By Carlos Miller
The Albuquerque Journal published a scathing editorial this week against the Albuquerque Police Department in the wake of last week’s controversial arrest of a news videographer.
The editorial, titled “Is it so hard for ADP to police its own?,” states that Albuquerque Police Chief Ray Schultz is “not taking this seriously enough”.
Schultz insists he cannot comment on the incident until an independent review officer has seen the video.
Guess what, Schultz? It doesn’t take a legal scholar to determine that Officer Daniel Guzman was way out of line in arresting KOB-TV videographer Rick Foley.
According to the editorial, Guzman makes a whopping $58,000 a year, which is an astronomical figure for a rookie cop in one of the nation’s poorest states.
If that figure is accurate, then the Albuquerque Police Department should be in a position to pick and choose the cream of the crop instead of the pig in the poke.
Below is an exert from the editorial:
This is what we’re forking over $58,000 a year for? An officer with a badge and a gun and a temperament that can’t handle a sarcastic comment from a law-abiding cameraman? What happens when a drunk gets belligerent and mouthy? When a criminal is truly dangerous?
Or when there’s no camera to record everything?
Last week, the Albuquerque Journal published an article saying that Officer Guzman “attacked” Foley without even using the word “allegedly”, which is pretty bold for a mainstream newspaper.
Here is the entire editorial. If the Albuquerque Journal requires you to give up your first born before it allows you to read the article as it sometimes does, just click the link below where I cut and paste the editorial.
Is It So Hard for APD To Police Its Own?
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video of a rookie Albuquerque Police Department officer lunging at a news photographer on a public street is worth at least an unpaid suspension and consideration of criminal charges.
KOB-TV cameraman Rick Foley was outside a police line early Thursday, covering an officer-involved shooting near Copper and Charleston NE. He says he asked officers repeatedly where to go for the official media briefing. His video shows that when he finally got an answer, he popped off to officer Daniel Guzman, “Was that so hard?” and asked for the officer’s name and badge number.
And that, apparently, was enough to earn Foley a hard shove and 90 minutes in handcuffs. Guzman claims Foley was “sticking his camera in my face,” but the video only shows Guzman pacing like a panther around Foley, then lunging at him.
KOB-TV news director Rhonda Aubrey says the station has been playing the video on its newscasts and Web site because “of the way our photographer was treated. He was out on a public street, he was not interfering with a police investigation, and he was not behind a police line. We are airing (the video) so people can draw their own conclusions.”
One conclusion is that APD isn’t taking this seriously enough. Chief Ray Schultz says he wants the city’s independent review officer to investigate the incident and “if the officer is wrong, we will clearly take responsibility for it and address it.”
As Foley’s camera lens shows Guzman coming at him, then is knocked to focus on the ground, bounced up to show the surrounding neighborhood, then again down to show pavement, here’s something APD can also address:
This is what we’re forking over $58,000 a year for? An officer with a badge and a gun and a temperament that can’t handle a sarcastic comment from a law-abiding cameraman? What happens when a drunk gets belligerent and mouthy? When a criminal is truly dangerous?
Or when there’s no camera to record everything?
Popularity: 12% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a
15 responses so far ↓
1 b-roll.net TODAY » Blog Archive » Keeping Tabs on the 1st Amendment // Jun 4, 2008 at 7:11 am
[...] recently he’s been talking about the news videographer arrested in Albuquerque, NM, and the banning of photography in Union Station, [...]
2 Ashamed of KOB // Jun 5, 2008 at 3:10 am
ABQ Citizen wrote:
§ 12-2-19 RESISTING, OBSTRUCTING OR REFUSING TO OBEY AN OFFICER.
Resisting, obstructing or refusing to obey an officer consists of either:
(A) Knowingly obstructing, resisting or opposing any officer of this state or any other duly authorized person serving or attempting to serve or execute any process or any rule or order of any of the courts of this state or any other judicial writ or process; or
(B) Resisting or abusing any judge, magistrate or peace officer in the lawful discharge of his duties; or
(C) Refusing to obey or comply with any lawful process or order given by any police officer acting in the lawful discharge of his duties; or
(D) Interfering with, obstructing or opposing any officer in the lawful discharge of his regular and affixed duties.
__________
Very simply
-Traffic Stop
-Suspect exits vehicle and fires handgun at officers
-Officers return fire
-Suspect is hit, but still mobile
-Suspect runs and hides in the nearby neighborhood
-Officers set up a perimeter to contain the already violent suspect, armed with a handgun
-Channel 4 Cameraman (with full access to a police scanner) arrives on scene and is advised to back away from the perimeter
-Cameraman becomes confrontational, distracting the officer from his primary job responsibility of assisting to contain an armed suspect, and is given a lawful order to leave the vicinity
-Cameraman demands the location of the media staging area (information he could obtain himself by calling 242-COPS and requesting the information).
-Officer does not immediately know, but returns to the patrol unit to obtain the information for the Cameraman.
-Officer provides location to the Cameraman and issues an additional lawful order for the Cameraman to leave immediately.
-Cameraman continues to argue with the officer, distracting the Officer with the camera light.
-Officers contact the on-scene supervisor on the radio and advise of the issue.
-Supervisor advises Officer to remove the Cameraman
-Officer returns and issues a final lawful order for the Cameraman to put his camera away and leave,(KOB video clip begins here) yet the Cameraman continues to engage the officer in dialogue, continuing to backlight the officer toward the armed suspect.
-Officer tells the cameraman to turn of the camera and put it down.
-Cameraman refuses to obey and is wrestled (not beaten as keeps popping up on this page) into custody, using hands only, no chemical or electrical less lethal methods.(KOB Video Clip ends here)
-Cameraman is placed in handcuffs temporarily until a misdemeanor citation is completed.
-Cameraman is un-cuffed and signs the citation.
-Cameraman leaves the scene.
Things to keep in mind…
-Armed gunman is still outstanding…this suspect has already fired rounds at police officers and it is later determined that the suspect has an outstanding warrant for homicide. Deputy McGrane sound familiar?
-The police cars in the background of the video shot are the opposite side of the perimeter, placing the officer and cameraman within 1 city block of the center of the perimeter.
-The officers are held liable for what happens within a scene. If shots are fired, citizen is struck, the liability falls on the officer if they had a reasonable opportunity to procure the safety of the citizen. The reason for having citizens stay inside of their houses in the area as well, minimizing the risk to the community, while maximizing limited resources to accomplish the task at hand in a timely manners, without having to waste resources doing crowd control.
This “raw video” has apparently been edited prior to being published. I would expect the proceeding 10 minutes and the following 10 minutes for it to be considered “raw”.
3 Carlos Miller // Jun 5, 2008 at 6:22 am
Ashamed of KOB,
Maybe you have access to information that I don’t, which is why you’re able to give such vivid details about what occurred before the video was rolling, but at least one of your details that you say occurred after the video was rolling, never did happen.
“-Officer tells the cameraman to turn of the camera and put it down.”
Not once in the video did the officer tell the cameraman to put his camera down. No, the officer did not say a word after the cameraman asked for his name and badge number.
Instead, the officer waited until he thought the camera was already turned off before pouncing on him.
You also mention how the armed suspect was still at large.
But if you look at the video from the beginning, you can see the cops are not in any defensive mode. No, they are just hanging out by their cars.
Then one officer drives off and the other officer strolls casually to the reporter’s car.
It looks to me as if this perimeter is being broken down.
4 Susie Reynolds // Jun 6, 2008 at 6:43 am
I have been to 20 years worth of crime scenes and I am simply amazed at the actions of the APD. Maybe I work in a bigger market, but if an officer walks up to me and says, “Hey, can you do me a favor, the guy is still at large, can you back off?” I know it takes valuable time but most are reasonable and will say yes, because it is an officer safety issue. You come to me and just tell me to leave, go to the media area, you would have gotten a ok, but I would have gotten my video at that intersection and moved on. There are a few observations you can see on that tape. Where I live, and if officers were truly concerned about the guy at large with a guy, they would not have been milling around unarmed and worried about a tv photographer. They certainly would not have been driving around with their headlights on much less the lightbar lit up.
I love that all encompassing charge “disobeying a lawful order”. I’ll obey a lawful order. It is not a lawful order to tell me to leave a place where the public is being allowed to walk. We do not loose our rights because we have a camera. It was obvious that he was clearly standing where any joe citizen could stand or drive by.
APD, you would have had a little more trouble with me. You would have had a lawyer on your doorstep the next day with a lawsuit. You better check the courts and see how that “lawful order” charge up in court when it turns out to be just an officer that didn’t like it that a photojournalist gave him lip.
Big note to police officer: Leave the photographer alone, let them get their video and they’ll leave. We bore easily, I bet it was almost time to go home, or we have 3 assignments waiting for us, or it is hot and I want to get my video and get myself back to the station to get out of the heat. You stir things up, we’ll stay an extra hours if we have too and yes, might give you lip.
5 OldGlassEye // Jun 9, 2008 at 1:43 pm
amen, susie. amen.
6 Cameramonkey // Jun 11, 2008 at 9:26 pm
It is worth repeating. “Disobeying a LAWFUL order.” You do not have to obey an UN-lawful order. Telling the photojournalist to leave a public area that was not an active crime scene and was not in any way closed to the public, was an UN-lawful order. Telling the photojournalist (assuming the officer did, which I didn’t see in the video) not to take pictures of a person (the cop) standing in a public place, is an UN-lawful order. We as citizens, not just journalists, are under no obligation to obey unlawful orders - especially ones that trump our constitutional rights. I would argue that as American citizens we are under a moral obligation to disobey such orders, and then make sure the ones giving them are penalized for it.
7 Albuquerque on sight // Aug 2, 2008 at 1:22 pm
We all have our views of what is written and how people behave according to our interpretations apposed to who is enforcing and/or breaking the written laws. I believe this is the pentacle of what is to come. We live on the border of a 2nd world country where the values of the american dollar is can influence how the outcome may be had at this point in time. With the invent of cellular phones that can upload video and sound to the internet without locally storing on memory may make problems like this a common thing initially. ~Shrugs~
8 SpaceRat // Sep 10, 2008 at 4:51 pm
My company is considering expanding into a new location, and will be hiring some 30 to 40 employees there. Albuquerque is on the list of possible sites. However, after seeing how Albuquerque Police treat normal, everyday, taxpaying, obviously non-criminal citizens, we are reconsidering Albuquerque as a possible site. Chief Ray Schultz , if you actually care about the people who pay your salary, you might consider training your officers in proper public relations. Your officer’s action may have cost your citizens many millions of new tax dollars over the next 20 years our company may have been there. Ours is just one company - how many more will seek a homebase, other than Albuquerque, that is safe for its employees from rogue police? Chief Ray Schultz, if your Mayor doesn’t have your job over this, it will show to the world that Albuquerque isn’t ready to emerge from the redneck image your police have portrayed. Ironically, this incident has made Baton Rouge, Louisiana look much more inviting to us, especially now that the new governor of Louisiana has done so much to rid his state of that same element that is now destroying yours. You should teach your officer to be more business-like - and that is not the same as “giving someone the business”.
9 Scott // Sep 10, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Good for you SpaceRat, the loss of income is the only thing these government types fear.
10 Bonnie // Sep 12, 2008 at 11:34 am
People seem to think that being in law enforcement is just like any other business. It is not. These officers are exposed to some of the worst elements in the city every day. An officer has every right to protect themselves if they feel threatened. Would KOB TV prefer reporting an APD officer being killed or injured? Law enforcement people put their lives on the line everyday. You might remember over the years how officers have been killed simply by getting out of their vehicles or approaching one. There have been people out there that have accessed an officers weapon through resistance and used it to shoot that officer. There is no reason for anyone to continuously resist the requests of an officer. They are attempting to apprehend someone that may have a criminal record and make sure they don’t end up as another statistic as an officer killed in the line of duty. Maybe KOB feels reporting on THAT would be more news worthy and rating catcher. Regarding the money, how much does someone’s hostile working conditions and life cost?
11 Scott // Sep 12, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Ummm Bonnie, there is a difference between dangerous criminals and photographers. Unless the photographers intend to hit the police over the head with the camera, I doubt any harm could have been foreseen to endanger the officer.
Now I respect what most police officers do and I would probably follow most of their instructions if they did it nicely, but if one comes up and yells in my face for perceived wrongs, I’m going to yell right back.
12 Roger // Sep 13, 2008 at 8:25 pm
There is a God!
Albuquerque Police just fired Guzman!
13 Roger // Sep 13, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Also all charges aganst Mr. Foley have been droped.
14 Carlos Miller // Sep 13, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Roger,
Thanks for the update but is this just happening now? I couldn’t find a link.
http://news.google.com/news?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=guzman+new+mexico+police&ie=UTF-8&scoring=n
15 Carlos Miller // Sep 13, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Never mind, Roger. Just found it.
http://eyeonalbuquerque.blogspot.com/2008/09/guzman-gone.html
Leave a Comment