The Piercing Truth

This is right from the dictionary and seems to describe Albuquerque, Berry and Schultz. Fascism (f ash ,izem) noun An authoritarian right wing system of government and/or social organization. (in general use) extreme right wing, authoritarian, chauvinistic and/or intolerant views or practices. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one group over another, national, ethnic, especially social strata or monetarily; a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. Compliments of one of our Eyes

Jun 5, 2008

Bad News

We've been watching the story of APD officer Daniel Guzman as it developed over the weekend and this week. If you haven't heard about the story or had the opportunity to view the raw footage of the incident you can view it here.

Obviously, the video doesn't show all of the events leading up to the incident so there's probably a bit more to this than can be seen on the tape. We also know that the media (including certain bloggers - just ask the 5th floor) can be pushy and obnoxious.
(Sidebar)
It turns out that Foley had two incidents with APD officers in just two days. The first was an assist where he found a vehicle wanted in connection with an ATM smash and grab. The second was the incident with Officer Guzman (ABQ Journal - Subscription).
(End Sidebar)
However, the incident shows an alarming lack of training and understanding when it comes to dealing with the media. Officer Guzman is a lateral officer from APS police. There's little doubt that he has little or no experience dealing with media and his 13 months at APD obviously haven't significantly added to that experience.

One thing to always remember, if there's a camera around, you better assume that the thing is recording everything you say and do. The other thing to remember is that if that camera is connected to a media outlet and happens to record the type of incident that Rick Foley's camera recorded, you can bet that it'll be played until the tape falls apart.

Look, news photographers and reporters can legally go anywhere that the public is allowed to go. Further, photographers can shoot anything in view and that includes you if you happen to be in their field of view. If an officer needs them to go to a specific location (or get out of one) - the order needs to be clear, concise, and respectful. Otherwise you're just looking for trouble.

Like anyone else, the media is required to obey lawful orders from an officer. In fact, it's in their best interest to follow these orders as their life may quite literally depend on it. When a member of the media crosses the line, they deserve to be treated just like any other person. But remember, that camera is rolling and everyone is watching.

In our opinion, this could have been handled better by both parties. KOB's Rick Foley could have been more diplomatic as he was a bit "cheeky" popping off to Officer Guzman saying "was that so hard?" On the other hand, Guzman should have been smarter than to take a photographer into custody by attacking him as a first course of action. If an officer keeps their head about them, that camera can be their friend too.

We don't know what fueled last week's confrontation... Poor training, APD's lowered recruitment standards, fatigue from the Chief's 5/8 schedule or just an overzealous news photographer pushing too far and crossing the line. What we do know is that the incident makes the department and Officer Guzman look bad and that it never had to go down that way. In other words, it's just bad news.

78 comments:

Anonymous said...

"EYE" you usually have right most of the time....? Please enlighten us! What line was crossed by the Photographer? Now "EYE" you are pandering to APD. Film doesn't lie. Officer Guzman knew exactly what he was going to do when he started walking over to the cameraman i.e. (hands in pockets, bladed body stance, trying to avoid being filmed by the camera once in arms length). If that set officer Guzman off I don't want to know what he does to drunk beligerent people, or any other situation he may be faced with. I don't buy the arguement "I/You don't know the job or stresses of a(n) officer.....! You are right I don't nor do I want to. Officers of this city have 2 options either act Proffesionaly, and with tact or quit. APD is not a career for the inept, disgruntled, and emotionally unfit. PERIOD. The next time APD takes responsiblity for anything will be the first. Evidence Room, Grandman run over, homeless lady hit, no show on a domestic violence call (dead pregnant mother). Lie to someone who doesn't know better.

Anonymous said...

I have never done anything but support officers even those caught on video - but this was off the hook. Terminate

Anonymous said...

APD has lowered its standards when it comes to hiring lateral officers. Schultz and Marty own this. I can't say anything bad about the reporter. This is America and you are allowed to act like a pee pee if you want to. That said I find complete fault with Guzman. Once you put the badge on you are expected to have thicker skin. This officer's actions were entirely out of line. If he is still on probation APD should look at whether they should keep him as an officer.

Schultz has fired a lot of officers, but he has also hired these bad officers. I think Schultz needs to go. He has created a huge problem at APD. Morale is low and Schultz has hired some very bad apples. Marty needs to give Ray his walking papers.

casual observer said...

I am bugged that you seem to suggest that Foley bore some responsibility just because he mouthed off.

Although one can understand how that figured into what eventually happened, it in no way justified it.

You cannot physically attack some just because they shoot their mouth off.

bad cop-no doughnut

Anonymous said...

Fire that cameraman and promote Guzman!

Anonymous said...

The cameraman got exactly what he deserved. He showed no respect for police. Where I come from you respect cops, or get ready to have your a## handed to you.
good job guzman.

Anonymous said...

This is another example of the arrogance of APD. These people should not be wearing badges. Can you imagine what happens to the average guy when these things are not recorded? I think some police officers forget that they enforce the laws and are not the law. The public should respect the badge and not fear it.

Anonymous said...

C'mon the cameraman needs a break. It's not like he was shining his light while a murdered was out and about....oops he was! Oh yeah, and let's judge the entire actions of an officer based off of 20 seconds of video...that's not ignorant.

Anonymous said...

That's what happens when you push cadets onto the streets way too fast. Quality goes down. It's the dept's fault for not taking longer to train officers. Instead, they just rush them through for the numbers!

Anonymous said...

The first poster brought up a lot of recent issues that alone don't seem to set a pattern, but when you put them all together you have to wonder what is going on at APD. I had forgotten about most of these incidents, but now I hope that somebody in the media (Foley from KOB?) will do a story going over each incident and APD's total lack of response and responsibility.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it ironic that the cops don't like cameras on them but they don't seem to have any problems with watching the population at large through all the cameras being put up around town.

Anonymous said...

Guzman should be tried for being the criminal that he is ... you be the judge ... the video speaks for it self .... if anyone looks at this differently than what it is .... you are the enemy and not a supporter of justice!

Anonymous said...

It would seem that Officer Guzman would be better suited to wear a white t-shirt, red suspenders with a matching set of red show laces in his Doc Martins after what I saw. That was damn near close to a boot party....
Guzman is a jack booted thug with a badge

Anonymous said...

After first reading the "eye" report, then the interesting comments by readers, I watched the footage. A few things come to mind as I think about this. First, Law Enforcement is expected to act in accordance with the law - statute as dictated by State and Local Elected Officals. So, the question is; did this Officer act reasonably and in accordance with the law in his handling of this matter? Second, Citizens are also expected to act in accordance with the very same laws. Did Foley act resonably and in accordance with the law?
In my opinion Foley acted in a manner that is disrespcetful of the authority a Law Enforcement Officer commands. Had Foley chosen to act this way with his co-workers back at the TV station I suppose that there would be no legal consequenses. My sense is that he probably does tend to be a smart ass given the evidence shown on his camera, which by the way, he refers to as a defensive weapon stating on tape that he held on to it only to keep from being hit by this Officer. However, Foley did refuse to vacate even after getting the information he needed, not once but several times, during which he disresped the Officer(s) on-scene with his cutting remarks. Is there a scale with which remarks are guaged? I don't really know, however, had he taken this same disrespectful tone in a State or Municipal Judges Court, asking the Judge "was that so hard" and demanding the Judges name and ID number I imagine that contempt of court would be next for Foley. Several times Foley refused to obey the Officers order to vacate, he resisted the Officer once confronted, he admitted that his camera was his weapon against the Officer, then whined once cuffed. Could the Officer have acted differently, yes. Could he have ignored Foley's disregard for the law, yes. Could he have let Foley continue his abusive tone and demands for information the Officer is not obligated to give, yes. Comparing this to how the Officer might act with a drunk or other law breaker is unfair. In this case there is documented evidence of what happened that night. I belive that not only should the Officer's handling of the situation be reviewd by his superiors, so too should the actions of this news photographer be reviewed and his continued employment at News 4, which by the way, also has a tremendous resonsibility to the public to act reasonably and in accordance with the law at all times while doing their work, be considered. In the end, Foley will have his day in front of the Judge - will he act with greater regard for the authority of the Court? Or, will he ask the judge in a snide and inmature way "was that so hard"?

Anonymous said...

Didn't this kid have a supervisor out that night? Wasn't he calling his supervisor many times regarding this camerman? Didn't the supervisor tell him to "take any means necessary" to remove him? Sounds like there is a lot to blame to go around. Foley is a turd, plain and simple. He needs to go photograph Britney he will fit right in that group.

Channel 4 is always last in the ratings why?? Well here is one answer.

Re-Train, discipline the officer, discipline the supervisor for lack of supervision, and don't let Foley or Channel 4 in on any 'breaking news' stories.

Anonymous said...

I believe the cameraman was on a public street. He was outside of the crime scene, because the crime tape was in front of him. That means he had every right to be where he was at. Should he talk nicer to the police, well I think so, but in this country you have the right to be a smart ass (just look at the postings from police officers on this blog).

Once Foley was directed where to go Guzman could have walked away from the snide comments. That is what we do. Police have to have thicker skins. Comparing talking to a cop at a crime scene to a judge is comparing apples and oranges. Cops are not judges. Sure we would like everyone to repect us and treat us nice, but that is not the way it happens. If this ever goes to court, which I doubt, this case will be tossed out. And you can't mouth off to a judge because that is contempt of court which is an offense. You can mouth off to a cop because last time I looked at the statute there was no contempt of cop on the books. And come on Foley's comment was nothing compared to things I have had yelled at me in my police career. Something is wrong at APD and the chief owns it.

Instead of trying to defend Guzman's actions by shifting blame to the media guy, why don't we take responsibility for Guzman's actions and fix them? Doesn't that sound like the better thing to do? Let KOB handle what belongs to them and let APD handle what belongs to them.

Anonymous said...

I think Guzman represents his brothers (and Sisters) in arms. Just a day before this incident, the front page of the Albuquerque Journal said the men in blue were going to increase inforcement on the public criminals by "turning up the heat"(those who use cell phones, no seat belt's, play your radio too loud, military check points, etc). APD was planning to use every tool possible (helicopters, Bicycles, horses, weapons, etc) Personally, I am tired of them not respecting the U.S. Constitution! I don't think I want to be kissing someone's ass when I am one of many who make their job possible. I pay my taxes and don't like being harrassed or abused for doing my part in return.

Anonymous said...

ahhhh ..... that's what we need ...... more bully's in the police department ....... cops used to be regular people ...... now they think themselves above the law.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget Rick Foley is a retired officer, he knows (or should know) what the rules are and how far to push them. If he pushed it to the limit, and then Guzman lost his shit, then they are both at fault.
Although, I'd rather deal with an asshole photographer, than a badge heavy cop.

more scared of the commentors, than the police, for now said...

I find it frightening that so many people believe that a sassy mouth warrants a violent physical assault.

Do you people really believe the crap you write; or are just writing this stuff to stir the pot?

What Guzman did was wrong, wrong, wrong. And if we tolerate this kind of police work; things will only get worse; the next assault will be cause a photographer gave a cop a dirty look.

And the one after that will be because he looked a cop in the eye instead of groveling.

And at that point there will be no way to undo it.

Anonymous said...

Guzman got on the air several times that night advising his supervisors that the cameraman was refusing to go to the staging area. A high ranking supervisor finally got tired of hearing Guzman asking what to do do with the pesky camerman & the supervisors response was "take appropriate action if he is refusing to do what he's told".

The next thing we heard on the air was Hamby asking what channel the reporter was from. Then Guzman shortly after, asks for a supervisor to his location apparently because of the inevitable arrest.

The only thing Guzman did wrong is to not identify himself on video, however he did identify himself on the tape prior to this which was edited by KOB. Too bad KOB doesn't wanna show the entire tape from start to finish and not just the portion benefiting their ratings.

Give both of the parties daytime emmy awards for their parts in this soap opera and lets all go back to work.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but Guzman was wrong, I am a 34 that does not care for the media. But the actions of Guzman gave us all a black eye. We are held to a higher standard and even if a drunk was mouthing off at us, it is our job to realize that the alcohol is doing the talking for the idiot we are dealing with. Remember Verbal Judo? It is very useful and has de-escalated a great many situations that I have had. Some of the people leaving comments make it seem like it is a battle of, " Who has bigger balls." but it is not. It is like a game of chess and to see who can out wit the other one. In this case, if Guzman was so worried about a shooter running around, then he needs a lesson in officer safety. If he was so concerned with the shooter he should have been watching his surroundings instead of leaning into another patrol car talking to the driver. I agree there is more to it than what we see on TV, but as soon as Foley realized he was about to get it, you could hear the tone change, Guzman should have realized that and let Foley go to the staging area. If we want the public to trust us, we don't need Officer's like Guzman doing stupid things. Here is some advice, don't give the media any ammunition to work with! If you watch what you do, do your job correctly and obey the rules while off duty as well, the media has nothing to report.

Anonymous said...

Here we go again talking about 1st Amendment rights and Freedom of the Press.

Foley had every right to be where he was, it was a public street. He could have been all the way up to the crime scene tape. If the cops at the scene didn't like it then they should have extended the crime scene tape.

Guzman was wrong and should be fired. If not he's going to be a 20-year problem for APD and cost the City allot of money. Sure Foley mouthed off, but what's Guzman going to do when having to deal with real criminals mouthing off, shoot 'em?

I hope Foley and Channel-4 sue the city over this one. That was a blantant violation of Freedom of the Press.

Anonymous said...

I was there that night on a perimeter post just down the street from Guzman. Foley was being a cock from the beginning. Does the tape look bad, yes. Does it show Foley before he turned the camera on, no. Every other media group went to the proper staging area where they were told to go. Foley decided to do what he wanted and got dealt with. He didnt suffer any injuries, there was no excessive force, no pain and suffering, just a tree hugging camera man who got his feelings hurt.

Anonymous said...

I'm assuming that some of you were out sick when you attended the academy on the days they taught constitutional law, the use of force continuum and the distinction between exactly what side of an outer perimeter the public is allowed to be on?

respects ALL good cops said...

Does anybody care that Guzman had no right to tell Foley to go ANYWHERE.

If Foley wanted to go to a media staging area he had that right. If he didn't want to go there, he had that right also.

There is inside the tape, and there is outside the tape. Foley was not allowed inside the tape. The whole rest of the world outside the tape was fair game.

Guzman doesn't belong in a uniform and carrying a gun, and neither does any other cop who thinks what he did was justified.

He is a stain on all of your uniforms.

And to all of the other cops,
you have my deepest respect and gratitude.

Thank you for your (under control) service to your community.

clean your own house first said...

one of the marks of a professional is that they clean their own ranks.

Loyalty above all else; except honor.

Decent and good cops should not be making excuses for Guzman;

and they are not.

The cops who are; are not good cops, and should be standing beside Guzman, from the outside looking in.

Anonymous said...

Was Foley in your crime scene? NO. That means he doesn't have to go to the staging area if he doesn't want to. Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

Anonymous said...

Do ANY of you young guys know Foley's past history? Let's just say if there had been gunfire in the air, he would have run like hell in the other direction AND left the cops behind. Once a chicken shit, always a chicken shit. Good job Guzman but next time chill a little bit.

Anonymous said...

KOB's tape showed the officer repeating commands over and over. The photographer was mouthing off to the cop and was being real obnoxious trying to shoot the scene to get shots that other stations couldn’t get. The photographer was ignoring his commands.

The video clearly showed that the photographer shined the bright camera light right in the officer’s eyes at least three times – causing a huge safety risk prohibiting the cop from seeing any potential danger in front of him or around his surroundings. Mind you -- two suspects that were involved with the earlier officer shooting were still on the loose, only one had been found.

The photographer hit, pushed, or shoved the officer back twice – clearly, you don’t do that to an officer. The photographer starts yelling out saying the officer was going to break his $50K camera and yelled that what he was doing was not illegal. While it may not be illegal to shoot footage from a public street, it IS illegal to disobey commands from a police officer. Then, another female officer’s voice appears on the footage and she tells the photographer to put down his camera and the photographer says, “No ma’am, I won’t put it down, it’s the only thing protecting me. It’s a $50K camera!” -- Again, disobeying another officer’s commands.

APD said they wouldn’t comment until the situation was fully investigated, yet told KOB that the officer has only been out on the streets for 7 months – leading everyone to automatically assume that the officer is in the wrong without investigating the FULL story first. I feel bad for the police officer because I think APD is going to make an example out of him. But, I’m not convinced he was completely in the wrong.

Perhaps the officer could have given one last clear command to the photographer and said, “Sir, I have asked you repeatedly to move to the media staging area and you have chosen to ignore my commands. I will be forced to detain you if you do not move immediately.” Hopefully, the officer had his recorder on, because all we know is what was captured on the video.

Unfortunately, because it was a news station, APD will likely need to do a lot of PR work in the next few weeks because of this incident. I’m sure KOB will definitely keep the public “up-to-date” on this situation they encountered.

The Viking said...

Is this the same Rick Foley that ran out of a bar in a gun fight leaving Webb to fight it out by himself???? that would explain why he was shaking like a leaf when he was being cuffed...next time you see the footage and it shows his legs, you can see his shorts shaking... Guzman was wrong, but Foley you know better, maybe you would not have been arrested had you ran as fast as you did when you left Webb in a fight for his life.

Anonymous said...

"KOB's tape showed the officer repeating commands over and over."

Are you sure you watched the same video tape everyone else did? I did not hear any commands other than directions for the stageing area.

Not one single command!

Anonymous said...

You idiots think its THE Rick Foley of former APD ranks but its not. Same name not the same person.

Even THE Rick Foley would know better than to mouth off to a rookie! No-one wants the beatin that would ensue.

Once again no one wants to get facts straight just blurt out silliness!

Anonymous said...

"I'm assuming that some of you were out sick when you attended the academy on the days they taught constitutional law, the use of force continuum and the distinction between exactly what side of an outer perimeter the public is allowed to be on?"

You may not have gone far enough - for those of us who have not attended the Academy it would help if you would please explain your comment and how it relates to this incident. What is the law regarding disobeying a Law Enforcement Officers commands, resisting arrest, and interfering with a police investigation? You sound as though you are an APD Officer, so it would be interesting to hear what you have to say.

"Guzman got on the air several times that night advising his supervisors that the cameraman was refusing to go to the staging area. A high ranking supervisor finally got tired of hearing Guzman asking what to do do with the pesky camerman & the supervisors response was "take appropriate action if he is refusing to do what he's told".

The next thing we heard on the air was Hamby asking what channel the reporter was from. Then Guzman shortly after, asks for a supervisor to his location apparently because of the inevitable arrest.

The only thing Guzman did wrong is to not identify himself on video, however he did identify himself on the tape prior to this which was edited by KOB. Too bad KOB doesn't wanna show the entire tape from start to finish and not just the portion benefiting their ratings."

This sounds like it came from someone who may also be ADP - Which is right? How many commands is the public allowed - what is protocol for use of force in this instance?

Anonymous said...

Why does anyone feel they need to command me ... and that I need to obey you? Especially if I'm not breaking any laws?

Anonymous said...

What a moron, to start slamming a retired APD cop. You are an idiot and this is not the same Rick Foley. How low has the rank and file on APD gone to start bad mouthing an officer from a shooting that took place over 20 years ago. Post your name, coward if you are going to slam retired officer Rick Foley.

As far as the other officer who continues to defend Guzman's actions what don't you get that just because Guzman told him where the staging area was, the cameraman did not have to go if he did not want to? If you are an officer you need to go back to the Academy and review your constitutional law and what is the appropriate use of force. Foley was not in the crime scene, that means he can go anywhere he wants to. All Guzman had to do was tell him where to go and walk away. Hell he didn't even have to tell him where to go, all he needed to do was protect the crime scene.

If you are an APD officer then APD really needs some refresher training.

Anonymous said...

The officers slamming Foley for being a chicken are about as stupid as they get. The KOB cameraman is not a retired APD officer. Geeez you guys on APD are so smart, guess just because the guy has the same name as an retired APD officer then they must be one in the same. What a bunch on investigators you guys are, sic. No wonder APD can't investigate themselves out of a wet paper bag. I am truly ashamed by how low some of you go to bad mouth other APD officers. What in the hell is wrong with you? Why don't you get your facts straight and then really think hard about it before you start shooting off your mouths.

Anonymous said...

Unless you can address me as an equal, we have nothing else to say to each other! Go back to your mirror and bark your commands to someone who will listen to you.

Anonymous said...

Wrong Rick Foley numb nuts...Get ur shit straight B4 you start talking your crap....

more worried by the minute said...

Apparently there is no difference between an order from a police officer, and a lawful order from a police officer.

What if Guzman ordered him to reformat his camera and erase the evidence, should he have done that as well? or get his ass kicked?

Who cares about Foley or his past. None of that plays.

It won't be admissible in court and it shouldn't be admissible in this thread;

except by those who cannot compete in the argument except with that pathetic red herring.

It is generally assumed that a large percentage of those who comment on this blog are police officers.

I have never felt less faith in the APD as a whole than I do now, after reading all of these pathetic justifications for obvious misconduct.

Loyalty above all else, except honor.

Is there no honor in the APD anymore.

Where are the good cops?

Anonymous said...

Responding to 6-09-08 8:09 PM post.

I am not now nor have I ever been an Albuquerque police officer and I am not in any way associated with any government entity in New Mexico. I have no inside knowledge of this incident.
Let's go over what we know and try and to piece together what occurred. Before the film started, a pissing match between Guzman and Foley obviously took place.
"Guzman got on the air several times advising his supervisor a cameraman was refusing to go to the staging area." This appears to be a case of if you see something written enough on the internet, you accept it as truth. But when the camera starts rolling, you see Guzman approach Foley and provide the location of the press staging area. Foley says something like "There, was that so hard". You get the idea that Foley never knew before that second exactly where the staging area was, so how could he refuse to go there.
But he obviously pissed off Guzman with that remark. Guzman starts stalking and sizing up the cameraman a few seconds later, looking for an opening to attack and, IMO, putting the cameraman in fear. In fact, the last words Foley says before there is contact between the two is "I'm not putting the camera down until you......". My belief is that Foley was about to say "until you back off" or something to that effect.
If I was Joe Citizen and came out in the middle of the night to watch the show, would I have been allowed to be in that location (outside the perimeter)? Daaa, yes.
If Guzman was concerned about his safety by having a camera light shined in his face he should have told the cameraman that and walked back to the perimeter position he had set up. But wait. That position is directly under a street light. Was Guzman any safer under a street light on the perimeter than he was under a camera light 200 feet outside the perimeter?
Regarding the use of force continuum, Guzman skipped a few steps, like trying to provide some direction to Foley (put the camera down, turn aroundand put your hands on the car, yada yada). You get the picture.
In the greater scheme of things, this incident is not that big of a deal. Sure you got a bad arrest, but there were no injuries or anything. The cameraman got his feelings hurt for the most part.
The bigger issue is that you have a PO on the street who lacks an understanding of the law, does not play well with others and under minimal stress resorts to thugery.
And he's dumb enough to engage in this conduct KNOWING that he is on film!
Not knowing what the probationary period is on APD, if he is on probation I could see him being terminated. If not, perhaps a 30 day rap would do.

Anonymous said...

Very insightful and well written post (June 10, 2008 10:41:00AM). I totally agree you. It's unfortunate that the situation occurred, but it did. Hindsight is 20/20 and both of them could have handled it better.

Anonymous said...

I found 10:41 a good read as well.
very well done.

It is a shame that no one will just leave it at "Guzman made a mistake" but always have to add; Foley did to.

It's kind of like saying a woman who gets raped, deserves to be raped if they dressed up.

Anonymous said...

Oh, come on. It's not that simple. That's why people say Foley made a mistake too.

It's also like saying only one person is at fault for a road rage incident. Yes, there is always an agressor, but it takes two people to have a road rage incident transpire. Someone gets angry, someone takes it to the next level, the other person's emotions escalate, then both parties are in the wrong. While Guzman may have been the agressor, Foley could have also handled it better as well. Hopefully, BOTH are held accountable for their actions.

Rick Foley said...

The KOB Camera man Rick Foley is NOT the same retired APD Officer Rick Foley FYI

Anonymous said...

"ABQ Citizen wrote:
§ 12-2-19 RESISTING, OBSTRUCTING OR REFUSING TO OBEY AN OFFICER.
Resisting, obstructing or refusing to obey an officer consists of either:
(A) Knowingly obstructing, resisting or opposing any officer of this state or any other duly authorized person serving or attempting to serve or execute any process or any rule or order of any of the courts of this state or any other judicial writ or process; or
(B) Resisting or abusing any judge, magistrate or peace officer in the lawful discharge of his duties; or
(C) Refusing to obey or comply with any lawful process or order given by any police officer acting in the lawful discharge of his duties; or
(D) Interfering with, obstructing or opposing any officer in the lawful discharge of his regular and affixed duties.
__________
Very simply
-Traffic Stop
-Suspect exits vehicle and fires handgun at officers
-Officers return fire
-Suspect is hit, but still mobile
-Suspect runs and hides in the nearby neighborhood
-Officers set up a perimeter to contain the already violent suspect, armed with a handgun
-Channel 4 Cameraman (with full access to a police scanner) arrives on scene and is advised to back away from the perimeter
-Cameraman becomes confrontational, distracting the officer from his primary job responsibility of assisting to contain an armed suspect, and is given a lawful order to leave the vicinity
-Cameraman demands the location of the media staging area (information he could obtain himself by calling 242-COPS and requesting the information).
-Officer does not immediately know, but returns to the patrol unit to obtain the information for the Cameraman.
-Officer provides location to the Cameraman and issues an additional lawful order for the Cameraman to leave immediately.
-Cameraman continues to argue with the officer, distracting the Officer with the camera light.
-Officers contact the on-scene supervisor on the radio and advise of the issue.
-Supervisor advises Officer to remove the Cameraman
-Officer returns and issues a final lawful order for the Cameraman to put his camera away and leave,(KOB video clip begins here) yet the Cameraman continues to engage the officer in dialogue, continuing to backlight the officer toward the armed suspect.
-Officer tells the cameraman to turn of the camera and put it down.
-Cameraman refuses to obey and is wrestled (not beaten as keeps popping up on this page) into custody, using hands only, no chemical or electrical less lethal methods.(KOB Video Clip ends here)
-Cameraman is placed in handcuffs temporarily until a misdemeanor citation is completed.
-Cameraman is un-cuffed and signs the citation.
-Cameraman leaves the scene.
Things to keep in mind...
-Armed gunman is still outstanding...this suspect has already fired rounds at police officers and it is later determined that the suspect has an outstanding warrant for homicide. Deputy McGrane sound familiar?
-The police cars in the background of the video shot are the opposite side of the perimeter, placing the officer and cameraman within 1 city block of the center of the perimeter.
-The officers are held liable for what happens within a scene. If shots are fired, citizen is struck, the liability falls on the officer if they had a reasonable opportunity to procure the safety of the citizen. The reason for having citizens stay inside of their houses in the area as well, minimizing the risk to the community, while maximizing limited resources to accomplish the task at hand in a timely manners, without having to waste resources doing crowd control."

Found this on the KOB comment section. I think it provides a more realistic summary of the incident.

To: June 10, 2008 2:02:00 PM MDT - you minimize the facts with your tendency to defend the actions of the photographer by inserting your assumptions. Despite being insightful and a good read - you are misguided.

To: June 10, 2008 3:58:00 PM MDT

"It's kind of like saying a woman who gets raped, deserves to be raped if they dressed up."

No - it's not anything like that...

To: June 7, 2008 4:11:00 PM MDT
Who wrote;
"Once Foley was directed where to go Guzman could have walked away from the snide comments. That is what we do. Police have to have thicker skins. Comparing talking to a cop at a crime scene to a judge is comparing apples and oranges. Cops are not judges. Sure we would like everyone to repect us and treat us nice, but that is not the way it happens. If this ever goes to court, which I doubt, this case will be tossed out. And you can't mouth off to a judge because that is contempt of court which is an offense. You can mouth off to a cop because last time I looked at the statute there was no contempt of cop on the books. And come on Foley's comment was nothing compared to things I have had yelled at me in my police career. Something is wrong at APD and the chief owns it."

This, from an Officer? Is this the way statute reads? see above
§ 12-2-19 RESISTING, OBSTRUCTING OR REFUSING TO OBEY AN OFFICER. Seems to imply that Judges and Law Enforcement Officers command a similar level of respect for their authority. Maybe something is wrong at APD.......

so what? said...

fine, hold them both accountable;

just don't try to argue that a police officer is fully expected not to attack someone because they are running their mouth.

It isn't against the law.

Anonymous said...

Good God there's more than one of them? The world is not ready. LOL

Anonymous said...

How can we have honor or integrity on APD when our police administration is as bad as it can get! They set the worse example possible. However, we still hold our heads up and do what we can to keep what little respect the public has for APD.

Once all the bad apples in top management our gone, we can rebuild our dept with leader's that have integrity and ethics!

ched macquigg said...

Mark Bralley sorts it all out, for those with an interest.
http://mgbralley-whatswrongwiththispicture.blogspot.com/2008/06/apd-sop-rights-of-onlookers.html

Anonymous said...

That is scary if there is two of them. The Journal reported it in black and white that is was Rick Foley retired APD..not that the journal is any near credible..i'm just saying.
Will the real Rick Foley please stand up, shut up or run away?

Anonymous said...

"-Officer returns and issues a final lawful order for the Cameraman to put his camera away and leave,(KOB video clip begins here) yet the Cameraman continues to engage the officer in dialogue, continuing to backlight the officer toward the armed suspect.
-Officer tells the cameraman to turn of the camera and put it down.
-Cameraman refuses to obey and is wrestled (not beaten as keeps popping up on this page) into custody, using hands only, no chemical or electrical less lethal methods.(KOB Video Clip ends here)"


Really? REALLY?? Are you even watching the same video, or are you watching some secret APD version of the video? AT NO TIME did Guzman tell Foley to put the camera down or turn it off. At not time did Foley "refuse" to obey. Yeah, Foley screwed up here too; he should have just kept his mouth shut and moved to another location. But it is absolutely crystal clear in the video that Guzman was on the offensive when he attacked Foley, and not the other way around. I don't care how you try to spin it, the video doesn't lie.

If I arrested every person that mouthed off to me, I'd have a helluva lot more 16's and cites than I could deal with. It is plain as day in the video that Guzman was sizing Foley up the minute he started talking back. Contempt of cop took over, and as soon as he turned his back, Guzman went on the offensive. The video doesn't lie. Guzman was clearly the agressor, and in the wrong. He should be fired.

Anonymous said...

It could have been handled by ignoring FOley's dumb ass and working the perimeter security-or at most shouting the location of staging area to him and then going back into perimeter security task.
Foley on the other hand would have been a great victim of Karma had the offender run out of the darkness and grabbed him as a hostage.

Anonymous said...

I've been a cop for a few years, never seen the city code of disobeying a lawful order stand up. I've seen it plead out with other charges, no additional time tho, that's a law that is abused and has no teeth.

Anonymous said...

Guzman is a hot head, he should lose his job for this. He knew he was going to assault the cameraman and not even try to arrest him, hence the sneaking around the camera view.

Anonymous said...

Abq Citizen

Please compare your purported time line to the video tape and stop posting your nonsense.

Anonymous said...

First off: the Academy trains the s*%t out of their recruits and the training staff there is outstanding, so we can't blame anything on them. Second: it's illegal to blind a deer in the headlights when you go hunting so why can't the same theory be applied here? Foley was blind-sighting Guzman, that's so obvious.
Having said that, Guzman's skin needs to thicken as he goes out in the streets, so that punks like Foley don't get to him. (Easy for me to say, right???) But if he's a good cop APD will want to give him some re-training and keep him as a proby for a while longer. He just slipped up and Foley wasn't even hurt, just tossed around. Foley was acting the fool and needed to have his ass mildly kicked, and Guzman obliged. Simple.

Anonymous said...

"I've been a cop for a few years, never seen the city code of disobeying a lawful order stand up. I've seen it plead out with other charges, no additional time tho, that's a law that is abused and has no teeth."

For the person who posted the above either you just charge persons with what you think sounds right or you just have no knowledge of city code or state statute. I've charged persons with both city code and state statute and have won both with bench and jury trials. It's a matter of knowing and applying the law. If you're not doing so then maybe you should accompany Guzman in some refresher training.

Anonymous said...

Bralley shows a pic of Foley on his blog, it sure aint the APD Foley.

Anonymous said...

The statute for Resisting an officer is not the same as if a judge finds a person in contempt of his/her courtroom.

Foley did not do anything that violated the Resisting statute.

A contempt charge is specific for judges and courtrooms. If there is a judge or DA on this website please explain to ABQ citizen what the difference is.

Anonymous said...

Just because you might wear a uniform doesn't automatically mean that "whatever you say" is a lawful command, nor should you assume that any citizen has disobeyed anything. I hope you never push, shove, or "mildly" kick, handcuff, inconvenience, or wrongfully detain me for any amount of time ...... EVER! The law enforcement department need to be more respectful to others. Especially if you expect the same in return.

Anonymous said...

Geez, you people get so worked up over this stuff. Guzman shouldn't have lunged at the photographer. Foley shouldn't have mouthed off. You all shouldn't clump all APD officers into 1-type of person (or department) based on this incident. Foley should be allowed to stand (or film) whereever the public is allowed to stand. If APD doesn't want him there, then the perimeter should be extended.

Neither one should be fired. Not the cop. Not the photographer. Maybe both should have to get some re-training, but not fired. Nobody got hurt. No one spent the night in jail. No equipment got broken.

Get over it.

Anonymous said...

Please, everyone knows the academy is a joke now. The officer safety and defensive tactics training is gone. I see it every time at scenarios...lets be honest

Anonymous said...

Please, everyone knows the academy is a joke now. The officer safety and defensive tactics training is gone. I see it every time at scenarios...lets be honest


You are a joke, the Academy hasn't dropped their standards and the training is top notch. Since you are at scenarios, maybe it's the FTO's..... geeeez rook get a clue/

Anonymous said...

Police officers are hired to uphold the law. When they give you direction, it's for a purpose. Ignore it, and there are consequences. Do you expect them to act like most of the parents these days? Send the child to the corner or to your room whre you have several games and and other means of entertainment. Spare the rod, spoil the child.

Anonymous said...

I think police officers should treat an adult, like an adult .... My kids are not criminals, and they were raised without harrassment or intimidation ..... I don't think that is an unreasonable request to those who represent the "law" and who agree to "protect" me from actual criminals!

Anonymous said...

"My kids are not criminals"

That's what Astorga's parents are saying...same with the families of those incarcerated.

The majority of law enforcement officers will treat people with respect as long as those individuals respect the law. To have it any other way means doing away with law enforcement. Then who will the citizens call for assistance, or should we just go to a society of vigilanties?

To many are painting this with a broad stroke. There are bad bankers, politicians, chefs, plumbers, teachers, etc... Should we get rid of all in those professions or mandate retraining of all?

Reality people, it's something that is lacking in the population of Albuquerque and New Mexico.

Anonymous said...

Deputy James McGrane was a good cop! He has my full respect, and I was sad to hear what happened to him. He was someone who treated me, personally, with respect. Unfortunately, that can not be said for all cops. Still, I don't need a "Daddy or Mommy" figure speaking to me when I am in the presence of a police officer. I put my pants on one leg at a time .... just like you!

Anonymous said...

All cops don't respect the law yet most people, including me, would like to think they do. Some officers think they are the law, or above the law. Anyone who believes that all cops are truly concerned with public safety, and welfare deceives and lies to him or herself.

Anonymous said...

Some of us don't need your assistance. We do fine without you.

Anonymous said...

The cop haters come out of the woodwork when there is a scandal involving Law Enforcement. They twist the stories then say things like "cops are not above the law", "cops should have thick skin", "dont treat me like a child". Grow up. Law Enforcement is there to protect your ass,not kiss it.

Anonymous said...

Law Enforcement is also not there to kick your ass, when it is not legal.

If you are an officer you need to reread your constitution, that you swore to uphold on the day you graduated the police academy and were sworn in.

Anonymous said...

"Law Enforcement is there to protect your ass,not kiss it."


It looks like Guzman is not the only one who needs retraining on media/public relations. If this is the prevalent attitude within the department, no wonder the Chief ordered the retraining.

Anonymous said...

I used to think better of you, but have made yourself unlikeable. If you choose to be divded from the rest of society, so be it. I don't remember asking anyone to fight my battles for me (EVER), yet someone has brainwashed you into thinking your job requires you to protect me anyway. I just see you as another citizen trying to make a difference (and a living), most of us do the same thing. And yes, you should refresh your training concerning the U.S. Constitution. It would restore some trust in you by some of us who know it, and see how some pervert and re-adjust the Bill of Rights to support their manner of "law enforcement". We might even call you if we need your assistance.

Anonymous said...

people are more concerned about protecting the rights of those who violated others rights more than they are concerned about protecting the rights of those who are law biding citizens. everyone wants to blame a police officer for doing a job that they were hired and put their lives on the line to do. not all officers are saints. some slip through the cracks and some turn bad after they were hired. the majority of them are out there to do some good. get on the right side. you want justice when someone has done you wrong, but want mercy when you are the wrong doer. if something horrible would have happened to the reporter that was giving so much trouble in the first place then the officer would have been accountable for not getting him out of there by any means necessary. HYPOCRITE!!!

Anonymous said...

Something horrible did happen! .... A reporter was attacked, handcuffed, detained for 90 minutes and cited by a bad cop.... The hypocrite is you my friend! ... Any means? That means Guzman took the law into his own hands any way he wanted to.... he became a judge, jury, and enforcer at the same time where justice was not served … I believe an injustice, and un-lawful act has been done, and displayed for the rest of us to view (you can see the video anywhere). You can interpret it any way you want … God, and our U.S. Constitution allows us think what we will. Thank goodness I have someone else higher than you to judge me. Have a good day!

Anonymous said...

"if something horrible would have happened to the reporter that was giving so much trouble in the first place then the officer would have been accountable for not getting him out of there by any means necessary. HYPOCRITE!!!"

You really can't be serious. If this is written by an APD officer there are serious problems at APD. Our Constitution protects our rights. All police officers swear to uphold the Constitution, did you? If you did swear to uphold it, in your mind does that just mean the parts you like? I really hope you are not an APD officer, if you are you are one who slipped through the cracks.

Anonymous said...

Obviously, there are serious problems in the APD!

If you believe you uphold our U.S. Constitution, then why do you overlook any amendments, for example the 4th amendment which reads; The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?

Do you believe you can search ANYBODY without probable cause, or not acquire a warrant without oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched to do so? Perhaps you are just doing your job and consider everyone who reads the letter of the law different than you a criminal? Perhaps you like to pick and choose which law suits you best.

I’m not sure you uphold what you have sworn to do (nor feel you need to). I’m not sure you follow ALL the rules and perhaps YOU have slipped through the cracks. At this point, I would not be Surprised.