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        Lamar ran all of the Indians out of Texas in the late 1830s, early 1840s, so there’s not a real big Indian population to contend with.

        However, if you called me chief, I would give you one chance to apologize before I kicked your ass.

        • guest

          Resort to force hey? You are weak.

        • LibertyEbbs

          Poor impulse control you got there. Yet we are all still supposed to believe that you never broke the law when you had the badge of immunity. Yeah, right.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Yup.

            I don’t wear a badge now. I can’t get fired for kicking the ass of someone who racially insults me now.

          • Guest

            All those missed opportunities. You wouldn’t have gotten fired. All you had to do was say “stop resisting” as you kicked the shit out of anyone you wanted to.

        • Mike Ross

          There does seem to be a diversity of opinion on this one, might I ask why you would take such strong offence?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Because I was born on the rez and have dealt with this BS for a long time. I’ve been called an apple, chief, prairie nigger, Cochise, Tonto, redskin, etc. I’m old enough now that I’m not going to deal with it any more.

          • Mike Ross

            Gotcha. We live and learn.

          • Voice-Of-Concern

            And there is no good reason to give bigots a pass. Time for them to shut up or leave.

            And what is wrong with folks on here who would rather support a low class bigot, rather than someone who is not gonna take that shit? Eggzactly what patriotic value does that reflect, to side with the bullies?

        • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

          I can see it being insulting if said to a Native American. But, you’re incorrect to think that that is its most common use. People use the word all the time just like Mike Ross noted without any racial overtones whatsoever. Thus, it would be wrong to necessarily infer some racist intent in the use of the word.

      • inquisitor

        And what the hell does being a life long native Texan have to do with it other than explaining your ignorance of the matter?

        • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

          Haha, no need to be an ass (unless that is it actually is a compulsion with you). And, I’m afraid the ignorance is all yours, sonny!

    • Haywood Jablomi

      Not racist in the least bit.

    • TSCtroll

      I live in NM – Albuquerque in fact.
      This is the 1st I’ve heard of it being offensive to call someone “Chief”. I suppose you could force it in an offensive way, if you *really* tried. This is just sensationalism (yellow) journalism…of course, that is just my opinion.

    • FitzND

      “Chief” is not a remotely racist word in this context. It’s the exact same thing as “pal,” like you said. There are no racial connotations.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        I guess stupid f*ing papist would also not have any negative connotations either.

        • FitzND

          First of all what you just said has nothing to do with whether “chief” is racist, so don’t change the subject. Something is racist if the intent is to demean. The word chief is not demeaning in the least bit. It is an everyday word completely absent of prejudice. Second of all, the word chief is not even used by Native Americans and pre-dates the discovery of America by over 200 years. You (and Charles) simply could not be more wrong on this, on any level. Get a clue.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Gee, I’m glad to know that. Did anyone tell the NCAA that? Because the last I heard, any racist nicknames (like Chiefs) keeps a college team out of the playoffs.

            Second of all, if all Irishmen weren’t drunk all the time, you would have realized this.

          • FitzND

            The word “chief” is used all over the world, and by our own government on just about every level. You have chiefs of staff, you have the fire department chief, on and on and on and on. It’s been used for centuries. People also used the word to describe the heads of Native American tribes, yup definitely. And most commonly people use the word chief as another way of saying “buddy” or “pal” or “man” or whatever. The idea that this person was using it to be RACIST (?????) is just beyond silly and a product of your own imagination. Get outraged over actual injustices, not ones that you invent.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            And the use of chief, when directed at an Indian, is racist.

          • Mike Ross

            Not always. People need to be aware of cultural differences. We may mostly all speak a form of English, but we do NOT speak the same *language*.

            Native Americans need to be aware that the word is used freely by other cultures, with not the slightest trace of racist history or meaning in those cultures, and shouldn’t take offence at such a cultural difference if it’s used _innocently_ to them. Of course that doesn’t mean they can’t explain that the word has different connotations in their language.

            People from other cultures also need to be aware that at least some Native Americans HAVE experienced the word being used with racist intent by at least some people. They need to be aware more generally that even if someone appears to speak English it doesn’t mean you’re speaking the same *language*; there will be different nuances, like this.

            I didn’t know about the racist use before, and I’d bet 99.9% of Scots don’t know it either. Now I do.

          • Mike Ross

            Not always. People need to be aware of cultural differences. We may mostly all speak a form of English, but we do NOT speak the same *language*.

            Native Americans need to be aware that the word is used freely by other cultures, with not the slightest trace of racist history or meaning in those cultures, and shouldn’t take offence at such a cultural difference if it’s used _innocently_ to them. Of course that doesn’t mean they can’t explain that the word has different connotations in their language.

            People from other cultures also need to be aware that at least some Native Americans HAVE experienced the word being used with racist intent by at least some people. They need to be aware more generally that even if someone appears to speak English it doesn’t mean you’re speaking the same *language*; there will be different nuances, like this.

            I didn’t know about the racist use before, and I’d bet 99.9% of Scots don’t know it either. Now I do.

  • citizenzero

    They should all be charged with conspiracy as well as the obvious charges.

  • dravo1

    Albuquerque PD would be a very good candidate for some federal oversight. It’s not perfect but it would be a start.

    • Charlie Grapski
    • Charlie Grapski

      Look at that link – you will see the recent DoJ conclusions.

    • Burn The Obedient

      Cause that is what they need. Terrorists watching terrorists. Let me know how that works out for you.

    • inquisitor

      From Holder’s DOJ?
      pffffffffffffffft.

  • ibanix

    So has any of the local media there picked up this footage? Is anyone else making an issue about it?

    • Charlie Grapski

      Tomorrow. I just released it. It will be picked up tomorrow BEYOND the local media. And they will follow.

    • Charlie Grapski

      Albuquerque police protesters say video acquits man accused of assault http://gu.com/p/3qxmm/tw via @guardian

  • frank-kintz

    “I did not tell a lie. I did not make a false statement on the report. It was like a war zone in there. I was in fear for my life. They were hostile. It was just the fog of war. I was just trying to protect the city workers. Officers safety was my up most concern. My job is to serve and protect the city employes. These people are nothing more than a band of malcontents and thugs. They refused to obey my lawful commands. They kept shouting over me about the constitution and something about civil rights. We can not allow aggressive behavior like this to take place in my building. I was just doing my job. One guy keep resisting arrest by holding his hands up in the air. They were also taking video of me without my permission.”

    Wow what a true patriot. He should be given a medal and a raise.

    • Burn The Obedient

      Oh he deserves a medal all right. Made of lead.

      • inquisitor

        …and a raise…up into the crematory’s incinerator.

    • Guest

      Where is this quote from?

      • Alexander Vucelic

        It is a sarcastic quote of the criminal’s forthcoming testimony in his hearing

    • inquisitor

      Ah…you must add to malcontents and thugs…”terrorists”.
      Because when you use the magic word, then all injustices are permissable.

    • matism

      He should join those two LVMPD pigs. And soon.

  • Burn The Obedient

    Take guns next time. These are not police officers. They are terrorists. It is our duty to defend our country against terrorism, including the domestic kind.

  • Alexander Vucelic

    Perjury is punishable by 10 years or so in prison

    • http://www.hisnameistimmy.com Tim in SF

      HA! Police RARELY face perjury charges. Doesn’t matter if they lie like a rug.

      • matism

        Well of course they don’t face charges. After all, when a pig does it, it’s not “perjury”. It’s only “testilying”. And there are NO “laws” against “testilying”…

        After all, in this country’s “Legal” system, it always depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. Just like it’s not “assault” when a judge physically attacks a public defender in the courthouse hallway in front of the Brevard County Sheriff’s Deputies.

        The only good pig is a dead pig. And the only good lawyer…

  • Guest

    Why is an officer (A. Jaramillo) who was not a witness to what occurred allowed to write out and sign the official criminal complaint form? Why didn’t officer C. Romero write out and sign the official criminal complaint form? How can this document have any legitimacy at all. It is nothing but an “as told to” or “this is what I think happened while I wasn’t there” bullshit hearsay story.

    They are all traitors! Their oath. The Constitution. The laws. This great country. Nothing but jokes to them!

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      “Why is an officer (A. Jaramillo) who was not a witness to what occurred
      allowed to write out and sign the official criminal complaint form?”

      It’s called an “Information and Belief” complaint and is very common, probably more so than personal knowledge complaints. The judges that take these do not work at night, so another officer is assigned to go before the judge and swear out the complaint. It happens every day in every state.

      “They are all traitors!”

      I would suggest that you read your Constitution. It says very clearly what a traitor is, and this isn’t it. It is the only crime defined in the Constitution, so you don’t get to make up what you think it should be.

      • Charlie Grapski

        Well – regardless of who writes it – it is not admissible as evidence. It is hearsay. The problem is this practice makes a mockery of the whole “swearing the above is true” language and concept that is involved. The arrest should not be made without someone swearing to the OFFENSE. Not a mere belief that one occurred.

        • Charlie Grapski

          There should be an accuser willing to swear to the accusations – before someone is arrested and their liberty taken away – even for just an evening.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            There is an accuser – who is swearing (or affirming) that he has information and belief from information provided by a credible person that there is probable cause that a crime was committed and that a particular person committed it.

            Also, the affidavit isn’t used in the trial, because it is hearsay. Hearsay is able to be used in preliminary matters, like a probable cause determination or a grand jury, but not in the trial.

            Finally, all of these are after the arrest, not before an arrest, typically.

          • Charlie Grapski

            That is not the definition of “an accuser.”

          • Guest

            Maybe he read that definition somewhere in the Constitution.

          • Charlie Grapski

            No – he confuses (a) what he was TOLD as a police officer – which is exactly what he is citing; and (b) what vocational legal education sees no need in teaching correctly – as opposed to teaching the distortion of the concept as it has become normalized in practice.

            The problem with law and politics in America today is that they base their legitimacy on concepts that are either no longer in effect in practice or are mere distortions of the concept – just the mere “name” is all that is left.

            Thus to him the “accuser” can be something that is not only NOT Constitutionally the concept (and he has no conception of why that is problematic) but is also not conceptually such. It is a FICTION – but it is unfortunately the fiction that, in large part because those trained as lawyers (which in America is all the education needed to be a judge – at any level), has become the practical element – even though as such it cannot logically entail the legitimacy that the legal fiction assumes (that was once present).

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Maybe. But I’ve won every time I’ve been drug into court, so I’ll go with the vocational training for now.

            Besides, the Sixth Amendment doesn’t say anything about confronting one’s accuser, it states that the defendant has the right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” and “to be confronted with the witnesses against him….”

            It derives from the treason trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, among others, where Raleigh was not allowed to confront or question a witness who provided an ex parte statement against him.

            Neither right is being infringed upon with the procedure outlined in an information and belief affidavit and preliminary finding.

            Most of what Dr. Grapski says I agree with. We were/are quibbling over minor differences in interpretation.

          • Charlie Grapski

            Lets just leave it at that last line. And get back to the issue. I have nothing but respect for what you are doing.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Works for me. Thanks.

          • Guest

            “I have nothing but respect for what you are doing.”

            What is he doing?

          • Charlie Grapski

            He is a former police officer seeking to become as far as I am aware an attorney – with a sincere interest in the law.

          • theaton

            Getting an conviction and “winning” are vastly different. How many convictions are being overturned do to DNA evidence? How many lives have been ruined by the lies of an officer? Far too many for me to give any officer the benefit of the doubt.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Let me clarify. I’ve won every time I’ve been drug into court civilly. But to address your comments, I’ve never had a conviction overturned on appeal either.

            Finally, no one should give any witness, whether police or not, the “benefit” of the doubt. A juror and the public should always be skeptical of the veracity of all witnesses.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Uh, yeah, it is. Did they actually teach any law in the LL.M. course you took? Wouldn’t it have been easier just to get a J.D.?

          • Charlie Grapski

            Uh no it isn’t. You are being trained how to practice law in the current “regime” – not what the law was meant to be – and why what it has become is part of the problem.

            Your “accuser” is who you have a Constitutional right to confront. And it should be that standard which is necessary BEFORE you are arrested.

            You want to really try that approach – test your knowledge and understanding of law against mine? I suggest you stay with what you know – you are not incorrect in the parts of what you say. But you have no education, knowledge, or understanding of the history of that law and how it got distorted over time.

            I was not disrespectful to you – why are you being so to me? I suggest you take a step back before you are shown what you don’t know about the law.

          • http://www.policemisconduct.net Film The Police Always

            Finally someone who actually knows the law. This is exactly what PINAC needs. The worse type of lawyer is an ex cop who thinks because he was on the streets lying to citizens and controlling them for years can now twist the law into what his eyes and tainted views are,

          • Charlie Grapski

            Which law school are you attending? My LLM and MA and PhD legal education – I had no need to get a “vocational” J.D. (actually this was once more properly called – and still is where I studied – a BACHELORS degree in law) since I had no desire to practice law. Do you want to measure its quality of legal education about that school I went to – which is the number three school IN THE WORLD? Or do you want me to list off the legal scholars I studied directly with – vs. the legal faculty where you are studying? Your teachers teach what my teachers wrote. “Son.”

          • theaton

            This is just a question. Your’s is the “number three school IN THE WORLD?” according to whom?

            Obama and his administration continually say that his is the most transparent administration in history. Surely we can agree that is false.

          • Charlie Grapski

            According to the international standards which evaluate all schools (including US ones) according to much higher standards than the US News and World Report.

            This has nothing to do with Obama – who has been ANYTHING BUT – I agree – transparent.

          • theaton

            I know the conversation has nothing to do directly with Obama. The point was that anybody or organization can say anything they want about themselves or some other organization. Rating of schools is very subjective. The quality of education has a great deal to do with the person being educated. Going to a top 10 rated school does not guarantee or even indicate the quality of the educated person.

          • Charlie Grapski

            That is why I give no credence to the AMERICAN method used by the US News & World Report.

            But you may assume that many standards are merely subjective. But that does not m