Las Cruces had two rallies on consecutive dates, on Friday, 13 June, and Saturday, 14 June. The first rally, attendees predominately Hispanic, protested ICE and its thuggish apprehension, disappearing, and deporting of people. The second rally, attendees predominantly white, was a “No Kings” protest of President Trump and his administration, mainly for their immigration policy. The first rally had no identified leader, no permit, no coordination with the LCPD; the second rally had what the first rally did not. On Friday, police armed with rifles mounting sniper scopes were stationed on rooftops on buildings overlooking Albert Johnson Park; on Saturday, a few police officers walked around or rode by on motorcycles or in cars.
At the 16 June City Council Meeting, Police Chief Jeremy Story’s story was that the LCPD received threats to the Saturday rally, not to the Friday rally. I would like him to publish those threats; having lied to me about police records, he might now be lying about threats. He said that it would have been foolish to think that the threats to the Saturday rally might not also apply to the Friday rally. That makes sense. What does not make sense is having fewer police less armed and none in fixed positions for the Saturday rally, which was permitted and threatened, than for the Friday rally, which was not permitted or threatened. Story and later Mayor Eric Enriquez stressed the difference between groups having or not having permits, but permits have nothing to do with the relative absence of police on Saturday and their obvious presence on Friday. There are two explanations, both possible simultaneously, for the difference. One is that the police expected trouble from Friday’s protesters, not Saturday’s—which, despite the usual denials, would support the opinion of several speakers that the difference was racist. The other is that the police were signaling that they did not appreciate the anti-ICE position of the protesters—which would align with some speakers’ concerns about the allegiance of the police to the public.
Story, clarifying his words cited in the Albuquerque Journal, also said that the police on the rooftops should have kept their rifles out of sight. The first thing to say about his comment is that it adversely reflects on LCPD training or management. It implies that the rooftop snipers were not properly instructed or supervised for their deployment. From the testimony of several speakers, Story’s comment tells only a small part of the problem. They said that snipers were in tactical dress and that the rifles, presumably loaded, were aimed at the protesters, not held at the ready; they did not say, but they might have, that the rifles were liable to accidental discharge by a finger inside the trigger guard and that the bullets might have struck some protesters. Which again raise questions about police training in the proper handling of firearms in turbulent circumstances and their concern for public safety. Moreover, if the police were supposed to be seen, presumably as a deterrent, but their rifles were not supposed to be seen, the time for the police to recover their rifles, locate targets, aim, and fire might have been too long to do any good. Even so, in readily imagined scenarios, police firing rifles overhead might increase the confusion and panic of the people in the crowd, presumably running to escape danger, and increase the risk of the snipers’ wounding or killing someone in the crowd. Which again raises questions about police training in using rifles in such scenarios.
For all the fine, high-flown talk by Story and Enriquez about the police serving public safety, the police on Friday night were actually, not merely perceived as, a clear and present danger to public safety. Many speakers testified that the police frightened them—evidence that public safety is not working if people fear the police. They also objected to what they perceived as the “militarization” of the police and the “politicalization of public safety”; some questioned whether the LCPD was prone or even preparing to cooperate with federal agencies. Instead of replying to citizen comments—such is Council’s custom—, these officials made appeals to “police patriotism” intended to disarm criticism of the police. Story’s efforts were just pathetic pity-party stuff; after saying that many speakers despise the police, he said that the police would nevertheless continue to serve—a short variant of the old line “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.” Enriquez was worse; he recognized no concerns raised by many speakers and relied entirely on what he claimed were police intentions to ensure public safety. In effect, his words were those of one of the police to a protester asking about their presence on Friday, “Fuck off. Go away.”
Story and Enriquez revealed both Council’s callous indifference to citizen complaints and its lack of a care and its lack of a clue about what constitutes public safety and how to achieve it. When councilors—Mattiace, Graham, Corran, Flores, Bencomo (McClure was absent)—spoke during the time reserved for their comments, only one acknowledged speakers’ feeling of fear of the police, not their feeling of greater safety. That one was Mayor Pro Tem Bencomo, who noted the difference between what Story claimed the police intended and how they actually impacted citizens; she went on to commit to working to develop a protocol for dealing with protests—a very constructive suggestion. (I love giving her credit, probably for the first time.) Bottom line: Council is more dedicated to defending and serving the police who have no idea how to serve the public without scaring them half to death than it is dedicated to the public safety of the people who constitute its constituency.
There is a related story which Story has not told. It is about militarizing the LCPD, thereby making it a threat to public safety, and setting itself up to be an ally of federal law enforcement agencies, including ICE, DHS, FBI, BP, and ATF. Early this year, Story requested that City Council seek half a million dollars from the state to acquire five SWAT vehicles. The nature and size of his request prompts many questions. Why so many? What capabilities? What armaments? What purposes? What scenarios? I addressed some of these questions to Chief Story and got no answers. I asked my Councilor, Cassie McClure, if she could get that information. She sent emails to LCPD officers and got no answers. I doubt that her requests were made in good faith because she did nothing more and did not seem disturbed that LCPD officers had not honored her requests. When I asked her why she voted to support Story’s request, her answer was that she assumed Story had a good reason for it. That assumption reflects her failure to exercise due diligence. I assume that none of the other Councilors exercised due diligence on Story’s request. I have not heard whether the state is going to fund the city’s acquisition of five SWAT vehicles, but LCPD’s possession of them is not going to make anyone in Las Cruces safer or feel safer. I am waiting for Story to tell us another story.