Residents outraged by deadly standoff
ALBUQUERQUE — On the surface, it seemed like a case that police had no choice but to respond with deadly force: A man barricaded himself inside an Albuquerque home, reportedly threatening his wife and their two children with a gun.
Police sent a SWAT team and a department psychologist to get Armand Martin, a 50-year-old Air Force veteran, to surrender peacefully during a long standoff. His wife, who called 911, told a television station that Martin suffered from depression and “just went crazy.”
Police said Martin came out of the home firing two handguns. An officer opened fire and fatally shot him.
Although the initial facts appear to support officers' use of force, the shooting generated outrage in the city of 550,000 and sparked another angry protest.
Some residents said they have all but lost faith in the police. Angry demonstrators took over the regularly scheduled city council meeting on Monday night — chanting for the ouster of the police chief, shouting at council members and causing so much disruption that the city council president adjourned the meeting.
Critics say the shooting is another example of persistent problems in the city's police department.
“They just can't resolve these engagements peacefully,” said David Correia, an American Studies University of New Mexican professor who helped shut down the city council meeting. “Saturday's shooting just demonstrates the way this department operates.”
Albuquerque police are under tough scrutiny following a harsh report from the Justice Department over use of force and its interaction with suspects struggling with mental illness.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Man caught jumping White House fence
- Judge orders W.Va. agency to release pollution data
- Academic scandal at University of North Carolina bigger than previously reported
- Coast Guard to seek billions to protect Arctic interests
- Security at Capitol questioned
- Immigration work permits could rise under contract
- Social Security recipients to get increase in benefits
- Official’s job at cybersecurity firm vexes NSA
- Ferguson slaying of Brown reconstructed in county autopsy
- Coburn’s final ‘Wastebook’ tallies $25B in what he considers ‘pork’
- Personal use of Secret Service agents on staffer’s behalf draws investigaton