At Albuquerque Meeting on Police Shootings, Silence Speaks Volumes
But it heard nothing but silence from at least seven activists who had signed up to speak — some of whom turned their backs rather than address the civic leaders. They were ejected from the council chambers, cited for criminal trespass and banned from council meetings for 90 days. That penalty seemed to surprise at least some of the council members, however, and may be altered.
Sooooo…… who wants to be the defending attorney for the city of Albuquerque? any takers? constitutional lawyers? crickets?
Earlier in the meeting, the first member of the public at the lectern had signed up to speak on a minimum wage ordinance. Wearing a red shirt, Silvio Dell’Angela stood silently for more than a minute as, on an overhead projector, he displayed a statement saying he was “outraged” that the council’s new rules curtailed the public’s right to “protest peacefully.”
One of his neighbors was fatally shot by Albuquerque police in 2010.
As a security officer came to escort him out of the council chamber, Dell’Angela said, “I still have 36 seconds.”
oh boy…. silence is golden?
Councilor Rey Garduño asked Sanchez why speakers could not remain silent during their allotted two minutes. Because it violates the rules of decorum, Sanchez said.
Mike Gomez, whose son Alan was killed by police, put his son’s picture on the overhead projector and said, “I love you. I miss you a lot.” Then he turned his back on the dais.
When asked to address the council, he said, “You’re not worth addressing.” He added, “Blood is on your hands. … [Born] April 25, 1989, and died May 10, 2011.” Then he raised his fists in the air, and security escorted him out.
The Justice Department cited the killing of Gomez’s son as an example of officers violating police policy that permits deadly force only where there is an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to officers or members of the public. Gomez was not a threat because he was unarmed, the Justice Department said
I have to say - this is a great example of ‘civil disobedience’ in its purest form - however - no one, and I mean no one, should be sanctioned for utilizing their constitutional right to speak criticism to government with silence.