Talk:Killing of James Boyd

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

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.

Lede rewrite

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.

• James Matthew Boyd was fatally shot by Albuquerque Police on March 16, 2014, on the outskirts of Albuquerque, New Mexico. A resident of a nearby subdivision called police to report that a man had been illegally camping in the hills behind his house. Two officers responded. They approached Boyd as he lay under a tarp. Boyd, mentally ill, became irate when an officer tried to pat him down. He produced two pocket knives, and threatened to kill the officers.
• They called for backup and Albuquerque police and New Mexico State police responded. A police officer with crisis intervention training tried to negotiate with Boyd, but was unsuccessful in getting him put down his knives and surrender. The negotiations were taken over by a police K−9 handler, but he too, failed to get Boyd to surrender.
• After several hours of negotiations Boyd put his knives into his pockets and said he would depart, but the officers could not permit this until they had disarmed him. They threw a flash bang device, used a Taser shotgun and a police dog, but none of these less lethal methods were successful in getting Boyd to comply. When the K−9 handler approached Boyd to re−deploy his dog, Boyd produced his knives again. Two officers said that they felt he posed an imminent threat to the K−9 handler and so they both fired their rifles to protect him. Boyd had started to turn just before they fired and the rounds struck him in the back. Boyd fell to the ground, still holding his knives. To get him to drop them, an officer shot him with three beanbag shotgun rounds, and the police dog bit him. He was taken into custody and transported to the University of New Mexico Hospital emergency room where he underwent extensive surgery. He died the next morning.
• The two police officers who had fired their rifles were charged with murder. The trial lasted for 12 days and the jury deadlocked 9-3 for acquittal. The prosecution has 30 days to refile the charges.

Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, this is a good use of ping, thank you, since there has not been much activity on the article recently. I just snapped at you when it got to be a couple dozen pings a day as I was also working on the article and was going to see the changes anyway. Yes, Activist does it, but not with that kind of frequency.

I do agree that the lede is too long. I was trying to come to a summary of events in the lede, but once the trial started there was too much detail, and especially too much disputed detail, for that to work well. However you are still uncritically accepting the defense version of events and there are several things I dislike about this version. I am willing to take another shot at a civil discussion if you are. This will take some thought though, so give me a little time to propose something else.

I too did not like the way the discussion had gone, and of course I'm willing to try again. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

But just as an example, why say "had started to turn" if the object is to cut the length of the lede? He did turn and this is undisputed.

I feel strongly both ways. The lede should be short and concise. But just saying that "Boyd turned and they shot him" makes it sounds as if it was two events separate by some time. It makes it sound as if they had seen him turn and then decided to shoot him in the back. Given the reaction time of humans at .5 to .75 seconds it happened like this. Working in their OODA loop they saw the distance between Boyd and the K−9 handler (the Observation phase), processed this to see an imminent threat to him (the Orientation phase), and decided to act by firing (the Decision phase). The final phase (Action) was then put into the loop. This Loop takes some time and so while it was going on, Boyd was in the act of turning. When they pulled the trigger he was milliseconds ahead of their act and so the bullets him him in the back and the back of his arms. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Perez testified that he perceived that Boyd had turned, interpreted it as the first step in a flanking movement and that's why he fired. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Many people schooled by TV westerns think that if bullets strike someone in the back, they're "bushwackers, lowlifes or other bad people." This puts a 'bad face' on the officers and the fact is, that sometimes it's reasonable and appropriate to shoot someone in the back. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Also he was shot in both arms as well as in the back, and these were not trivial wounds if they had to amputate an arm. Those aren't contrversial points, I don't think.

Do you want to say something like, "The rounds struck him in the back and the back of his arms?" I have no objection, other than it expands the lede, and the details of the wounds are explained later in the article in quite some detail. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The "Two officers said"... mmm this is a disputed statement and we should at a minimum say that the two officers in question, of all the officers there, were the defendants.

No objection to saying that the two officers were the defendants. The main players are Boyd, Perez and Sandy. I don't think the others need to be named in the lede. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important that Sandy pulled the CIT officer off because he said the officer was too close. (This was Sandy's testimony and no, it's not in the article now and yes I will get a time mark if there's no better reference than that for the statement) That one we might have to discuss,

You're ahead of me on watching the trial. I thought that Sandy moved him back because he was too close and 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)

@Beanyandcecil: how is this different than what I said? Genuinely confused. Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It adds information. Beanyandcecil (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

and also the fact that I don't really feel the K9 officer was "negotiating".

He thinks he was, and several news reports say something like. 'Weimerskirch took over the negotiation.' It didn't last long because he was there not to get him to surrender, as they thought that had failed, but to assist with taking Boyd into custody, since it was going to get dark in a few minutes. So there were a few commands, some back and forth (negotiations), and then the officers started the arrest attempt. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

yeah, snicker, he thinks he was, fair enough, and that was part of the problem Elinruby (talk) 14:05, 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)

correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying he wasn't negotiating at all. If so I sort of agree Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why remove the name of the officer who threw the flash-bang? It doesn't make the article shorter (?)

None of the officers or other people involved are named in the lede. The only person who is named is Boyd. I think that if we put all of the pertinent names, Thickstun, Fox, Sandy, Perez, Monette, Ingram, Weimerskirch (I know that I've left some out) it will make it confusing and add to the length without adding any significant information. But if you want to, it's not a big deal to me. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thickston didn't say "illegally" camping, just that he was camping. For example.

That's true. Rarely do people call in with the correct crime when they call 911. They know something is wrong, but they may not know its official name. Thickstun just wanted him removed, but that will require another sentence to say that camping is not permitted in the area and will lengthen the lede. The details are explained later in the Article. But, again, if you want to put something of that nature in there, I'll be happy to take a look at it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh and the "threatened to kill" was a separate event from the first time he pulled the knives.

OK. How about if I take out the phrase, "to kill" so it says, "He produced two pocket knives, and threatened the officers." Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This is going to be hard to resolve, but I don't like "threaten". Seems to me his stance was defensive. Sandy called it "squared off". Ready to fight but not seeking it. 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to finish something up but I'll take a shot at an alternate version soon, or, if you like, you can :::propose another version that takes the some or all of above comments into account. Elinruby (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll wait for your version, hoping it will encompass some of my suggestions. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

will try Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 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)

I've been in and out finishing some other wikibusiness that is less fraught, but I have the lede off in a text document and have been thinking about it. I'd already said it was too long so we agree on that much. It is supposed to summarize the article and does not do this. Originally, when I came here, there was little that had happened. He was shot, there were protests. I found the 911 call, added some information, did a major scrub of the outraged entries, moved on. I tried to update it when the trial started but there is simply too much data and too much disputed data. So, how about we move all this stuff about the blow-by-blow into the section titled Shooting? Maybe even have an actual timeline.

Is there a time line anywhere? Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This would leave more room for information about why we even care. Which I am sure we will disagree about, but....usually when there is some sort of intractable disagreement the answer is to represent both points of view. So. A couple of preliminary points that I think are important, for discussion. And feel free to inline edit these -- I've put them into list format the better to do so

• this sequence of events did not have the outcome anyone would consider ideal (not in so mant words)

Ideal is 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)

• SWAT, field services and CIT were all present
• the location: a fairly affuent subdivision right next to a wilderness, yet still inside city lines

I think that the location needs to be named and described as , mountainous, unimproved, filled with cactus and other natural brush, etc. Otherwise it sounds as if it happened in the "affluent subdivision"

mmm I see the concern. But it's confusing then as to how Thickstun was able to videotape this. Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Boyd was asleep or at least lying down when Open Space arrived

I think lying down is accurate. Sleeping might or might not be. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Boyd displayed varying degrees of rationality as things who went on

According to the accounts that I've read, he was rarely rational. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• He did have two knives and produced them

It needs to be stated that he repeatedly threatened the officers with them and that he repeatedly said that he was going to kill the officers. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

he did apparently say that multiple times, based on curt testimony Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 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)

That might belong in an article about the characteristics of schizophrenics. Here it's a medical opinion and one that he's not qualified to give. He may have said it, I've not seen any RS that state it, but in this context, it's irrelevant, except that it is another statement that's slanted against LE. Lots of people who are not schizophrenic 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)

He didn't blow up until they tried to search him. Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

His blow up happened 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)

• this shooting came shortly before the DoJ report

It came after the investigation had been completed but before the report was released. This shooting was not investigated by the DOJ. Information about it does not belong in the lede. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

-- expect you won't want this in lede, but it's important context. Discuss.

I have no problem with mentioning it, but I don't think it belongs in the lede. The title of the Article is "The Shooting of James Boyd," and the lede should focus on that. The DOJ investigation has nothing to do with it directly. If the title was something like, "How the DOJ investigation relates to the shooting of James Boyd" it would. In the Report there was a single comment made about something the Chief had said, regarding this shooting, but they did not examine this shooting. It's side information at best. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Mistrial is important

-- Jury vote not so much imho but you seem to like that, so... discuss?

Of course the jury vote is important. 75% of the jury was convinced that there was not enough evidence to convict either officer. Only 25% of them bought into the prosecution's case. If the numbers were reversed, that too, would be important. It's important that the overwhelming majority of people who actually heard and saw all the pertinent evidence, came to this conclusion. Most of the public has done little more than watch the video and read a couple of news report, most of them favoring the prosecution side. The defense side wasn't presented, to any significant degree until the trial. The prosecution side had been presented for about two years before the trial even started. It should come as no surprise that a largely uneducated public, per your claim, thinks the officers committed first degree murder. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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:

• He displayed the knives but did not usually advance more than a step or two

Agree, but it needs to be said that he assumed an aggressive stance after producing the knives. He wasn't producing them for 'show and tell.' Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just before he was shot, he turned and picked up some objects

-- we agreed that the bag was not a duffel bag and you seem fine with calling it a blue bag

I'm not thrilled with calling it just a 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)

cloth bag? It was a reusable grocery bag. Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reusable_shopping_bag

It was, as I've previously described for you, a stuff sack. "A stuff sack is a type of drawstring bag, usually used for storing camping items. Stuff sacks are commonly used for the storage of sleeping bags, which are otherwise bulky and difficult to manage.[1] Stuff sacks may also be used as general containers to collect many small items together," containing something about the size of a jacket or a small sleeping bag. It was a little smaller than an American football, except that the ends were not tapered. Viewed from the side it was a rectangle with rounded corners. Go watch the video, as I've asked you to do perhaps dozens of times. The K−9 DID NOT GRAB a reusable grocery bag. Beanyandcecil (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• sequence was flash-bang, taser, then dog within seconds

Make that "Taser shotgun." A Taser is a handheld, handgun-like less lethal weapon that has a maximum range of 21' – 25'. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

-- what exactly the dog did is a bit hazy, but at *this* point he does not bite.

I don't think it's hazy that 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)

Ok on shotgun, was just saving keystrokes, but where the article is concerned, sure. I agree about the leg. what I thought was hazy was what the dog did with the bag Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Real, non-sarcastic questions:

• I understand that SWAT is more likely to be involved in a shooting, but how usual is it really for multiple officers to have multiple shootings?

Most SWAT situations are resolved without anyone being shot. Most shootings happen during 'crimes in progress' calls and SWAT doesn't respond to those, unless they turn into a barricaded suspect situation. Most officers are never involved in a shooting. A few officers are involved in one shooting. A very few officers are involved in 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)

• In other cities is it usual for the overwhelming majority of shooting victims to be mentally ill?

Part of the problem is that your definition of mentally ill is 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)

It's a statewide problem, long story there of Santa Fe corruption there, but it disproportionately affects Albuquerque because UNMH is there and it's the bibbest city. I didn't add Redwine; whoever wrote the original article did. But I am pretty sure he was depressed and there's a reference for this on my list of shootings. Elinruby (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

[D]epressed is not "mentally ill." persons who are mentally ill may be depressed (or they may not be). But someone who is depressed is 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)

• Is there such a thing as an average rate of police shootings?

Not really. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• What is that thing about anyone within a certain number of feet being too close?

When dealing with people armed with either blunt object or edged weapons, LEOs are 'safe' if they're a good distance away. Obviously if they move to within a couple of feet, the LEO is in danger. So in between the 'good distance' and the 'couple of feet' distance there's a critical distance that they can cover before they can be stopped with a handgun. Generally that's about 21'. It's based on reaction time and the fact that action always beats reaction. The OODA loop is involved. There's a video that demonstrated various situations that LEOs find themselves in, ranging from surprise situations where the attack is completely unexpected and the officer's gun is holstered, to expected attacks where the officer is pointing his gun at the suspect when the attack begins. The distance is surprisingly large. I've demonstrated it to several juries and they later said that they were shocked at how far away a suspect could be and still kill the officer before he could be stopped. Here's a link to the video. The full video is almost 90 minutes long. It's from the 1980's, so expect hokey and overly dramatic. The video is shown to lots of academy recruits as part of their training. [1] Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

k thanks, I think this answers the q, will look later.Elinruby (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• in other cities what proportion of officers have crisis intervention training?

I don't have exact numbers, but it's surprisingly low. Where I worked it was about 1%. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• what does that amount to usually, in time, material covered?

Classes range from 8 to 40 hours. I don't know the details of the classes. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 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 think that the entire issue of "the militarization of police" is an invention of the media. Since the beginning of time, since there were first people charged with enforcing the regulations of society, the weapons they've used have kept pace, well, actually been way behind the curve, with the weaponry available to the criminals. Some of the defensive material, bullet resistant vests and armored vehicles are a response to what the criminals are doing. Weaponry such as guns, improved ammunition, and rifles, are a direct result of criminals moving to similar weaponry. There's really nothing new in this, EXCEPT that the media has always drawn attention to it, and lately they've sensationalized it all they can. I remember the huge public outcry when LAPD went to hollow−point ammunition. Actually it was safer in the long run, because that ammunition rarely over−penetrates the target, to continue on to endanger anyone in its path. The previously used ammunition did that much of the time. Ditto for the move from revolvers to semi−automatic pistols, the addition of bullet resistant vests and helmets, and just about everything else in the inventory. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 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)

19 vs 40 redux

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. But ok, if the prosecutor says 19 at the time of shooting why enumerate errors in news coverage? Some of sources do say 40 there. But if we thing this is wrong I think we should just quote the sources we believe. This is a minor point but since the sources aren't unanimous trying for WP:WEIGHT. Elinruby (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Your statement, 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 unanimous because they quoted an unreliable source, the Boyd family attorney. Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

MAJOR balance problem re the prosecutor

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)

Definitely needs work - was that section copy/pasted from somewhere? Some of the references are just numbers (eg, [[66]]), which don't actually link to anything. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Go right ahead. It's quite redundant. I've put a minimum of material in there, yet your statement seems that you think that I've written most of it. I DID move the material on Officer Monette that's obviously completely out of place there, as he had nothing to do with the section heading at all. But for some reason you decided to move it back. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Four paragraphs about an unfounded accusation vs one sentence saying it was unfounded. A minimum?

I'm pretty sure that I'm not the one who put four paragraphs in the Article. Beanyandcecil (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I already told you that every thing the special prosecutor did is currently under special prosecutor. We've agreed this would be better as three sections, appointment of the special prosecutor, preliminary hearing and trial, yet you are only moving the sections you don't like. Sigh. I'll go back to my rewrite now. [Emphasis here from Beanyandcecil] Elinruby (talk) 16:53, 9 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)

Did a first pass since it was an egregious BLP problem. Will be back to check it against the references. Have discovered that Redwine has his own article, which was probably written separately than the section here. I do think he needs to be mentioned as do the other later shootings, but there's a lot of quotation here, almost more than we have about Boyd. [Emphasis here from Beanyandcecil] Elinruby (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it has any place here. You're trying to emphasize that APD kills mental patients as the DOJ report says. There is no evidence that I've seen that Redwine was mentally ill. You're trying to stretch his possible depression into 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)

Lede Rewrite V2

@Activist:@Elinruby: I've done a rewrite of the lede, incorporating Elinruby's comments.

• James Matthew Boyd was fatally shot by Albuquerque Police on March 16, 2014, on the outskirts of Albuquerque, New Mexico. A resident of a nearby subdivision, called police to report that a man had been camping in the wilderness area, within the city limits, just behind his house, a violation of local ordinances. Two officers responded. They approached Boyd as he lay under a tarp. Boyd, mentally ill, became irate when an officer tried to pat him down. He produced two pocket knives, and threatened the officers.
• They called for backup and Albuquerque police and New Mexico State police responded. A police officer with crisis intervention training tried to negotiate with Boyd, but was unsuccessful in getting him put down his knives and surrender.
• After several hours of negotiations Boyd put his knives into his pockets and said he would walk down the hill, but the officers could not safely permit this until they had disarmed him. Since the sun had set and approaching darkness would complicate the situation endangering the officers and Boyd, the officers threw a flash bang device, used a Taser shotgun and a police dog, to try to get Boyd into custody. But none of these less lethal methods were successful in getting Boyd to disarm himself. When the K−9 handler approached Boyd to re-deploy his dog, Boyd produced his knives again. Two officers, the defendants in the trial, said that they felt he posed an imminent threat to the K−9 handler and so they both fired their rifles to protect him. Boyd had started to turn just before they fired and the rounds struck him in the back, and the back of his arms. Boyd fell to the ground, still holding his knives. To get him to drop them, after more commands to do so had failed, an officer shot him with three beanbag shotgun rounds, and the police dog bit him. He was disarmed, taken into custody and transported to the University of New Mexico Hospital emergency room where he underwent extensive surgery. He died the next morning.
• The two police officers who had fired their rifles were charged with murder. The trial lasted for 12 days and the jury deadlocked 9-3 for acquittal. On October 11, 2016, the judge declared a mistrial. The prosecution had 30 days to refile the charges.
• The US Department of Justice released a scathing report on April 10, 2014 stating that APD officers often use deadly force in circumstances where there is no imminent threat of death or serious injury to officers or others. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)