LAS CRUCES GETS A BLACK EYE FOR BACA KILLING

A recent Searchlight New Mexico article (27 Mar) by Joshua Bowling and Vanessa G. Sánchez begins:

 

It was just after 6.30 one evening last April when Las Cruces police officer Jared Cosper responded to a mental health call. The family of Amelia Baca, a 75-year-old grandmother with dementia, had called 911, saying she appeared to be off her medication and was threatening them. They needed help.

 

Cosper, trained in crisis intervention, according to a subsequent lawsuit, arrived at the Bacas’ front door and instructed family members to step outside. Police body camera video shows Baca’s granddaughter thanking the officer and asking him to “be very careful with her”.

 

The elderly woman – who spoke only Spanish – came to the door, a kitchen knife in each hand.

 

“Drop the fucking knife,” Cosper shouted. As the family begged and screamed in protest, he shot and killed her.

 

Now, nearly a year after Baca’s tragic death, Las Cruces has launched an “alternative response” program, designed to send social workers and paramedics instead of armed officers to the scenes of 911 calls for mental health crises, drug overdoses and threats of suicide.

 

Because of its republication in The Guardian, an international news publication, this story gives Las Cruces the prominence which it deserves for its police force, which operates without civilian oversight or police leadership.  Regrettably, the story omits even a passing mention of the state’s legal system which, for nearly a year after the killing, has taken no action whatsoever except to shuffle papers and shift responsibility.  Las Cruces Chief of Police Miguel Dominguez to Dona Ana County District Attorney Gerald Byers of the Third Judicial District to New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez—all have conspired to avoid any action to hold the killer accountable.  No action is foreseeable.

 

Like many voters, I was persuaded that Torrez was the right man—Democrat, liberal, even Progressive—for the right job at the right time.  Wrong.  The Baca case may not be the most important one in his office, but it is probably the most visible one.  His inaction after three months in office on a case already eight months old suggests that he thinks it unimportant and best left to inaction and, he apparently hopes, forgetfulness.  But an article with statewide and international readership which begins with this story suggests that Baca’s killing is a touchstone of the clear and present danger which police officers present to citizens.

 

I am all for alternative responses to calls for assistance in situations involving mental health episodes, drug overdoses, and suicide threats.  I am also all for not only equal protection under the law, but also equal application of the law.  My concern is that any alternative responses will still require police support, and, if police officers continue to operate with legal impunity, not to mention legal immunity, they will continue to kill those who require medical, not criminal, treatment.

 

So I am less than impressed that City Council—its six women Councilors subservient to the dictates of its male Mayor—takes no action about police misconduct but takes action—passes an “‘alternative response’ program”—which purports to prevent it.  It should be possible but seems impossible for these elected officials to pursue more than one approach at a time to issues of public safety.  For, when this program fails, City Council will blame its implementation, not the police—a misdirection which will ensure continued police violence with harmful, if not fatal, consequences—and have to start from scratch.

 

I doubt that New Mexico is losing population because of the abject quality of its legal system.  But the stench of incompetence and corruption in other areas of government services as well does nothing to staunch the hemorrhaging of people seeking a better environment for living and livelihood.  As they—the better and the brighter—escape the Land of Entrapment, they leave behind many parasitic immigrants, both retirees and refugees; impoverished natives; and an ineffectual, dispersed few who want to support a dynamic economy or a robust education.

MAYOR MIYAGISHIMA'S FEAR IN HIS FINAL DAYS IN OFFICE

At a time when a small but vocal minority is advocating for police reform, Mayor Ken Miyagishima could hardly refuse the NAACP’s invitation to its 18 March meeting, over which Dr. Bobbie Green capably and coolly presided.  In their comments and questions, attendees stated their clear desire for some sort of City Council discussion about police reform, specifically about a police review board of some sort.  The Mayor gave long, rambling, and marginally relevant responses and a vague promise of a work session.

 

A contextualizing, two-part digression.  First, I voted for the Mayor in each of his four campaigns.  (No doubt, my vote tipped each mayoral election in his favor.)  Second, soon after his fourth win, I met with him to suggest that, if his fourth term were to be his last, he should consider his legacy.  Even before George Floyd’s killing, Black Lives Matter, and Amelia Baca’s killing, I urged that it be police reform.  The Mayor’s response was neither enthusiastic nor encouraging.  So his dismal performance on police reform has not disappointed me, for he offered no hope.

 

But the Mayor has been a disappointment as the city’s elected leader, for he has done everything in his power to impede discussion of an important public issue which will remain after he leaves office.  In his efforts, one of his techniques is filibustering; others are untruthful argument and calculated forgetfulness.  His words at this NAACP meeting provide examples.

 

The first example concerns the involvement of the LCPD in the investigation into Sra. Amelia Baca’s killing.  When it arose as a case suitable for a review board, the Mayor supported the sufficiency of a task force of officers from three agencies—NMSP, DACSO, and NMSUPD—operating independently, without LCPD officers.  I corrected his claim by reporting that, whatever role LCPD officers played in the investigation, it played a role in the review of the investigators’ report.  At the review meeting, six of its twenty members were LCPD officers, including the chair and the police chief.  Retreating from his claim of its independence, the Mayor said that he knew nothing about LCPD attendance at the meeting and that six were not a “majority.”  I chose not to reply that he had made a positive claim without having the facts about attendance or independence; that a majority is not required to influence a report of an investigation; and that no LCPD officer cared about the fact or appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

The second example concerns the lack of trust in the LCPD police.  Several attendees mentioned distrust of the police, but the Mayor, perhaps thinking that few citizens held that opinion, downplayed it.  I supported their view by citing the testimony, filmed and recorded, of then-Deputy Chief, now Chief of Police Miguel Dominguez, to City Council on 15 June 2020.  I said that he admitted public distrust of the police and noted that no Council member asked for an explanation.  To evade the criticism, the Mayor said that he did not recall Dominguez’s words or their context.  Again, I chose not to reply lest I appear testy.  I cite Dominguez’s readily available statement, which ran in the 17 June Sun-News and appeared in my 24 June blog emailed to the Mayor and others:

 

Our officers are professionals. ... We will respond to your calls without fail. We know that there’s a lot of mistrust out there [emphasis now added]. We want you to know you can count on us. We are all professionals doing a tough job. We are not perfect. We make mistakes. We will own up to our mistakes. We love Las Cruces. We are a tight community. We are Las Cruces. We are here to back you up. Please reach out to us and know we are a professional organization. We really do care about our community.”

 

The context of Dominguez’s words is the City Council hearing on the “Eight Can’t Wait” proposals for police reform after George Floyd’s killing weeks earlier.  I cannot explain the Mayor’s faulty memory of this important testimony at this significant moment by a ranking police officer.

 

On the matter of the review board, the Mayor invoked democratic decision making and indicated that enough Councilors disapproved of the proposal to make a work session unnecessary.  I responded that democracy is exercised not only by officials, but also by citizens, and not only at the ballot box, but also by public participation in discussions of important issues between elections.  I added that such discussions enable the exchange of opinions and information which often change minds.  The Mayor did not reply.

 

Later, referring to Dominguez’s testimony, I asked what specific trust-building measures he, City Council, or the LCPD had taken to improve trust between the public and the police after that 15 June meeting.  The Mayor’s answer was a few steps which, however, existed before that meeting but none taken after it.  Regardless, they have not worked.  It is plain that other measures must be considered and the promising ones adopted.  But it is not plain to the Mayor, who impedes discussion.

 

The Mayor’s answers raise three questions.  Why does the Mayor insist on silence and resist action on public safety?  When it comes to police reform, what does he fear so much that he does not want City Council or citizens to even discuss it?  Will failed leadership define his legacy after four terms in office?

WHY ARE LCPD OFFICERS IMPERVIOUS TO TRAINING? WHY DOES IT MATTER IF THEY ARE?

Obviously, they are.  In 2022, Police Chief Miguel Dominguez expressed surprise that Officer Jared Gosper failed to use de-escalation techniques after, so he said (untruthfully, as usual), over 70 hours of such training when he shot and killed Sra. Amelia Baca shortly after arriving on the scene.

 

At the institutional level, LCPD officers become impervious to training because it is not taken seriously by either instructors or trainees.  It is delivered perfunctorily and received indifferently.  And conduct contrary to training is not disciplined.  Gosper’s behavior leading to his killing of Sra. Baca was contrary to training, yet Gosper has never been charged for murder (or anything else, for that matter) and has long since been returned to duty.  The lesson is clear; training does not work and does not matter.

 

At the individual level, LCPD officers are impervious to training for several reasons.  First, they are not very smart; “dumb cop” is a redundant expression.  Second, they are not well educated.  Third, they are immature.  A recent, desperate recruitment drive to fill LCPD ranks set the bar at age 19 and a high-school education.  Most have had a high-school civics course, but police training stresses loyalty to their partner and the police force, not their oath to uphold state and federal constitutions.  They know less and care less about the law and justice than a pig knows and cares about Sunday.  As automobile insurance companies know, they are a very high risk until age 25 because they lack self-discipline and common sense.  Yet these young people are given a uniform, a badge, and gun—and taught excuses to exonerate abuses: “I thought he had a gun.”

 

Training cannot compensate for these deficiencies.  No students in school, they are no trainees in police academy.  They resent training which requires thinking.  They resent training which is perfunctorily presented and is not reinforced.  They endure it and forget it.  They, men and women alike, resist training which would restrain their conduct and reduce their swagger (for the men, their macho; for women, their efforts at compensation by emulating macho).  The only lesson which they learn is loyalty to the blue; screw the civvies.

 

Consider the no-longer-recent 2021 incident involving Jonathan Strickland.  Upon getting a complaint that he was armed, dangerous, and likely to resist arrest, some of LCPD’s finest went in pursuit, shoved his car to a stop, and fired about 90 bullets at it and some into him.  Of course, as usual, they claimed that they “thought” Mr. Strickland had a gun; of course, as usual, he did not.

 

What “thought” did not occur to them was whether the complaint which they received was a valid one and not a flimsy or false one used to manipulate unthinking police to harm the person complained of.  So they acted precipitously—they love the adrenaline rush of a chase—and they acted recklessly—they enjoy target practice on black men.  I do not know how many officers were involved, but not one, regardless of rank, attempted—forget training; forget policy—to restrain this riot of LCPD officers.

 

Why?  The answer is that stopping to think would minimize the opportunity to have fun being the law-and-order types thought necessary to protect the public regardless of the chances of making some citizens victims of their thoughtless propensity for violence.

 

No less thoughtless are elected officials who tolerate the dishonesty and misconduct of “trained” officers behaving badly.  Since 2019, many of my blogs have detailed my experience with the law enforcement and legal communities about false charges of code violations.  But my experience began with an episode like the one which led police to cripple Mr. Strickland.

 

Neighbors with malice called in two complaints: that I let my dog out to run loose and that I permit a build-up of smelly dog poop in my backyard.  Officer Juan Valles, since departed for Alamogordo, never saw my dogs running loose, never saw or smelled any waste, and never rang my doorbell or otherwise tried to communicate with me.  Still, he ticketed me not only for these two false code violations, but also for three more about defective paperwork despite city records to the contrary.  The similarity: unthinking acceptance of two complaints and bias-based reactions.

 

If elected officials on City Council cared about the honesty and competence of police work—they do not; they allow police auditor OIR rely on police reports biased in their selection and one-sidedness,—they might have urged the City Manager and, through him, the Police Chief to question LCPD practices in response to calls about complaints or for assistance.  Their indifference to honesty and competence has enabled and will continue to enable costly, if not criminal, police misconduct subsidized by millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded settlements.  Thus, in the absence of “real police reform,” persistently opposed for four terms by Mayor Ken Miyagishima and long advocated without agenda or action by Councilor Johana Bencomo, I have been falsely charged, Mr. Livingston has been crippled, and Sra. Amelia Baca has been killed.

 

 

 

NOTE: The NAACP chapter meeting at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Las Cruces Universal-Unitarian Church (Saturday, 18 March, 10:00 am, 2000 South Solano Drive) will feature Mayor Miyagishima.

 

Some possible questions for the Mayor: why have police reform tweaks from the early years of his tenure had no noticeable effect; why does he oppose police reform; why does he oppose a citizens’ review board; and why, in view of many notorious cases recently, does he insist that only one reform can be considered at a time; and, finally, why has neither he nor the City Manager announced and explained the departure of the City Attorney, as departures of senior officials are usually announced and explained.

OIR (Oinks In Review) CONCLUDES THAT LCPD PIGS ARE KOSHER

The City Council Working Session (27 Feb) focused on OIR’s latest audit of the LCPD.  As is common consulting practice—“best practice” it is not—, OIR’s agent Teresa Magula gave the Mayor and the Councilors the favorable report on the LCPD which they wanted to hear and for which they paid many thousands of citizens' dollars.  As Karin Sanchez reports (KFOX14, 1 March) in “Independent auditor found Las Cruces police made changes following past audit,” Magula concluded,

 

“Overall your police department is extremely professional, patient and very commendable in their interactions with the public but as we know it only takes that one instance of officers acting in a manner that is less than professional to put this department in the headlines.”

 

City Council members had to have been pleased by this conclusion because it relieves the pressure for, in Councilor Bencomo’s ardent words, “real police reform” and the proposed Citizens’ Police Oversight Commission.

 

Before returning to the Magula’s presentation, I must say a word or two about Sanchez’s report.  First, she is one local reporter whose writing suggests a lack of facility in any primary language.  Second, like her colleagues elsewhere in the FOX news empire, she omits at least half the news.  Her article said not one word about citizen comments after Magula’s presentation, on OIR’s competency, the limitations of the contract and the audit, and—oh, by the way—police misconduct.  Not to be outdone, Justin Garcia’s more detailed 3 March Sun-News article also omitted any mention of citizen comments.  The autocratic reportorial policies of local media: taxation without representation.

 

The media mantra: bad news is not news.  Not one citizen who addressed City Council commended OIR or the LCPD; all criticized it.  No one spoke truth to these powers-that-be more powerfully than Bobbie Green, President of the local NAACP chapter, or Maria Flores, former chair of the Las Cruces Public Schools board.  Among Green’s pointed remarks was a question, which I paraphrase: how much training does it take to educate an officer not to shoot an old woman who does not understand English.  (The answer is more than 70 hours; Police Chief Miguel Dominguez expressed surprise at Officer Jared Gosper’s fatal shooting of Sra. Amelia Baca because the killer cop had had over 70 hours of de-escalation training.)  Green’s remarks prompted applause by most citizens but no officials or officers.  They may have led NMSU to terminate her employment the day afterwards for no stated cause, perhaps because of structural institutional hostility to outspoken critics, perhaps because of lobbying by resentful political or police personnel.

 

Several citizens commented that the OIR audit was, in effect, a fraud.  They noted that the LCPD selected the cases made available to OIR for review—the bias of selection by the interested party.  They noted that the cases reflected only police accounts of events—the bias of perspective: one side of two sides of the story.  They noted that OIR did not contact any of the citizens involved in the cases—the bias of omitted evidence.  Yet City Council has approved of OIR’s police audits despite these fatal flaws in three consecutive contracts.

 

Nevertheless, OIR agent Magula was unembarrassed to conclude that “interactions with the public” were “extremely professional, patience, and very commendable.”  With pleasing casual indifference to the facts, her conclusion reflects the abject prostitution of OIR’s self-proclaimed professionalism.  The price of OIR’s integrity in offering up this client-pleasing report was about $75,000.  City Council is now considering whether to continue to buy fulsome praise.  But, in view of strong criticism, they could fear that more public scrubbings will prompt more such public drubbings by citizens rightly outraged by a Mayor and six Councilors who are too politically weak, morally lost, and personally craven to make public safety and, with a nod to Bencomo, any kind of police reform a priority.

 

I must add, sadly because I have been a life-long feminist, that this all-female set of councilors, a first in Las Cruces, far from improving Las Cruces government, has only continued its mediocrity.  When it comes to public responsibilities, these Las Cruces women, led by Mayor Pro-Tem Kasandra Gandara, have offered nothing more or better than Las Cruces men, only a local instance of gender equality.