Tuesday, April 01, 2014

The murderous ABQ enforcers

I hadn't said anything here about the guy in Albuquerque murdered by enforcers for camping without permission. Because, what do you expect?

It sounds like the guy who was murdered, James M. Boyd, had problems, and may not have been a wonderful person, but at the time he was murdered, he wasn't doing anything to deserve it. At that moment, he was innocent.

He was camping- and found himself faced with aggressive, armed goons who were obviously making credible threats to harm him. Of course he had knives in his hands. He was not a credible threat to anyone not intent on escalating the situation. The cops were in no real danger from Boyd's words. (So he should have had a gun or two.) They were simply on the prowl for an excuse to kill someone that day.

It seems that of all the murderous police gangs infesting America, the one in Albuquerque may be among the worst.

I suppose "the people" of ABQ are getting fed up, but (foolishly) instead of demanding abolishing the police department and replacing that tumor with nothing, they'll be content to "clean it up" in some touchy-feely way. Keep doing the same thing and expecting different results...

I can't help but believe the protests could have been averted if the terminally corrupt and stupid police chief hadn't gone on TV and lied and excused his murderous goons so quickly. At least give the illusion of impartiality, moron. I think this was the insult that triggered the backlash. Law enforcers should NEVER be allowed to investigate or decide on punishment for law enforcers. That is the very definition of "conflict of interest".

It is funny to me that most of the "mainstream" news reports about the protests mention the protests "turning violent" when the riot-gear clad cops showed up. I wasn't there, so I can't say whether the protests were violent beforehand, but I know cops always- always- escalate any situation they are added to. And, no, I don't think it was "wrong" to trap some enforcers in their own (stolen) car and try to forcibly remove them. They should have been standing with "the people"- their superiors and bosses- and against their "brothers in blue" and they would have not found themselves in that predicament. In other words, they could have shown that there are some of those "good cops" I keep hearing about.

I don't know whether private property was being damaged in the protests- I suspect it was. That is wrong. If you are going to protest, you need to focus your attention on the police department "property" and employees. You don't gain legitimacy by targeting the wrong people. Hang the guilty, not the guy who just happens to be walking past when you are angry.

And, if Anonymous really wants to help, they should delete- permanently- all files and records on the APD computers, rather than just shutting them down for a while. And then they could move on to the rest of the police departments all over the world.

It's a big mess, but it can be fixed. Disarm on-duty cops, never let enforcers (or anyone connected to any government) investigate enforcers, and then abolish all police departments. Eh, just skip the preliminaries: abolish police. It's the only reasonable course.

No, I'm not "April Fooling".

Added: I keep seeing mention of the protest becoming violent and confrontational WHEN THE MILITARIZED RIOT POLICE SHOWED UP. Now, I keep in mind that almost everything reported by the media is wrong in some way, but I think it is very likely that the cops showed up specifically to turn the protests violent. Probably thought they'd discredit the protesters that way. It failed.



  1. "...they'll be content to "clean it up" in some touchy-feely way. Keep doing the same thing and expecting different results..."

    There will be calls for "more training" for the "brave heroes" of the APD and nothing will change.


  2. It's pretty tough to find humor in any of this madness, but USA Today managed it yesterday...

    "Video by KRQE-TV showed people being led away in restraints, but it was unclear if those people were arrested."

    1. I saw that and was wondering "Just what do they think 'arrest' means?"

  3. The very minimum that police forces could do is improve screening of its applicants. It's astonishing that these people get hired in the first place. Don't they do basic background checks?

  4. Yes, they do. Only bullies are attracted to this kind of "work" in the first place. That limits the options of whom to hire. And they select those most likely to obey orders- "follow policy"- without question. And remember a high IQ disqualifies the applicant. Police departments hire exactly who they want and need.

  5. Any property damage in demonstrations is often caused or at least encouraged by police provocateurs dressed up as protesters. They have to justify their existence, after all; they have to look like they are "protecting" us from damage. Standard tactics for any protection racket. But let any shop owner protect his own property by standing out front with an AR-15, and you will see the bastard cops come down on him hard. Protection rackets don't like competition.

  6. I found a follow-up to this story. Are you familiar with the term "adding insult to injury"?


    1. That's a different example of the brutality of the ABQ enforcers, but to imagine that scum back in a position of power- and probably with a BIG(ger) chip on his shoulder. If he get his "job" back, I hope someone ends him before he does it to some innocent.