Last Friday, August 17th was scheduled to be the final day of the Doyle v. Ray Schultz labor hearing. If you recall, former APD officer John Doyle is challenging APD’s Chief Ray Schultz’s termination of Mr. Doyle’s employment with APD. The hearing once again failed to conclude as Chief Schultz’s lawyer, Kathy Levy, once again moved to vacate the hearing to a later date. Ms. Levy’s reputation for delaying and failing to comply with deadline precedes her and she is known for her shortcomings (no punt intended) by those who have had to deal with her. But notwithstanding Ms. Levy’s propensity to stall, our Eyes found this unsurprising because the investigator who Chief Schultz assigned to investigate Mr. Doyle was Internal Affairs Sergeant Jason Peck. And that is where fate asserts irony of the greatest order…
On August 6, Sgt. Peck shot a suspect who was involved in an undercover drug deal. Hours later, APD released officer mounted lapel camera footage showing undercover officers struggling with the suspect moments after he had been shot by Sgt. Peck. Despite the fact Chief Schultz and Deputy Chief Paul Feist provided to the press significant details about shooting and released the video PRIOR to completion of the shooting’s investigation and PRIOR to Sgt. Peck’s interview. Our Eyes tell us Sgt. Peck’s incident is eerily familiar to Mr. Doyle’s incident with wanted felon Nicholas Blume. The deputy chief even mentioned the sergeant’s fear of a second suspect and the concern of a possible ambush scenario. In fact, Sgt. Peck’s incident is so similar to Mr. Doyle’s incident we wonder if the City is trying to toss Mr. Doyle’s case because of the uncanny similarities.
You see, our Eyes tell us Sgt. Peck, for reasons unknown, ran up to the car, and as he closed in on the suspect, the undercover detective and the suspect engaged in a physical confrontation. The undercover detective is reported to have alerted Sgt. Peck that the suspect was going for a gun. At this point Sgt. Peck pulled out his gun and shot the suspect in the lower abdomen. Our Eyes tell us that Sgt. Peck states he did not see the gun and relied on the undercover detective’s statements as they struggled in the car. In light of the events it seems Sgt. Peck was reasonable in his actions. However, we wonder why the same consideration is NOT extended to Mr. Doyle. If you recall, then Officer Doyle arrived on scene while then Officer Woolever was on the ground struggling with an identified known and wanted recidivistic felon, Nicholas Blume. Officer Woolever exclaimed to Officer Doyle that Blume was reaching for something in his waistband. Relying on Officer Woolever’s assertions, knowing that Blume was wanted for homicide, along with other multiple violent felonies, was frequently in possession of a gun, considered armed and dangerous, and there was a second outstanding suspect in the immediate vicinity that could have ambushed them, Officer Doyle used the least amount of reasonable force and deployed physical force tactics measured best for the scenario facing him. Despite Chief Schultz’s sworn testimony that Officer Doyle kicked Blume in the head “6-8 times” the now infamous video shows Officer Doyle targeted and repeatedly and intentionally struck Blume in the upper shoulder and arm area. While Sgt. Peck deployed his gun and discharged his firearm against the offender; Officer Doyle maintained a superior position and refrained from exercising deadly force. Given the statements by Chief Schultz and Deputy Chief Feist concerning Sgt. Peck’s shooting, it seems Officer Doyle could’ve deployed his firearm and shot suspected murderer Blume. However, Doyle refrained from deadly force. This restraint clearly showed control as one would expect from an officer with 20 plus years in law enforcement who came from one of the most violent cities in the country to work in Albuquerque. While Sgt. Peck’s actions are hailed as heroic by APD’s 5th Floor, Mr. Doyle’s unblemished reputation is attacked and tarnished by a group of individuals with less police experience, less experience with violent encounters, and a less than ethical motive. As a matter of fact this individual assigned to investigate Mr. Doyle only had only a year in Internal Affairs at the time he was assigned this case, and only a few years of actual street experience. These facts make one wonder why they would assign such an inexperienced sergeant to investigate this case. Additionally, it makes one wonder even more why Chief Schultz would say a 20 plus year commander was incapable of conducting the same investigation. We at the Eye highly doubt Sgt. Peck's police experience even approaches Mr. Doyle's and we know his investigative experience doesn't even come close to that of retired Commander Murray Conrad. It seems that qualifications are not in order when selecting a loyal subject to carry out Schultz's dirty work, only ones willingness to give up all of their integrity to support Schultz and his dirty mission.
Yet, as Sgt. Peck’s actions are hailed as necessary and proper, Officers Doyle and Woolever are fired, and summarily smeared in the media as an example of APD’s police brutality culture. Officer Doyle and Officer Woolever are even tossed to the DOJ in an effort by Chief Schultz to appear “in control” of his department. Now our Eyes tell us Chief Schultz’s attorney has vacated Mr. Doyle’s effort to prove his termination was unjustified if not unlawful. Can anybody else see the double standards here? Can anybody else see the total disparity in treatment by Chief Schultz? Is this how a law enforcement agency is to act by exhibiting bias and prejudicial conduct?
We at the Eye have asked this before and will ask this again, If Chief Schultz acts with such prejudice, bias, and irregularity with his own sworn personnel, how does he act with regular citizens? How does he act when subject to events that truly tests his integrity? I think we all know the sad and painful answers to these serious questions…
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