Talk:Killing of James Boyd/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

substantive changes, non-controversial (I believe)

• I changed the last sentence of the lede to "The caller watched the confrontation from his second-story window and later testified that Boyd threatened the officers." -- this simply because we have gone from "a nearby resident" which makes sense, to "the resident" which doesn't really parse for grammar and makes me want to point out that Boyd might have thought he was a resident too....Elinruby (talk)

To clarify, this change affects the last sentence of the first paragraph. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

yes. It is called a lede. Elinruby (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Welllllllllll, Lede can refer to either just the first paragraph of a story, the first paragraph and the title, or the introductory portion of a story. I'd call the lede in this Article all the information that comes before Contents box. Since there are different meanings to the term, I wanted to clarify where your change was. Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

you're right; I did use it in the journalism sense not the wikipedia one, and yes, on wikipedia that does mean everything before the contents usually. Elinruby (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• I changed the first part of the first sentence in the last paragraph of the shooting section to "Cautious because the knives still presented a danger," -- I am not quite happy with that but I like it better than what was there. Elinruby (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I like it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

k good. I don't, quite, but we'll let it stand for now then. Elinruby (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• added detail that Thickstun also made a recording to infobox. I don't have a reference handy but I'll add one when I see the statement again. Elinruby (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• again in lede, 1st para, threatening one of the officers ---> threatening the officers, not sure "one of" is accurate

• added "reputable media" back in as source for 40 number; these are not wild-eyed blogs or Occupy Facebook pages saying this. Most local media seem to have used this estimate at some point. If we can determine that they were wrong THROUGH VERIFIABLE SOURCES then fine, we can lose that whole sentence. Until then it should not be removed by @Beanyandcecil: because he finds it unlikely. It may not be how these things are done, but that is sorta why all the concern. This should not be controversial Elinruby (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit demand

I've deleted the amount, $1.75M, that was alleged to have been asked for in the Boyd family lawsuit against APD. The source cited does not support it. In fact, I've not found support for such a demand in that lawsuit anywhere. Frequently such suits do not ask for an amount initially. Usually that is saved for the last part of a civil trial, if the case goes that far. Can anyone direct us to source that tells what the family demanded in their suit. I'm unable to find the court papers. 05:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanyandcecil (talk • contribs)

I know I have seen it; if I find a source I'll add it back in with a reference. We don't have any concerns about any of the sources used so far, right? I don't like the Journal and question their impartiality often but the Journal reporter appears to have done a decent job on this story. Elinruby (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

They asked for "compensatory damages" and a host of reforms in the complaint. I found that last night but I had to reboot and now I need to go. It will be in my restore session when I come back; I'll cite it then. But 1.75m is a very specific number though; I suspect it comes from somewhere Elinruby (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

shot three times w/ beanbag?

I thought it was once and two officers each fired three bullets Elinruby (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please, I'm begging you, go watch the video. Here's the link. http://krqe.com/2014/03/21/video-apd-releases-helmetcam-footage-of-shooting/

At 1:28 on the video the officer with the bean bag shotgun says "Beanbag. Right behind you." At this moment he's behind the other officers and is not in the picture. This announcement lets the other officers know where he is and that he's about to fire a beanbag round as opposed to using lethal force. (This announcement lets the other officers know what' he's doing and prevents 'sympathetic fire,' a situation where an officer thinks that other officers have perceived an imminent deadly threat, and so he fires too). At 1:34 he moves up into the picture, and shouts, "Beanbag, beanbag" The front end of his shotgun is in the picture. He then fires three bean bag rounds and announces, "Negative effect."

You are correct that the two officers armed with lethal force fire three rounds each. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)]

Again, that would be original research and is not the go-to option. I haven't done anything with this so far, just questioned it. I'd like you to cite the three times though, with the url and time for the video if necessary. But preferably a news source lookit here for template. This is just a minor point and I think the article needs the references I am doing right now more. There may be a better reference out there than the video, see? Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The video may not be "the go−to option," per Wiki policy, but Wiki does not prohibit its use. At this moment it is the best evidence that exists of what happened and when it happened. You asked for me "to cite the three times though, with the url and time for the video if necessary." I did that when I pointed out to you when, in the supplied video link the three bean bag rounds were fired. Or do you mean that I should put the citation into the Article? The video I cited is in the "External Links" section of the Article.

Here's the Wiki policy on using material like this, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them ... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This video, released by the police department is certainly "reputably published." It is being used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts and can be verified by any educated person ..." and therefore it's within policy to use it in the Article. It's certainly not the entire video of the incident, that's probably hours long, but it does give an accurate depiction of what happened just before, and just after, the shooting segment of the incident. Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

well, reputably published, ha, the court camera is fairly reputable one could presume. I do wonder about editing on some blog sites. I generally figure that a reporter's blog has some authority in his area of specialty, however, and there are a decent selection of genuine online news sites in New Mexico. But the TV stations are also going on blast. I am not sure what part of the RS story you thought was biased; do tell. All of those events did happen, as best I can tell from local media archives. As I have said before, the sort of sources usually considered reliable made mistakes in their coverage, possibly, assuming the 40 number is wrong. But then there is this other story that says that 47 officers showed up for some other SWAT situation the APD got sued for? Christopher Torres was it? hmmm. Anyway, Rolling Stone meets Wikipedia criteria for a reliable source, sorry about that. Feel free to provide your own references btw; I asked for about three. The knife was one, because I see 3.5 inches but where did the rest of that come from? One channel here and another here; also you might want to check out the external links section Elinruby (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

stuff sack=cloth bag?

I think that sack may be a bit regional and I am just guessing that "stuff" means cloth. Open to discussion on this. Leaving for now, but to be clear, we're talking about the blue bag roughly the size of a handbag, right? That might not be cloth either for that matter. It's a quibble, respond at leisure Elinruby (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that "stuff sack" was regional. Here, it's probably most often used in camping/backpacking to refer to a cloth, sack, usually made of nylon fabric, that clothing, stoves, or other gear is 'stuffed' into to carry, usually in another bag or container such as a backpack or a suitcase. They help to separate different kinds of gear from one another. For example, clothing in one, cooking equipment in another, and toiletries in another. In this incident it looks as if Boyd's stuff sack contains either a sleeping bag or a jacket. It's about the size and shape of an American football, but with rounded, instead of pointed, ends. I don't know that "handbag" is an appropriate size description because my wife has handbags that range from something that can be held in the palm of your hand to ones that are the size of airline carry−on bags.

Right now, in the Article, the bag is described as a "stuff sack," a "bag," and a "duffle bag." Here, a duffle bag, is a zippered bag, or one closed with a drawstring, that has handles and that's not descriptive of Boyd's bag that the dog grabbed and brought to his handler. It's probably best to pick one name for it and standardize all the references to the bag, to avoid confusion. If you have a good way to describe it, I won't object. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahh... I have been assuming the blue bag and the duffle bag are different bags, but now that you mention it I don't remember what I would call a duffel bag, either something a soldier would carry or something smaller that is still bigger than a gym bag. Ya, if that's one item, we should standardize, yes. One of the officers called in a Qwest bag but that's regional ah also. How about "blue nylon bag"? Elinruby (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I changed everything to "blue nylon bag", except for the quote; there I hid "duffel" behind an ellipsis since neither of us thinks it is accurate and the purpose of the quote is to establish a timeline. Open to other suggestions. Elinruby (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Wild allegations and continued POV pushing

@Beanyandcecil:'s recent edit purporting to address "misinformation" removed a sourced statement and replaced it with another that he presumably believes is less derogatory, in effect changing the sentence that said the rifle had been withdrawn due to reliablity concerns to say that it had been withdrawn due to flagging sales. The cited article does quote Taser as saying this, but further down also adds the further information that use of the rifle was dropping due to reliability concerns. It perturbs me as it highlights the common flaws of his edits on this page: if he accepts someone as an authority, he does not question their version. Furthermore, he is labelling something as "misinformation" rather than reading the entire article to discover the information a few paragraphs further down. This information is not partisan in nature. The article quotes an expert who also happens to be the defense attorney of a defendant in this case.

He insists on inserting an explanation into one of the quote. When I objected to "[Taser] shotgun" because the officer does not in my opinion say "Taser", he reinserted "Taser" without the brackets which is worse, as the brackets at least indicated that the word was imputed. The sentence he has added about reliable source is not encyclopedic and likely to confuse readers who don't follow wikipedia inside baseball.

Despite my request that significant corrections be noted on the talk page I found another "correction" this morning that I believe to be erroneous and which does not seem to have been noted at all. This editor seems to be operating from his personal knowledge and belief about police procedure in Great Britain and to be saying somethign along the lines of "no law enforcement agency would act that way" when the behavior of the APD is exactly the point.

I need to ask @Beanyandcecil again to use his words. He has found some areas for improvement, and his input may well improve the article, provided he can cooperate. I would also like him to try to understand the vast number of sources about this story, some of which contradict one another. He has an annoying habit of urging other editors to "watch the video" and does not seem to understand that there are many videos of the incident alone and many more audio and video recordings of witness statements and trial and preliminary hearing testimony about the incident, all of which are primary sources but imho can be used to some extent given the disagreement in secondary sources over certain details. [User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Elinruby wrote, "@Beanyandcecil:'s recent edit purporting to address "misinformation" removed a sourced statement and replaced it with another that he presumably believes is less derogatory, in effect changing the sentence that said the rifle had been withdrawn due to reliability concerns to say that it had been withdrawn due to flagging sales. The cited article does quote Taser as saying this, but further down also adds the further information that use of the rifle was dropping due to reliability concerns."

FIRST, we're not talking about a "rifle," it's a shotgun.

OK, true. I'll correct this if you haven't already. Elinruby (talk)

SECOND, Elinruby falsely claims that Taser Int. blames the "flagging sales" on "reliability concerns." Perhaps It's bias, perhaps it's just a lack of critical reading skills, or perhaps a brain hiccup, but the citation states that this opinion of sales dropping due to "reliability concerns" comes from a sometime UOF expert, NOT from Taser Int. We have no idea how he arrived at such an opinion. It might be his personal experience. It might be something he read on the Web. It might be something he heard from a friend who has a friend who has a cousin who knows a guy!?

The article DOES NOT SAY that Taser Int. makes this statement about why the shotgun was withdrawn from the market. Taser Int. ONLY says "flagging sales," but does not give a reason for the sales drop.

Elinruby wrote, "It perturbs me as it highlights the common flaws of his edits on this page: if he accepts someone as an authority, he does not question their version."

It perturbs me that Elinruby's potential bias, in spite of claims to the contrary, has his cites affecting this Article. Careless, or perhaps biased reading of the citation just discussed, is one example.

Elinruby wrote, "Furthermore, he is labelling something as "misinformation" rather than reading the entire article to discover the information a few paragraphs further down."

The article is not as you've described it. Taser Int. never said that the shotgun was unreliable. They said that the reason for the withdrawal from the market of the shotgun was "flagging sales." They did not give a reason that sales had dropped. Perhaps it was unreliability, or perhaps it was a bad idea, or perhaps it was an idea that was ahead of its time. They didn't say. Elinruby is mistaken, at−best, when this claim is made.

Something can be true and not be confirmed by Taser yanno. I think you need to re-read what I said, if you really think this: "The cited article does quote Taser as saying this, but further down also adds the further information that use of the rifle was dropping..." Nothing there about Taser the company. If you think the attorney for the defense is also biased, go find an analyst report or something that says so.Elinruby (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, "This information is not partisan in nature." I'll accept that there is no conscious bias on Elinruby's part. But since everyone has bias, whether they admit it or not, and given that there have been a couple of prior discussions of this, it's hard to accept that bias is not playing a part in, at least some of, Elinruby's edits. I freely admit my bias, but have been trained to not let it affect my decisions in these matters. I'm looking for balance and fairness.

Elinruby wrote, "The article quotes an expert who also happens to be the defense attorney of a defendant in this case."

That has no bearing on this discussion. Fact is, Taser Int. did not say that there were "reliability" issues with the shotgun.

Elinruby wrote, "He insists on inserting an explanation into one of the quote. When I objected to "[Taser] shotgun" because the officer does not in my opinion say "Taser", he reinserted "Taser" without the brackets which is worse, as the brackets at least indicated that the word was imputed.

My citation of the prosecutor's statement on this was a direct quote from her. Therefore the word "Taser," SHOULD NOT have been place into brackets. It's the prosecutor's exact statement. Unfortunately it's incorrect. It's not what Sandy said, it's what he insinuated. Nonetheless, it's what she said. Elsewhere I've addressed this issue and will fix the citation so that it's appropriate.

Elinruby wrote, "Despite my request that significant corrections be noted on the talk page I found another "correction" this morning that I believe to be erroneous and which does not seem to have been noted at all. This editor seems to be operating from his personal knowledge and belief about police procedure in Great Britain and to be saying somethign along the lines of "no law enforcement agency would act that way" when the behavior of the APD is exactly the point."

No idea what edit you're talking about here. Care to be specific? Some reason that you were not? @Elinruby:

Elinruby wrote, "I need to ask @Beanyandcecil again to use his words. He has found some areas for improvement, and his input may well improve the article, provided he can cooperate."

LOL. By cooperate, you seem to mean, 'agree with you.' That may happen or it may not happen. At times we may have to agree to disagree. I don't think that you're the arbiter of whether or not my edits "improve the article."

Elinruby wrote, "I would also like him to try to understand the vast number of sources about this story, some of which contradict one another."

Wait, I thought that secondary sources were more accurate than primary sources!

Elinruby wrote, "He has an annoying habit of urging other editors to "watch the video" and does not seem to understand that there are many videos of the incident alone"

I understand "that there are many videos of the incident alone." But ALL of the videos of the actual shooting portion of the incident, and what immediately precedes and follow it, show the same thing. In my citations of the video I've ONLY used the version that has been placed into the "External Links" by another editor so that the timeline is consistent and anyone can follow along.

I think that that is the first video released. It's not clear to me at the moment whose camera it is from.Elinruby (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any altered videos out there that show, for example, Boyd pulling out a machine gun prior to being shot. If Elinruby can find such altered videos, I suggest bringing them here and showing them to us. Elsewhere, when Elinruby showed a complete lack of knowledge of how many shotgun beanbag rounds were fired because it wasn't discussed in any secondary sources, I made reference to the video that clearly shows exactly how many bean bag shotgun rounds were fired. I even gave a precise timeline of when they were fired and showed what else was going on, to help find them. But since that's a "primary source" it does not appear that Elinruby even looked at it. I may be wrong about that, it's a guess. If so, Elinruby can you let us know? @Elinruby:

Elinruby wrote, "and many more audio and video recordings of witness statements and trial and preliminary hearing testimony about the incident, all of which are primary sources but imho can be used to some extent given the disagreement in secondary sources over certain details."

As you say both primary and secondary sources are wrong at times. In this case, where all the primary sources I've cited are original video from official sources such as the helmet cam from the incident and court video from the preliminary hearing, it seems to me to be well within Wiki's policy of appropriate use of them. You seem to disagree but you've never directly addressed this. Can you do so please? @Elinruby: Simply labeling them "primary source" does not give mean that they should automatically be ignored. In many cases they're the only evidence, the only citation possible. Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

First, I did not say they should be ignored. Second, the reason for the policy -- it is a wikipedia policy, as you will discover if we can't resolve this between ourselves -- is to avoid the situation we have here on several points where we seem to disagree on what "really" happened. My proposal was to go to the video as needed to clarify, and possibly supplement the secondary sources. I am not sure what yours is; you seem to want to edit based on your interpretation of one of the 36 videos. They do all show much the same events, but from different angles with varying amounts of obstructed vision. I am done here for now -- I am tired of being jeered at. This is not my first rodeo and I am editing in a neutral manner. I have documented important changes; you have not. I am taking a timeout from the talk page. If you are so sure I am biased then feel free to file a complaint. You might possibly want to read the RS policy before you do. Just saying. Elinruby (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Posting of personal information[edit] Shortcuts: WP:OUTING WP:PRIVACY WP:DOX "WP:OUTING" redirects here. For the alternate meaning of outing, as in excursion, see Wikipedia:Meetup. "WP:PRIVACY" redirects here. For the Wikimedia privacy policy, see Wikimedia:Privacy policy. See also: Doxing Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors.[under discussion] Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. Any administrator may redact it pending oversight, even when the administrator is involved. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis.[disputed – discuss] The fact that an editor either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for posting the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team. If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly. Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict-of-interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted. Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy.

At no point does Sandy say Taser

He says shotgun Police version is that of course he meant Taser shotgun. Secondary sources very mixed and I believe the ones that scoff at the police version, esp given the DoJ report specifically condemning APD practices with respect to the mentally ill. I have removed "[Taser]" from the quote. Elinruby (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessary that he use the word "Taser." It's not that it's the "police version" it's that it's a reasonable conclusion to come to after listening to the conversation between the officers and reading the transcript of it I've located several sources that support that Sandy was talking about a Taser shotgun, not a standard shotgun. I'm going to add a few paragraphs to the Article and move a sentence that does not belong where it is. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't say it and I am against it appearing between quotes, even in brackets. There were different interpretations in the press. Chris Ware's response was "I thought you guys had less-lethal?" which doesn't seem to fit youru scenario Elinruby (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I clarified the statement about the Taser shotgun. Various "reputable sources" say either "shotgun" or "Taser shotgun." It now says, "Sandy told Ware that Boyd was 'a fucking lunatic' and that he planned to shoot Boyd 'in the penis with a Taser shotgun here in a second." Some reputable sources leave the word "Taser" out of this statement and some include it"

While you may be against it, "reputable sources" report it both ways. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

if we must spend three paragraphs on this then I guess we must ;) Do you agree he doesn't say the word? That's the reason for the brackets, right, that it's an explanation and even if he didn't he didn't say it it must have been what he meant because he has a Taser shotgun and an assault rifle, right? Elinruby (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby: Just some more evidence as to the meaning of Sandy's statement on this. On the courtroom video of the opening statements, published, 9-19-2016, the prosecuting attorney, in describing Sandy's actions says, "... looking to shoot Mr. Boyd with a Taser shotgun." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCuh9XKJP80&list=PLuNw9FRRRYk7wLTODjtDDAgHrGfjWmRR2#t=1080

It's not even disputed by the prosecution, yet here some are arguing about his statement. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're in primary sources, and it's not just here that it's disputed. Jeff Proctor at KRQE has it the other way, for one. There were at least three stories at the time about what the video says; it is hard to hear. I discount the State police officer's interpretation, which doesn't match the audio and probably has elements of thin blue line to it, plus he and Sandy are friends. My position is this: Sandy doesn't SAY Taser so why inject the word into a quote? I am trying to accomodate your objection that you think he means Taser shotgun though by asking the above question. What he DOES shoot Sandy with, that's an assault rifle, is that right? Not a shotgun? Elinruby (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:elinruby wrote, "Again, you're in primary sources"

@Activist:@Elinruby:elinruby wrote, "Again, you're in primary sources"

Yep. They're not prohibited by Wiki policy and frequently, as here, they're far more reliable than many secondary sources. It's correct that Sandy does not says the word "Taser" at this moment. Yet there are many sources that quote him as saying this, that do not have the word in square brackets (meaning that it's 'assumed' that's what he meant, including this one). http://krqe.com/2016/09/26/murder-trial-for-former-albuquerque-police-officers-to-resume-monday/ . So much for the Wiki policy and your repeated allegation that secondary sources are more reliable than primary sources.

@Beanyandcecil: I feel you there but we need to use secondary sources as much as possible. The article has not yet been visited by the wikipedia correctness police but it is likely they will be by after the verdict. I will agree that the secondary sources disagree on several points and may well be wrong on others. Usually when there is a complete head-butting over facts, those of us who try to mediate these things suggest including both sets of facts if there is suffficent weight on both sides. That is usually unwieldy tho. I suggest we try to agree on what is correct. Elinruby (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not just 'related information,' rather it's VITAL. It's one of the reasons that the first degree murder was dropped from the list of charges against Sandy. With just the statement, without his true meaning we have, "I'm going to shoot him in the penis with a shotgun ..." But when his meaning is put into the context, it's obvious that he's NOT planning a use of deadly force. It's a stupid thing to say, no question, but does not show deadly intent or a plan to use deadly force against Boyd.

The statement that Sandy said "Taser shotgun" is not true, no matter how many secondary sources make the claim. It's an assumption made by analyzing the transcript of video from Ware's dash cam. In it, Ware, questions Sandy's meaning of his statement, 'shoot Boyd in the penis' and Sandy affirms his meaning as using the Taser shotgun for this.

Right. But Ware swears that Sandy actually *said* the word Taser. Elinruby (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is the transcript from the dash cam recording regarding this exchange.

• Sandy: What do they have you guys doing here?
• Ware: I don’t know. The guy asked for state police.
• Sandy: Who asked?
• Ware: I don’t know.
• Sandy: For this f***ing lunatic? I’m going to shoot him in the penis with a shotgun here in a second.
• Ware: You got uh less-lethal?
• Sandy: I got…
• Ware: The Taser shotgun?
• Sandy: Yeah.

From this site: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/officer-sandy-murderer-james-boyd-stated-shoot-penis-hours-killing/

This conversation was going on when Sandy was gearing up to go up the hill from the parking lot. He was handling his Taser shotgun at the time. See page 4, line 11-18 https://lintvkrqe.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/apd-transcript-sandy-20140407.pdf It's reasonable to assume he was referring to using the weapon he had in his hands at the moment. The prosecutor said during the preliminary hearing that he said he "was going to shoot [Boyd] in the penis with a Taser shotgun."

so.. this is the version that I believe, although most transcriptions have an (inaudible) notation in there also. (So what are we arguing for?) I removed this as a reference from the article because the article itself is not exactly neutral and somewhat wrong (murder assumes facts not in evidence for example). However, I do not question the video, as it matches the one from youtube (comments about this in a separate section below).

Elinruby wrote, " and it's not just here that it's disputed. Jeff Proctor at KRQE has it the other way, for one. There were at least three stories at the time about what the video says; it is hard to hear. I discount the State police officer's interpretation, which doesn't match the audio"

LOL. Based on what do you "discount the ... interpretation?"

Elinruby wrote, " and probably has elements of thin blue line to it"

Just more conjecture with nothing to back it up. Sounds like 'bias' to me. You said earlier that you were not 'emotional' yet here we have a judgment about honesty based on 'feElings.' He made the statement both under oath and during the investigation.

Elinruby wrote, "plus he and Sandy are friends."

Yep all the more reason to understand that he's joking around with Ware and that there was a complete absence of an intent to use deadly force against Boyd at this point.

Elinruby wrote, "My position is this: Sandy doesn't SAY Taser so why inject the word into a quote? I am trying to accomodate your objection that you think he means Taser shotgun though by asking the above question."

First I'm hardly the only one who has come to this conclusion. The prosecutor in the case agrees with me and it's certainly in the best interest of her case for it to mean 'deadly force.'

Second, because the Article initially completely omitted what Sandy and Ware have both said the actual meaning of the statement was and contained only that he planned to shoot Boyd with the shotgun in the penis, giving his comment an insinuation of deadly intent. That was not what he meant as he testified to, under oath.

I realize you're unfamiliar with Albuquerque and the history of this is mostly NOT in wikipedia so I understand why you don't share my deep cynicism about the adorable idea that a police officer would never lie under oath. Elinruby (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC) 06:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, "[D]eep cynicism? [A]dorable idea?" no evidence of bias there! </sarcasm>

In any case, I'm well aware that sometimes LEOs lie both on investigations and under oath. I've had it happen to me during my investigations. But your apparent assumption, tantamount to an accusation that it happened in this case, display an AMAZING amount of anti−LEO bias, at least in this case. There is NOTHING but your bias to support this allegation. Of course, if you have something that show this, please show it to us.

I find it amazing that due to "history" you have automatically assumed that anything untoward of this nature occurred here. Just because the DOJ found that OTHERS on the APD have a 'practice of excessive force' does NOT mean that these officers did. Yet you don't hesitate to paint them all with a broad brush. That's wrong, and that filter has affected your attempts to remain neutral. Beanyandcecil (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

How this for a compromise? I'm going to change the entry to reflect his exact words, include the part of the transcript that addresses this, and a statement that the meaning of his statement has been interpreted by many, including the prosecutor in the case, to mean 'Taser shotgun.'

Elinruby wrote, "What he DOES shoot Sandy with, that's an assault rifle, is that right? Not a shotgun?"

Technically no, but commonly, yes. The correct definition of an "assault rifle" is one that fires fully automatically. That is, pull the trigger once and it continues to fire until it empties the magazine. What Sandy has is a "Modern Sporting Rifle," a 'replica' of an "assault rifle," aka an AR-15 or clone. The major difference is that it fires one shot per trigger pull, but cosmetically, it looks like the 'assault rifle' version, but it functions differently. But the politicians have demonized the term to mean 'guns that look like assault rifles,' and so that's become the term that's in common use. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

My point is, it would not be described as a shotgun, right? I have been editing there, see what you think before you jump into stuff. So please discuss. I will be around at least another hour and possibly on and off for longer. I would like to get this article right before a verdict. I am about to put in a cite for Jones' attorney and add the KRQE interpretation. Elinruby (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I find it amazing that someone who doesn't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun is passing judgment on LE tactics on a barricaded suspect and LEO interactions between the police and mentally disturbed, dangerous, assaultive suspects. But I see it quite a bit. I guess I shouldn't be surprised when people with no expertise do this, but I am. I wouldn't ask my plumber for a second opinion on my heart surgery, my landscaper for advice on what siding to put on my house, or the burger flipper at McDonald's for advice on how best to train my dog. But that doesn't stop, or even slow some folks down from what we see here.

welcome to wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You may find this amusing, but in reality it displays an astounding arrogance that these folks know better than people who have been trained and educated for this job and, many of whom, have been doing the job for decades. Beanyandcecil (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Far from what is seen on TV and in the movies, LE tactics are a complex and difficult subject that holds people's lives in the balance. No deployment is perfect. No two deployments are the same, and there are only generalities and guidelines. There are no hard and fast rules to go by.

I don't think I have ever said this. Would you please stop mansplaining this incident to me? I have asked you nicely several times now. I can't believe you think you know what happened yet are missing huge chunks of information because you won't read the DoJ report. It takes issue with several aspects of APD that are highlighted in this incident.Elinruby (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I never said that you said this. Not sure what "mansplaining this incident to me" means, can you explain please? I disagree that I'm "missing huge chunks of information because [I] won't read the DoJ report." The DOJ did not address this incident in their report. However, if you'll supply the link and direct me to specific areas that you're now referring to, I'll take a look. Each UOF is properly judged ONLY on it's own merits and shortcomings, not a general examination of a LEAs practices. This is a bit like judging a given individual of a race by the actions of other members of that race. You know what that's called, right? Beanyandcecil (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

To address your question, that's correct, neither the Taser shotgun, nor the beanbag shotgun should be described as a rifle. I can't stick around any longer, I'm headed for bed. Beanyandcecil (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

tsk. You misunderstand again. See edits to article for the point of this question -- that he has three weapons and the two that could be described as a shotgun are his less-lethal weapons, which I sorta already suspected. Just trying to use that expertise you keep talking about.Elinruby (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to share my expertise. I find it highly amusing though that you only accept it when it's 'convenient' for you and reject it when it disagrees with your vast expertise on tactics and tools, Oh wait!?

If you want specific answers, I suggest you ask specific questions, rather than hope that I'll guess your meaning from vague references.

And while you're here − I've asked you well over a dozen questions and I'm pretty sure that you've answered only one of them. The majority of them have gone unanswered. You've said (to the effect) that you want this editing to be a cooperative effort, but if you won't answer my simple questions, how is that supposed to work? Beanyandcecil (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware of any unanswered questions. You said this to @Activist: also; perhaps you are confused. There have been quite a few where you dismiss the answers, though. The DoJ report for example *does* mention this incident, for example, although because of the timing they don't give it the same review as the other unconstitutional use of force incidents they analyzed. It also specifically mentions Sandy. The ROP unit was disbanded because of this incident in the context of the report. They are scathing on the subject of the mentally ill, and of the way SWAT and ROP officers invite themselves into lethal cover situations. Off the top of my head. Ad for your weird assertion that it is somehow racist to applaud this trial, I really don't know what to sat. Dit you say you were british? It's usually American kids who spout the innocent until proven guilty thing. This is not a court of law. The standard to follow here is BLP not some half-baked concept of the rights of policemen. Elinruby (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Elinruby wrote, "I am not aware of any unanswered questions. You said this to @Activist: also; perhaps you are confused."

Really? You think that I [am] confused?" Allow me to refresh your memory. Here's the list of questions that I've asked you. To make it easier, I'll place them into bold. Some of them will need background so you know what the questions refer to. On many of them I even pinged you, to draw your attention to them.

• Remember the Ferguson incident? (This was in reference to your absurd assertion that somehow just because something is edited and published that it's "true)."
• But tell me, after expending this many resources on him, after spending over three hours negotiating, After he threatened to kill two LEOs, after he pulled a knife on those LEOs, do you really think they planned to just escort him off the hill? (This and the next two questions came when you didn't know what they could arrest Boyd for).
• Or is some sort of custody more likely?
• You do realize that sometimes LE lies to get people into custody without a fight, right?
• When does it occur? (This question and the next one came after you asked me "do you know that Perez says Booyah after he shoots the guy? There is a story about Perez's birthday: have you heard about that?) You did answer regarding the "Booyah." Here's what you wrote, "I suppose that the version I saw may have been captioned by a random internet person not a court or police employee; I'll try to look into this" Have you had an opportunity to "look into this?"

I should have addressed this when you first wrote it − I tend to question the veracity of an editor who uses "a random internet person ... " as a source for information about an incident. I know that you didn't put the Booyah statement into the Article, but it would be impossible for it to have not affected how you regard the incident. There's that bias showing again.

• What's the "story" about the party?
• You seem to think that allowing this to continue in the dark would be 'no big deal.' I'm wondering, do you have any education, training, or experience in such police matters? The military? Anything? You seem to be giving opinions on tactical situations and I'm wondering where you obtain your expertise in them? This came when you made this statement, "Re:dark - yes. Sandy, yeah the guy who volunteered for lethal cover and announced he was going to shoot Boyd while he was still down in the street, threw the flash-bang, because he wanted to get things done with because it was getting dark."

This comment bring up another question that I should have asked when you wrote it. Do you think that there's something wrong with a LEO who "volunteers" to provide lethal cover?

• No idea what edit you're talking about here. Care to be specific? Some reason that you were not? (This came after you wrote, "Despite my request that significant corrections be noted on the talk page I found another "correction" this morning that I believe to be erroneous and which does not seem to have been noted at all ...")

• ... it does not appear that Elinruby even looked at it. [referring to the externally linked video of the shooting portion of the incident]. I may be wrong about that, it's a guess. If so, Elinruby can you let us know? (This came when you didn't know how many beanbag shotgun rounds had been fired, and I directed you again, to the video that's been linked on the Article, probably since it was first written).
• In this case, where all the primary sources I've cited are original video from official sources such as the helmet cam from the incident and court video from the preliminary hearing, it seems to me to be well within Wiki's policy of appropriate use of them. You seem to disagree but you've never directly addressed this. Can you do so please?
• Of course, if you have something that show this, please show it to us. (This came after you apparently alleged that "a police officer [may have] lied under oath" in this case).
• Based on what do you "discount the ... interpretation?" (This came when you questioned the interpretation of the video ("Taser v. shotgun Taser.))
• Not sure what "mansplaining this incident to me" means, can you explain please? (This came when you asked me to "... please stop mansplaining this incident to me)."

OK. That's about it. There were several more but they were too minor to bother with. I look forward to seeing your answers.

Elinruby wrote, "There have been quite a few where you dismiss the answers, though."

I don't think so. Since you disagree, please do as I've just done, re-ask the questions. I'm pretty good about answering all that are asked of me. Of course, it's possible that I didn't see some.

Elinruby wrote, "The DoJ report for example *does* mention this incident, for example, although because of the timing they don't give it the same review as the other unconstitutional use of force incidents they analyzed. It also specifically mentions Sandy. The ROP unit was disbanded because of this incident in the context of the report. They are scathing on the subject of the mentally ill, and of the way SWAT and ROP officers invite themselves into lethal cover situations. Off the top of my head."

Actually I've addressed this SEVERAL TIMES. Elsewhere I've written that I don't need to read the DOJ report, that I accept its findings that the APD 'was engaged in a pattern or practice of racism and using excessive force.' I've also pointed out that this incident was not addressed in their study of APD, only that it was mentioned. As you point out, this occurred because of "timing." This incident came after the field investigation had been completed, so it was only given cursory examination. But until and unless a federal court finds that this UOF was "unconstitutional" your reference to it as such is both inappropriate and again displays your bias.

But due to your insistence, elsewhere I've agreed to look at the DOJ report if you will "supply the link and direct me to specific areas that you're ... referring to." I know that you've seen that request, because you address a comment I made in it, in your next paragraph. But somehow, you have not supplied that information. Did I miss it?

Elinruby wrote, "Ad for your weird assertion that it is somehow racist to applaud this trial, I really don't know what to sat."

I didn't "assert that [your] applau[se of] this trial [is] racist." Here’s what I wrote, with emphasis so that you can (hopefully) see my meaning. "Each UOF is properly judged ONLY on its own merits and shortcomings, not a general examination of a LEAs practices. This is a bit like judging a given individual of a race by the actions of other members of that race. You know what that's called, right?" There's no accusation of racism, it was a metaphor. I thought that my preface to the question, "This is a bit like ..." would have you realize this, but "Imagine my surprise."

I'll try it another way. You have accepted the finding of the DOJ investigation as have I. The difference is that you are using that finding to broad brush THIS UOF and that's inappropriate, just as judging all members of ANY group by the actions of other members of that group. Get it now? Is EVERY member of the APD a racist and does every member use excessive force?

Elinruby wrote, "Dit you say you were british?"

Which one of us is "confused? " I don't believe that I've referred to my nationality except by vague reference. I am a US citizen, 'born and bred,' as the saying goes.

Elinruby wrote, "It's usually American kids who spout the innocent until proven guilty thing." ROFL. "American kids" That's hysterically funny. The entire criminal justice system and much of the US Constitution is based on that ethos.

Elinruby wrote, " This is not a court of law."

I seem to know that since previously I've written, "Wikipedia is not a courtroom ..."

Elinruby wrote, " The standard to follow here is BLP not some half-baked concept of the rights of policemen."

I'm sorry but I don't know what "BLP" means. Can you give me the definition that you're using please? I searched Wikipedia and here's what came up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLP

• Biographies of living persons
• Barbados Labour Party, the main opposition party of Barbados
• Bougainville Labour Party, in Papua New Guinea
• Beer Lovers Party (disambiguation), name of various political parties
• Berwin Leighton Paisner, an international law firm
• BL Publishing, a division of Games Workshop
• BlackLight Power, a pseudoscientific alternative energy company
• Bell–LaPadula model, in information security
• Braun's lipoprotein, a membrane protein

Any of them?

As to "half−baked concept of the rights of policemen," in this context, "the rights of policemen" are about the same as just about every other person in the US, to be innocent until proven guilty, the right not to be forced to self−incriminate, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Beanyandcecil (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported edits, inappropriately placed

@Beanyandcecil:@Elinruby: You've once again savaged the article,Beanyandcecil. You've put the specifics about a knife into the lede, which is inappropriate detail in itself for the lede, but none of the standing first three citations say anything about the knife except that it's a "pocket knife," but you finally added one, which mentions that the blade was "about" 3.5 inches. In order to revert your inappropriate edit, I had to read all four citations to determine that what you contended existed was not in fact in the original citations or the one you supplied. Given your deletion of text and another citation shortly prior, you certainly know what's expected of edits, yet you chose to shoehorn in your desired description. I dread having to go through all your edits, one after another, to determine their legitimacy, and don't have the time to do so. You're an ex-law enforcement officer, so you know what the standards of evidence are, so this should not be a novel concept to you. Please stop reverting supported text, and inserting text that is not supported. Thank you. Activist (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:

Activist wrote, "You've once again savaged the article,Beanyandcecil."

I'll disagree. I think that I've provided balance for the anti−LE ethos that has, until I arrived, permeated this Wiki entry. I don't appreciate your characterization of my editing as having "savaged" the article. Wiki requires that editors assume "good faith" in dealing with other editors. You've certainly failed on that account.

Activist wrote, "You've put the specifics about a knife into the lede, which is inappropriate detail in itself for the lede"

I did that because you, or perhaps Elinruby persisted in characterizing the knife as a 'harmless' "pocket knife" or "camping knife." In truth these are a deadly weapons, prohibited in some jurisdictions, and they were used to threaten to kill, first the Outdoor Space Officers and then other police officers who were dealing with Boyd or who just happened to be in the area. All I did was to provide a complete description of them.

At first all I did was to delete the adjectives "pocket" or "camping" that had been placed ahead of the word, "knife." But that was reverted. And so I accurately and completely described the knives. If, in the lede, you'll agree to just say "folding knife," a neutral term, that will be great. Later, in the body of the Article, it should be described fully. There is no such category in knives as a "camping knife" so that's inappropriate. If you want to add in the description of a pocket knife, that's fine with me.

what's the objection to pocket knife again? Elinruby (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby:It seems to be an attempt to mischaracterize a tool that can be used as a deadly weapon, and in fact was used to threaten numerous LEOs. In fact, in many jurisdictions, mere possession of this knife is an arrestable offence, punishable by jail time. (Of course there are exceptions). In the UK, the home of this host, several of the attributes of this knife may get you arrested for mere possession outside the home. Here are three of them. The fact that it's a lock−back knife, meaning that it locks in the open position and a button must be pressed to fold it. The fact that it has a blade that is more than 3" long. And the fact that it has a partially serrated blade.

None of these are violations in NM, where this incident happened, but a huge segment of the readers will read much of the article under the impression that this knife is a harmless tool and that's far from the truth.

Here is a citation from the UK law. "It is illegal to carry any sharp or bladed instrument in a public place (with the exception of a folding pocket knife, which has a blade that is less than 7.62 cm (3 inches)). A lock knife is not a folding pocket knife and therefore it is illegal to carry around such a knife regardless of the length of the blade." https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q337.htm

I have no problem if the neutral term "folding knife," or just "knife" is used in the lede, as long as the full description appears later in the article. But when I removed the adjectives, "pocket" and "camping" and just left the description as "knife" my edits were reverted. In response I put the full description in both places. But either term diminishes it's true characterization. Beanyandcecil (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Activist wrote, "but none of the standing first three citations say anything about the knife except that it's a "pocket knife," but you finally added one, which mentions that the blade was "about" 3.5 inches. In order to revert your inappropriate edit, I had to read all four citations to determine that what you contended existed was not in fact in the original citations or the one you supplied. Given your deletion of text and another citation shortly prior, you certainly know what's expected of edits, yet you chose to shoehorn in your desired description. I dread having to go through all your edits, one after another, to determine their legitimacy, and don't have the time to do so. You're an ex-law enforcement officer, so you know what the standards of evidence are, so this should not be a novel concept to you. Please stop reverting supported text, and inserting text that is not supported. Thank you."

I apologize for causing you extra work. Just yesterday I found a reference that had absolutely nothing to do with the material that it was supposed to be supporting. I merely deleted it. I didn't come here and complain about "dread[ing]" all that extra work, I just handled it. I think it's part of the work of being an editor. I'd have thought that with all of your experience, that you would too. Imagine my surprise! It seems that you take my presence here personally, perhaps because many of my edits have to do with your postings. My feeling is based on your tone and your comments when how you've addressed me, such as the "savaged" comment, and the fact that you've completely ignored most of the simple questions that I've asked directly of you. Is there some reason that you've not answered them?

In any case, I was clumsy in applying the reference to the description of the knives, that's it. There was no evil intent, I just went to the wrong site, I had several open, and cited that one, instead of the appropriate one. I've corrected that error, and again, I apologize. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled how the mention of a "5150" in this article or talk came up. I presume Elinruby didn't introduce it. It's a California Welfare and Institutions Code section that concerns involuntary commitment typically for individuals who are a danger to themselves. I can't imagine that the same statute and number exists in New Mexico. Activist (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:

I have no idea who brought it here. I didn't introduce it but I don't recall who did either. But again, you tell an incomplete story. The statue covers, as you say, people who are "a danger to themselves," AND people who are 'a danger to others' or who are 'gravely disabled.' But the term has come to a wider usage than just in California. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

There was testimony last week from an officer who had supervisory authority on the scene who ventured that he was not sure whether there were grounds at all for Boyd to be charged. I can't remember his name, but he appeared tall, thin, very short hair and light brown skin. If he was there, and wasn't certain if there were grounds for arrest, and if so, what they were, that does seem counter to an armchair analysis made 2 1/2 years later, I would think that there was clearly probably cause. Given the uncomfortable situation for him, with Keith Sandy moving in to call the shots, he went to talk to the complainant, Thickstun, more than a hundred yards distant, where he was when the quickly lethal decisions were made. I went back and looked at the helmet cam that is linked at the article, once again, and it appears to me from that perspective that Boyd might have been 40' away when the flash bang device was thrown at him, at a point when he was complying with demands by gathering up some of his possessions and beginning to descend. Activist (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:

Activist wrote, " There was testimony last week from an officer who had supervisory authority on the scene who ventured that he was not sure whether there were grounds at all for Boyd to be charged. I can't remember his name, but he appeared tall, thin, very short hair and light brown skin"

Then he's an idiot. Boyd threatened the two Outdoor Space Officers with one of his knives, making verbal threats to kill him if he approached. You may have seen the video of that initial contact. In it, the officers are forced to draw and point their guns at Boyd to prevent an attack from hm. That's 'assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer,' although the NM statutes may word it differently. He was also in violation of the local ordinances that prohibit overnight camping. I suggest that you take a look at this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyJWbvk-KY4 It's from the highly anti−LEO site, PINAC (Photography Is Not A Crime) and shows one of their contributors, Charlie Grapski at the area where this incident occurred. At 1:04 on the video the camera zooms in on the sign that's posted at the entrance to the area. The sign is entitled "City of Albuquerque, Open Space Regulations. One of the activities that is prohibited is "camping and fires." Down at the bottom of that sign is this, "city and county ordinances. state statues, and federal laws governing resource protection public conduct and safety apply and violations are punishable by fine and imprisonment." [added emphasis is mine]. So Boyd could have been arrested for the ADW on a LEO and/or for illegally camping. I sincerely hope that someone with half a brain followed that person's testimony and told the jury the truth on this point. It's quite important to the case. Without it, your contention that he was 'being compliant' is correct. But since it's completely wrong, so is your opinion.

It's my understanding that breaking a park rule is not a death penalty offense tho, eh? Please understand that there are many videos. Charlie Grapski has a big archive on YouTube of what purport to be unedited official recordings obtained through open records requests, and also LadyJustice2188 on youtube posts a lot of the same sort of good primary source material. I think KRQE has an archive also. Elinruby (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby: Elinruby wrote, "It's my understanding that breaking a park rule is not a death penalty offense tho, eh?"

Of course "breaking a park rule is not a death penalty offense." But the contained allegation that this is why Boyd was shot, ignores reality so completely that it's difficult not to fault the author for bad faith. I'll say instead, that it arises from a rather complete lack of knowledge of how LE confrontations of this nature are run, and (I hope) a sense of sarcasm and an attempt to lighten the mood. It certainly has not had the latter effect.

Previously I used this example. "Think of a shoplifter who kills the officer who comes to take him into custody, and is then lawfully and properly shot by other officers when he shoots at them. There are those who will say that he 'was killed for shoplifting,' but of course that's absurd." I now have to admit that "absurd" is too light of a description of this 'logic,' as is Elinruby's comment here.

Elinruby wrote, "Please understand that there are many videos."

Yes, and? There are many articles too. There are many witnesses, many people with opinions, and many armchair experts with opinions but no education, training, or experience. It's a simple matter to link to any video that's referred to. In all of my mentions of the video, I'm referring to the one that's been externally linked. This one. http://krqe.com/2014/03/21/video-apd-releases-helmetcam-footage-of-shooting/ Beanyandcecil (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Activist wrote, "If he was there, and wasn't certain if there were grounds for arrest, and if so, what they were, that does seem counter to an armchair analysis made 2 1/2 years later"

You don't even know if he was there? There are at least TWO offenses that Boyd could have been arrested for, one of them a felony in any state.

Activist wrote, "I would think that there was clearly probably cause."

You are correct.

Activist wrote, "Given the uncomfortable situation for him, with Keith Sandy moving in to call the shots, he went to talk to the complainant, Thickstun, more than a hundred yards distant, where he was when the quickly lethal decisions were made."

It sounds as if this was the first officer who was negotiating with Boyd. Based on this and some other things, it sounds as if his feelings were hurt when he was removed from the scene and his testimony was a result. It sounds as if he might be happier working with the mentally ill exclusively. He certainly lacks the necessary knowledge to be a peace officer. He didn't even recognize that a felony had been committed, much less the misdemeanor (probably) of the camping violation.

Activist wrote, "I went back and looked at the helmet cam that is linked at the article, once again, and it appears to me from that perspective that Boyd might have been 40' away when the flash bang device was thrown at him, at a point when he was complying with demands by gathering up some of his possessions and beginning to descend."

That sounds about right, but 'so what?' They didn't shoot him from that distance. The ONLY fired when he was within knife striking distance of the K−9 handler, still in possession of both knives, and still in a threatening, aggressive posture.

And AGAIN you think that "he was complying with demands by gathering up some of his possessions and beginning to descend." Even the officer with the hurt feelings said that he was not going to be allowed to descend the hill until his knives had been removed and he had been patted down for any other weapons that he may have possessed. This is the " partially successful negotiations" that is described in the article. He got Boyd to put his knife in his pocket but when told that he was not going to be allowed to descend with his knives he "called that deal off." I don't understand how you can continue to make this egregious mistake. It's especially troubling since I've described the details in depth in my writing on this page. You've not commented on my statements so either you've not read them or you don't agree. If the latter, I'd expect at least some comment to that effect, but nothing has come from you on this part of the topic. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll read this back and forth later. For now let's agree that any substantive change needs to be noted here. This includes deleting a reference, if you don't mind... usually references get separated from their text when someone else inserts texte and if the original editor doesn't notice you get that sort of "what is this doing here" reference. That said, a lot of the tv articles are rather hastily written, I thought. The longer ones, ie Rolling Stone and the SF New Mexican article I named "sflong" are more likely written on a longer deadline (if we are using life experience intelligently here, let me throw that in as a criteria for assessing accuracy when the sources are contradictory, although as well all know theoretically we don't do this because wikipedia presumes an editor has vetted a secondary source. I think wikipedia is a bit quaint to assume that, which is somethere semi-close to a professional opinion). Anyway, just wanted to clarify that yes, 5150 is California and they use something else in New Mexico. It was the word I could think of at the time and I sometimes speak more colloquially or even vaguely on talk pages than in articles themselves. Anyway, I am back from the stuff that took up a lot of my time this week and am going back to looking at testimony. It's all online; don't know if you guys realize that. Oh and @Beanyandcecil: I think you might want to check out the very long history of misuse of force in the APD. especially with the mentally ill. Given your background i understand your skepticism but given the officers whose cameras repeatedly misfunction specifically in use of force incidents, and I mean, come on, an officer shoots *three* different guys and is still getting a boilerplate pass that the UOF as you say was justified? I can't go for that. Looking at coverage now. I will be adding references as my primary focus. If I make big changes to the text I will note them. I do think all the detail about the knife should go down to the first reference to him pulling them. And a citation for where you found the detail would be nice, yes. Elinruby (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, "The longer ones, ie Rolling Stone and the SF New Mexican article I named "sflong" are more likely written on a longer deadline"

I only read part of the RS article. It was so highly biased and inaccurate, I had to stop reading, it was making me sick. When the standards of journalism have sunk that low it becomes a bad joke. That magazine has made up articles, and invented sources and 'facts' several times. It's a rag, not worthy of being used as toilet paper.

Elinruby wrote, "wikipedia presumes an editor has vetted a secondary source. I think wikipedia is a bit quaint to assume that"

I've written elsewhere that Wiki's policy on this is rather out of date. It ignores the fact that these days, there are highly biased, anti−government website that are regarded as many as genuine new sites. They're not. They're unreliable, often make up 'facts,' and use unreliable sources. There are still several sites that maintain that Michael Brown (Ferguson) had his hands up, was on his knees and that he was then executed by the police officer. Many people cite such source as if they were reliable, and Wiki policy would allow them to stand as secondary sources in articles. The only thing that can be done is to counter with accurate and genuine news sources. But the readers can still be lead down the wrong path.

Elinruby wrote, "which is somethere semi-close to a professional opinion)."

I think my opinion is about the same. I was a journalism major, was an editor for my university's newspaper, yearbook and magazine, and I worked in print journalism on a newspaper for a large city, for several years.

Elinruby wrote, "going back to looking at testimony. It's all online; don't know if you guys realize that."

No, I did not know that. Can you direct me to that information please? @Elinruby:

• Nevermind, I found it. Thanks for the info

Elinruby wrote, "Oh and I think you might want to check out the very long history of misuse of force in the APD. especially with the mentally ill. Given your background i understand your skepticism but given the officers whose cameras repeatedly misfunction specifically in use of force incidents, and I mean, come on, an officer shoots *three* different guys and is still getting a boilerplate pass that the UOF as you say was justified? I can't go for that."

I don't need to read anything but the DOJ summary on the APD from their investigation. I'm not skeptical at all about it. I know that every LEA has bad apples on it. It's the human condition. We're just humans, not supermen. But you can't judge this incident based on that report. Each UOF should be judged on its own, not a pattern of what others have done. That's unreasonable and unfair. This incident came after the DOJ investigation had been completed. It was mentioned, in their report, but was not examined. Someone who judges a group of people based on what others in that group have done are called racists. This is similar.

Elinruby wrote, " Looking at coverage now. I will be adding references as my primary focus. If I make big changes to the text I will note them. I do think all the detail about the knife should go down to the first reference to him pulling them. And a citation for where you found the detail would be nice, yes.

The details of the knife are in the corrected link. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

pocket knife

The problem is, the *sources* call it a pocket knife. I will collate mentions of the knife here as an attempt to be systematic while I think about this. Meanwhile, I still don't see a source for that elaborate description of the knife, unless you are talking about the picture of the knife as a court exhibit. And that really won't fly. Possibly I am just repeatedly missing it, but all I see is one article that says it was 3 1/2 inches long. If you do have one could you please point me to it either by posting the specifics here or by telling me the current footnote for it? Thanks.

PS - I looked up the law, which goes back to the 19th century and was amended in the 20th century to make switchblades (only) illegal. A recent court case in Taos also ruled that a pocket knife is not per se a dangerous weapon. Elinruby (talk)

"knife":

• http://www.koat.com/news/james-boyd-case-resumes-with-officers-testimony/34762470
• https://www.abqjournal.com/854418/crisis-negotiator-at-boyd-scene-testifies.html

"two small knives":
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/ex-detective-testifies-he-saw-immediate-deadly-threat/article_6bca0efa-d077-5953-91a0-991fc74d8bd9.html

@Activist:@Elinruby:

Elinruby wrote, "The problem is, the *sources* call it a pocket knife."

That's fine for the first reference to it in the lede. I've said this before.

Elinruby wrote, "I still don't see a source for that elaborate description of the knife, unless you are talking about the picture of the knife as a court exhibit."

It's in the video that is part of the news story that I posted.

Elinruby wrote, "And that really won't fly."

Really, why not?

Elinruby wrote, " PS - I looked up the law, which goes back to the 19th century and was amended in the 20th century to make switchblades (only) illegal. A recent court case in Taos also ruled that a pocket knife is not per se a dangerous weapon."

I'm not sure why you bring this up. I've never said that possession of the knife was a violation.

Elinruby wrote, " "two small knives"

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/ex-detective-testifies-he-saw-immediate-deadly-threat/article_6bca0efa-d077-5953-91a0-991fc74d8bd9.html

If you want to change the lede to read "two small pocket knives" that's OK with me as long as the full description of them remains later in the Article. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Standoff

I inserted a link directing readers to the video for the description of the knife, instead of just the news article. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

more in lede, not sure if controversial ;P

"An officer threw a flash" -- we know this was Sandy, or at least I do, because he said so. As did some other people, I think. Anyone care if we specify? Elinruby (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

done (written by Elinruby - moved to new line by BeanyandCecil). Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

removed a reference

I removed: <ref>{{cite web|last1=Fairbanks|first1=Cassandra|title=Cop Who Murdered James Boyd, Caught Plotting on Dashcam, “I’m Going to Shoot Him in the Penis”|url=http://thefreethoughtproject.com/officer-sandy-murderer-james-boyd-stated-shoot-penis-hours-killing/|website=The Free Thought Project.com|accessdate=6 October 2016}}</ref>; emotional language in the article. Probably put up for embedded state police video, which *is* very pertinent even if a primary source. However the next reference cites the video by itself, without the problems of the article (almost certainly NPOV problem, not RS really) and therefore the Youtube link is better. Needs to be there given the myriad ways the statement is quoted. Elinruby (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I had some memory this morning that I added this source myself because I felt that it was material that state trooper Chris Ware drove over the narrow winding Tijeras Pass at speed that occasionally hit 120mph. It's not directly relevan, but it is a further somewhat jarring reminder that this was treated as an emergency call, which is why Sgt Ware responds lights and sirens. All he knows is that he is requested and there is a threat to an officer. I did however verify this morning that the youtube video also includes this; possibly it replaces a reference to one of the tv station videos who cut to the statement itself. 02:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

done deal unless there is further comment (Written by Elinruby - moved by Beanyandcecil). Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

hung jury

https://www.abqjournal.com/864931/jury-in-pere-zsandy-murder-trial-resume-deliberations.html

not able to edit right now, will come back to this tho Elinruby (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I've updated the article in the Criminal Charges section. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Added another update. Beanyandcecil (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive use of primary source - video

@Elinruby: Deletion of non-RSS, instea OR, description of pocket knife beyond textual description within citations provided. Additions of such interpretations are in direct contravention of Wikipedia conventions.

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This prevents editors from engaging in original research. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Editors should not use a video as a citation to present their own interpretation of its content.

Activist (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:The video clearly shows that the knife has a partially serrated blade. It does not require any "original research or specialist knowledge" for a reader to see that this. It's not my "own interpretation" of the video that the blade is partially serrated any more that it requires "special education" to see that the officers shoot their guns at Boyd in the video of the incident.

I'll revert this deletion. Knowing that the knife was serrated gives the readers a clearer picture of the danger the officers faced. Hiding it, as you've done, denies them knowledge, the opposite of the purpose and intent of Wikipedia. The serrations makes the knife more deadly because it increases the cutting ability of the knife, makes it more difficult to stop the bleeding from a wound from such a knife, and causes more scarring, due to the tearing of the flesh that results. Beanyandcecil (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Activist:; this is the epitome of OR.Elinruby (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You keep repeating this, and similar comments about "OR" (original research) as if it was prohibited by Wiki Policy. It's not. Recognizing from a video that this knife is serrated does not require "interpretation" or "specialist knowledge." Therefore it's not against policy and is permitted. Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:Here are some quotations from Wikipedia about "Original Research." I've placed emphasis to draw attention to important passages.

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. [1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented ... "

The information about the serrations on the blade is in a video that is part of a " " reliable, published source exists." Several times now I've "cite[d] reliable, published sources that are directly to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." . The video is part of a news story and is not prohibited.

"Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided."

There will not be "multiple interpretations." because people can clearly see that the blade is serrated.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge ... "

I have made "straightforward descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further specialized knowledge."

BTW what's the difference between this and you adding the quotation from the K−9 handler who you claim said, "Bang him?" You haven't even provided a citation for the statement. You tell us it came from a video! Isn't that OR? It appears to be, yet it seems to be OK. Is there a double standard here? Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:Activist I just noticed that you reverted my edit regarding the knives being serrated. I reverted your inappropriate and undiscussed edit.

You've refused to respond to my comments in this section. Wikipedia Policy directs editors to discuss such differences and not engage in edit warring, as you've done. There are only three of us involved in the recent editing of this topic. The "consensus" that you referred to in your edit, involves two of the three, and those two have already demonstrated that they've been allowing their biases to influence their editing.

Here's a summary of my reasoning for including this information in the article. This reference is not a violation of the "No Original Research" policy for reasons that have been clearly detailed above. To review them – the fact that the knives are partially serrated is not my "interpretation" and that fact is not open to any other interpretation. It did not take any "specialist knowledge" to make that observation, one has only to look at the video that's part of the sourced link. The fact that the knives are partially serrated is a "straight forward descriptive statement of fact that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge ... " as Wikipedia requires for the use of Original Research.

I suggest that you watch the video, http://krqe.com/2016/09/26/murder-trial-for-former-albuquerque-police-officers-to-resume-monday/ paying particular attention to the still photo of the knife that's shown at about 0:34.

If you continue to revert this material I will report it. Please discuss the matter here. Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

original research noticeboard

I have asked for assistance and clarification of some of the original research questions we have had in in the article. Elinruby (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:Thanks, I was researching how to do this. It might not have been necessary had you and/or activist simply responded to my posts. All Activist did was to block quote Wiki. All you did was repeat (to the effect) 'OR' over and over. It looks to me as if the OR rules do not ban what I've posted. But if they do, then there is certainly a lot of information, for example, the statement that the K−9 handler said "bang him," that also has to go. There is no source for that statement at all, but even if there was, according to your interpretation of the OR policy, it can't be posted unless someone in the media quotes it. Not likely to happen at this late date. Beanyandcecil (talk) 22:58, 13 2016 (UTC)

I've answered that question at least twice. Part of the problem is that your posts are extremely long. I get lost in them and perhaps you do too. In a minute I'll make a separate section for this question, and maybe I'll have time later to give you a time mark. But this sort of discussion is, as I understand it, the reason for the OR policy. I spent part of the weekend trying to clarify certain points by listening to testimony (which CIT officer was talking to Boyd for example) and tried to make the account a little tidier along the way. It turns out that Sandy admits on cross that Weimerskirch actually says "bang this fucker right now" (or possibly motherfucker, I am quoting from memory). I have not made a change because it seems like a minor point -- according to testimony Weimerskirch was running things and either version seems plausible and within the role he had. And possibly good for the defence, since you have said that this is your concern.

But yeah, if you want to escalate anything here, go to community portal in the left menu. One of the links in the middle of the page is Dispute Resolution, which comes in various flavors depending on what you think is wrong, ie non-neutral editing, editor behavior, etc. I should mention that I did not "report" anyone, just ask for guidance about how to apply OR, as I think there is legitimate confusion here, and possibly on all sides. I also think that the preponderance of video over secondary sources is novel; I am not aware of another case where there are so few print sources. I was looking at the OR policy, which seems to say that a faithful transcription is fine, but here we have several transcriptions... I'll get you a link to the noticeboard post in a second. Elinruby (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Post about this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Shooting_of_James_Boyd --- there are also links to various other noticeboards in the header. Elinruby (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

bang him

See 31:59 in https://youtube/bSE4QkoM7_I; also at 30:40 the prosecutor says "I think this is the transcript we agreed to, judge," indicating that there may have been motions about the video. Elinruby (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Corrected charges in POV

I corrected the charges in the POV. Beanyandcecil (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

what does this mean? Elinruby (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:Sorry, perhaps if I'd placed quotation marks around the word "charges" it would have been clearer. The "Charges" section of the POV used to say, "Charges 'second degree murder, manslaughter' " The defense made a motion to remove the charge of manslaughter because the required required elements of that crime were not present. The judge agreed and removed the manslaughter charge. I showed this in a previous edit of the Article under the heading "Criminal Charges." There was an additional charge of aggravated assault that should have been present in the "charges" section, but was not there. I added it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking they were both charged with an open count of murder. This permitted a verdict of anything from involuntary manslaughter on up. First degree murder was thrown out at an early date, possibly over the discrepancy between the shotgun Sandy said he was going to use to shoot Boyd and the rifle that he did use. Not sure. Before the preliminary hearing, though. The charge of involuntary manslaughter was ruled out at the preliminary hearing since nobody, not even the defence, claims the shooting was involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter was ruled out at trial because the specifics did not match the definition in the statute. This left second-degree murder, and the assault charge against Perez, which the jury did not vote on. We can have a whole section spelling all that out if you want; pretty sure it can even be done with secondary sources. But it's not accurate to say they were charged with second-degree homicide. Elinruby (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

if we are going to spend a paragraph on the defense use of force witness

Doesn't NPOV require we also report the testimony of the prosecution use of force witness? Elinruby (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby: Could you please give us some reference to the material in the Article that you're talking about? Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR - giving up on the mansplainer.

I have come to the conclusion that @Beanyandcecil is here primarily to disrupt constructive edits and seek to present the defendants in the most flattering light. I have patiently asked him questions to determine if it is possible to reach some accommodation with his biases, since he claims to only want to arrive at a factual portrayal. He interprets this as ignorance and is now berating me for not taking his sarcastic rhetorical and off-topic questions literally.

He has repeatedly ranted on about the arrogance of those who would question the rights of policemen, and wants "pocket knife" changed, since he thinks the appellation shows bias, even though that is what many of the sources call it. We are now having to poll all the sources in response to this specious notion to see which is more often used. His basis for the claim of bias is that this knife would be illegal in the UK. It was quite legal in New Mexico. He also seems to think that we shouldn't cover trials, even those as notable as this, until there is a guilty verdict. At least I *think* this is why he keeps saying "innocent until proven guilty" but given my experience in the past week he'll probaby call me ignorant for saying so. I have persisted as long as I have with this editor, because he *has* made a handful of useful edits, and pointed out a couple of actual problems. And yet and yet he refuses to use secondary sources and cannot seem to set his biases aside. It's been an interesting illustration wikipedia has certain biases. I'm done.

I need to go but wanted to correct the above --- last line was intended to read "illustration of why wikipedia has certain policies." Elinruby (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

A few comments in respasonse to actual issues I saw in today's wall of sarcasm:

• mansplaining - here, I googled that for you.
• on "sheer loss of blood" - if you change that I will revert you and seek help with your behaviour; at a minumum this requires discussion. I do, yes, realize what the forensic pathologist said, since I cited his testimony for that statement. (see mansplaining, definition of, at above link) The change you want to make distorts what he said. Boyd died from blood loss. The blood loss was caused by the gunshot wounds yes, but the reason those killed him was the amount of blood he lost before he even got to the hospital. Watch the video of his testimony all the way through. Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
• booyah: I think I saw this on the social media feed of one of the journalists, but I don't remember which one so at the moment I can't swear to it. The remark appears to have been excluded from evidence, as the version played in court (Sandy's cross) has this captioned as "inaudible", which it clearly is not. I smell a motion in limine.

I'll reread your hateful screed later and possibly add more answers above if I find any more actual questions in your disorganized mess of a complaint post. I mean seriously. Have I ever heard of Ferguson? Doh. Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby:

Elinruby wrote, "I have come to the conclusion that @Beanyandcecil is here primarily to disrupt constructive edits and seek to present the defendants in the most flattering light."

Thanks for sharing your opinion, but it's wrong. I'm here to provide balance, to see that both points of view are presented. It seems to me that you just don't want that to happen.

Elinruby wrote, " I have patiently asked him questions to determine if it is possible to reach some accommodation with his biases, since he claims to only want to arrive at a factual portrayal. He interprets this as ignorance and is now berating me for not taking his sarcastic rhetorical and off-topic questions literally."

I've answered every one of your questions that I've seen. As I said, if you think that I've missed any of them, simply show them to me and I'll answer them. Contrary to your opinion, none of my questions that I just REASKED you are "sarcastic, rhetorical [or] off−topic." Each one of them would illuminate the article or provide information as to your knowledge and background on topics that you are critiquing. One thing that's important that both you and Activist lack is any education, training or experience in LE matters, especially of this nature. And one thing that you both have, is a heavy anti−LE bias.

Elinruby wrote, "He has repeatedly ranted on about the arrogance of those who would question the rights of policemen"

I'll give you ten Pinocchios for this. IN TRUTH I've used the word "arrogant" ONCE, not as you've claimed "repeatedly." Such baseless accusations are based on FEELINGS not on reality. Not unusual for the highly biased! Details are important, but not to Elinruby when she's on a rant, as now.

But that's just a side issue. I've said NOTHING about the rights of policemen, except that they have the same right as everyone else. Apparently you're using the phrase in some other way, but I don't know what it is. Can you clarify please?

Elinruby wrote, "and wants "pocket knife" changed, since he thinks the appellation shows bias, even though that is what many of the sources call it. We are now having to poll all the sources in response to this specious notion to see which is more often used."

Another ten Pinocchios. I've said at least twice now that the term "pocket knife" is perfectly acceptable in the lede. The thorough description of the knife should be given when it's discussed later.

Elinruby wrote, "His basis for the claim of bias is that this knife would be illegal in the UK."

Gonna have to disagree. I mentioned that ONLY to show that it was a dangerous weapon, not a harmless pocket knife.

Elinruby wrote, " It was quite legal in New Mexico."

Yes, I know.

Elinruby wrote, " He also seems to think that we shouldn't cover trials, even those as notable as this, until there is a guilty verdict. At least I *think* this is why he keeps saying "innocent until proven guilty" but given my experience in the past week he'll probaby call me ignorant for saying so."

Not "ignorant," just wrong. I've used material from the trial in this matter, as sources in most of my edits, so this is just so much nonsense. I'm saying that BOTH sides, that means both the prosecution and the defense side of the trial, should be presented. But you don't seem to want that.

Elinruby wrote, "I have persisted as long as I have with this editor, because he *has* made a handful of useful edits, and pointed out a couple of actual problems. And yet and yet he refuses to use secondary sources and cannot seem to set his biases aside. It's been an interesting illustration wikipedia has certain biases. I'm done."

Ten more Pinocchios. FACT IS I've used secondary sources in MOST of my edits. Occasionally it's appropriate to use primary sources and they are not prohibited by Wiki policy. In many cases, given that there are dozens of whackadoo website covering this trial, they are more useful.

Elinruby wrote, "A few comments in response to actual issues I saw in today's wall of sarcasm:"

Nope, no sarcasm, but nice way to avoid answering many of the questions.

• Elinruby wrote, "mansplaining - here, I googled that for you."

Thanks. But the definition doesn't apply here. I have no idea of your gender and since you know little of these things, I'm doing my best to educate you. A perfect example was when you didn't know that a beanbag shotgun was not a rifle. You asked specifically and I responded.

nor would I be comfortable discussing my gender or any other personal detail with you with you given your behaviour with Activist. But my gender doesn't enter into the appellation, just yours. And btw, I asked specifically about this before I made changes in the article. I wanted to be sure you and all current editors agreed. You're the one who inferred ignorance and told me how arrogant I was to even be trying to tell this story. Elinruby (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist:@Elinruby: Elinruby wrote, "nor would I be comfortable discussing my gender or any other personal detail with you with you given your behaviour with Activist."

• I could care less about your "gender or any other personal detail." I asked both you and Activist for some information about your education, training and experience on LE matters that were involved in this incident. Both of you were passing judgment on the actions of the officers in this incident and I was curious as to whether you had any actual knowledge or if, as I thought, your knowledge came from TV and the movies. Activist decided, for reasons known only to him, to go off on tangent that had nothing to do with this discussion in any way. Then he decided that he was going to delete that information when he should have known that anything written on Wikipedia becomes permanent. ANYONE could search his revisions and find that material. He called it "personal information" and DEMANDED that I delete it from my personal talk page. He blockquoted Wiki policy basically threatening me, but as with some other areas, he got it completely wrong. There was ABSOLUTELY no "personal information" in his message.

Elinruby wrote, "But my gender doesn't enter into the appellation, just yours."

• It depends on which definition is used. If one uses the first (usually the preferred definition) you get "defined as "to explain something to someone, typically a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing." The second definition given is this, "Lily Rothman of The Atlantic defines it as 'explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman' " The rest of the article you link contains many references to a man explaining something to a woman. So we can see that the term INCLUDES both of our genders. I'd appreciate if it you'd stop the sexist comments please. They're rude and have no place here.

Elinruby wrote, "And btw, I asked specifically about this before I made changes in the article. I wanted to be sure you and all current editors agreed. You're the one who inferred ignorance and told me how arrogant I was to even be trying to tell this story." Elinruby (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't "infer" ignorance. You clearly demonstrated it. You had no idea that a beanbag SHOTGUN was actually, as the name of the device states, a shotgun. You thought that it might be a rifle. And the ignorance that was obvious was limited to that, not a general comment about your level of intelligence. Some people can't tell the difference between being called ignorant and being told they are ignorant of certain facts.

• I still think that it's arrogant of someone whose knowledge of tactical matters comes from TV and the movies to judge professionals who have been educated and trained on the topic, and who have been doing it for many years. But I realize that having watched Adam 12, qualifies many people for this. At least they think it does. Beanyandcecil (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

• Elinruby wrote, " on "sheer loss of blood" - if you change that I will revert you and seek help with your behaviour; at a minumum this requires discussion."

I put the query in the talk section so that it could be discussed. You've provided a source that uses that description, so I'm fine with leaving it as it is.

Elinruby wrote, "I do, yes, realize what the forensic pathologist said, since I cited his testimony for that statement. (see mansplaining, definition of, at above link) The change you want to make distorts what he said."'

It's not that I want to make a change, it's that the links that were cited, didn't support the statement. AS I SO CLEARLY WROTE.

I don't think you've listened to the entire statement. Please provide a link for what you're talking about so I can verify it's even the trial testimony, not the preliminary hearing. Elinruby (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, " Boyd died from blood loss. The blood loss was caused by the gunshot wounds yes, but the reason those killed him was the amount of blood he lost before he even got to the hospital. Watch the video of his testimony all the way through.

Wait, you're using a primary source after all the times you've badmouthed them? LOL

dude, I have not "badmouthed" them. Just said that wikipedia policy is to use them with caution. Elinruby (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Elinruby wrote, " booyah: I think I saw this on the social media feed of one of the journalists, but I don't remember which one so at the moment I can't swear to it."

Yeah, that's a great reference.

You ASKED me how I was doing on that. This is the talk page. I have established that it played at trial with a different caption. I will let you know when I find the original caption. Again, I am not getting paid for this and I do have other things going on in my life. 00:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, " The remark appears to have been excluded from evidence, as the version played in court (Sandy's cross) has this captioned as "inaudible", which it clearly is not." .

'Hearing' "Booyah," especially in light of my explanation for your error, displays amazing bias against the officers here. But this is getting redundant. Deny your bias all you want, your words speak volumes about how you actually feel.

Elinruby wrote, " I'll reread your hateful screed later and possibly add more answers above if I find any more actual questions in your disorganized mess of a complaint post."

Why am I not surprised at your reaction to being called out repeatedly.

Elinruby wrote, " I mean seriously. Have I ever heard of Ferguson? Doh."

WOW! Just wow. First, that was NOT my question. Second, what I actually asked was, "Remember the Ferguson incident?" I then went into an explanation of exactly what I was referring to, one of the problems with secondary sources. Then I wrote, "One witness claimed that Michael Brown had his hands in the air, was on his knees when he was executed by Officer Darren Wilson. But that was completely discredited by other witnesses, and perhaps most importantly by the physical evidence from the autopsy. Yet it was the spark for the activist organization BLM (Black Lives Matter) and is based on the false narrative, "Hands up. Don't shoot." This chant and the 'hands up pose' has been seen at virtually every demonstration since." But it appears that somehow, you completely missed the point I was trying to make. At times I wonder if this is intentionally done to avoid answering question.

Throughout the abuse heaped on me from both you and Activist, I've remained polite and professional, but my patience is wearing thin. If you, like Activist, don't want to discuss edits with me anymore, and based on your continual inability to see, for example, that several times I've said that "pocket knife" is perfectly OK, that's fine with me. It makes editing much easier on me. I'll just do the edits without bothering to discuss them with you. Please let me know if this is what you want. The ONE TIME you actually responded to a query about an edit, where I'd put it in Talk to be discussed, you threatened to report me, if I made the change. Why would you think I'd put it in "TALK if not to discuss it? Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

removing "needs citation" and the material it refers to

It's been flagged for weeks. Specifically, what was being questioned was the name of the mental health hospital; I have only been able to find a reference for a referral to the State Hospital in Las Vegas, but none to the University of New Mexico Hospital, which does have an emergency mental health department, and would be a plausible destination if he were taken to a psychiatric hospital by the Albuquerque police. However the source for this has not surfaced and the database of court appearances in New Mexico does not show any proceedings for "James Matthew Boyd"*, so.... The sentence will say that he had been sent to a state mental hospital. So far I only see this once, from a court in Las Cruces, and it clearly says he was referred to Las Vegas at the nmcourt website. I don't doubt that it happened more than once; the "sflong" reference implies this, but saying he was sent to UNMH still needs a source.

* in Albquerque -- there is a Las Cruces case where he is referred to the Las Vegas, New Mexico psychiatric hospital Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I am leaving up the cn template for the Bernalillo County Jail, tho. This is also a very plausible place for Boyd to spend some time, but I still haven't found a source for it in the media. I believe it, because I see stories that he threatened someone in Civic Plaza, refused to leave a library, and refused to leave a firehouse. But I don't know which one of those resulted in the jail time, and it needs a reference no matter what per BLP.

to clarify my prior comment, I am thinking, unless someone finds a citation for UNMH, that it was somebody's assumption. It was there when I first came to the article; it is plausible but extensive reading has not turned a mention of this up. Elinruby (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"Open count murder" edit

THIS is how discussions and editing is supposed to work here. Good job on the edit, much more accurate and free of contention than what came before it. Thanks. Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to explain what an open count of murder is, or the timeline of the dismissals, please feel free -- I may do it if you don't; I saw that some other states do have this legal concept, but I am not sure if this would be mysterious to, say, a German. But I think if we have this paragraph should be in the body of the article, not the infobox Elinruby (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Beanyandcecil, it would be helpful if you keep some of your responses concise as well. There is no need to quote others' entire paragraphs. Sometimes, having an entire wall of text makes it hard to actually follow your points. Also, if you really need to quote an editor, I suggest you use the template {{tq}}. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding an entry in the "Sandy's intent" section

@Elinruby: In the second paragraph of "Sandy's intent before shooting," this appears, "Sandy arrived at the scene with a beanbag shotgun, a Taser shotgun and an assault rifle; while some members of the public thought his remark was evidence of intent, only the two less-lethal weapons can be described as shotguns. Some reputable sources, in particular his lawyer and his employer, but also Ware,[23] |aver that Sandy actually said "Taser shotgun" in this statement. ... "

There's a typo that I've emboldened, "|aver" but I can't figure out what you meant to fix it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, nice catch. Aver is a word isn't it? -- (checked wiktionary Elinruby (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)) I think it is a little stronger than "declare" but less than "swore an oath". The pipe is a typo though, probably from when I put the reference in. That statement about thinking intent needs a reference too; it's one of the things I am looking for. I know there are some out there though. If you think aver is obscure, propose another wording, I am not insisting on the word, but the statement should be strong; Ware is described as "adamant" on this point in the cited report Elinruby (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2016 (Utoo. TC)

How about "adamant?" That's the word that appears in the reference. Beanyandcecil (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

MMMM it's an adjective not a verb, but ok, go ahead and re-write the sentence; I'll change it if I dislike it. To answer your actual question, adamant is fine depending on what you do with it. I'll check on it in a bit. Still adding in references, tho I will be in and out for the rest of the night -- need to do some other stuff too Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I made the change, please take a look. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Elinruby wrote, "please don't put two spaces between sentences. This makes my teeth hurt ;)"

That's gonna be hard. I've been doing it just about all of my adult life and that's quite some time. I'll try but occasionally I might forget.

I seem to remember this from a long-ago typing class, but I am pretty sure the WP convention is one. I've been fixing this and was annoyed over it when I wrote this, but the bare urls are more work to fix. Elinruby (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

"Spaces following terminal punctuation The number of spaces following the terminal punctuation of a sentence in the wiki markup makes no difference on Wikipedia; the MediaWiki software condenses any number of spaces to just one when rendering the page (see Sentence spacing). For this reason, editors may use any spacing style they prefer on Wikipedia. Multiple spacing styles may coexist in the same article, and adding or removing a double space is sometimes used as a dummy edit."

Beanyandcecil (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Elinruby wrote, " is there any way I could get you to flesh yrls are actually harder our references out a bit? If it's just a bare url somebody is going to have to fix it. I'd appreciate it."

I'm gonna guess that this is aimed at me. On my most recent entry, the video link for the description of the knife, I used the Wiki 'video cite template.' I'll take a look. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I updated my sources that were just a URL. Pretty sure that I got them all. If you find any that I missed, please let me know. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that; it's housekeeping, but it's housekeeping someone will have to do if we don't. I have been known to use a bare url myself but usually because I need to reboot and am afraid of losing my place if I don't, in which case I try to amend when I come back. Anyway, my point is that it's easiest, usually, if the person providing the reference supplies the details while they have the reference up. At least a title and a publisher -- it's not clear to me who is the author of the videotapes. Elinruby (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)