Opinion-Editorial

Published in the Albuquerque Journal, Tuesday, May 28, 1991

I am greatly saddened by the number of citizens killed by the police lately, and outraged by the insensitive attitude of the Albuquerque Police Department in its handling of the citizen anguish over this behavior.

    This whole string of events over the last couple of years has brought to light three very longstanding issues.

    First, the police department continues to have a fortress mentality when interacting with the pubic -- an attitude that APD must defend itself against the public.

    In the early ’80’s, APD had an officer on the force who had killed a couple of citizens with a flashlight; citizen outrage at the time forced the formation of the Police Advisory Board (now called the Public Safety Advisory Board).

    This officer continued to be on the force for some time thereafter, with the department citing its need to handle such issues internally. The behavior showed little regard for the clear and quite logical citizen concern for such an officer remaining on the force.

    It was embarrassing to have such an officer, who was clearly a bad apple, on an otherwise quite professional force, yet the fortress mentality of the department preordained such an outcome.

    Second, the Public Safety Advisory Board has once again retreated into the bowels of the police department, where it remains relatively inaccessible to the majority of the citizens.

    We experimented in the early 1980’s with having two meetings a month, one in the community and one in the department’s board room. As should come as no surprise to anyone, public turnout to the community meeting was vastly better than the one held in the APD board room. Citizens quite willingly came to the meetings and voiced their concerns, which were many and varied.

    For the present board to note that no one complained heretofore about these killings only reinforces the reality of both their inaccessibility, and the public perception that they are little more than a rubber stamp of the department rather than effective reviewers of policy or a liaison between the public and the police.

    Third, the police adamantly proclaim that they are the protectors of the citizenry. Given the recent spate of killings by the police, one must ask: Which citizens are they protecting?

    There is the increasing public perception that one only need be emotionally distraught to assure death at the hands of the police. It is increasingly apparent that requesting police assistance in a family dispute may well result in the death of a family member, or that if one is feeling suicidal, calling the police for help in defusing such a situation may only result in ensuring that one will truly meet their death.

    I’m not entirely sure that those are accurate perceptions -- I’m quite sure that the majority of the police force continues to be professional and highly competent -- but the department’s reaction only serves to increase public distrust, and the perception that the police feel they are not subject to the constraints of the very laws they have sworn to uphold.

    Clearly the police have a right to defend themselves in a dangerous situation. The question becomes, is the defense of the citizens outweighed by the defense of the officers? Can the emphasis be changed to saving the lives of citizens, rather than their being so expendable, as has been the case lately?

    The public would very much like to view the police as their protectors. The police, of natural consequence, could easily have the support of the majority of the public.

    However, if this situation is not adequately addressed, even citizens who are not criminals will have to be concerned about what is the greater danger -- being killed by criminals, or being killed by their “protectors.”