http://www.alibi.com News from the Alibi en-us http://www.alibi.com/rss PHP webmonkeys@alibi.com http://alibi.com/index.php?story=30964&scn=news Curtis Trafton had never been to a protest before. He was 50 when the war in Iraq began, and he went with his wife, adult daughter and father to the March 20, 2003 demonstration that began in front of the UNM Bookstore. "I felt that the war was being waged against the wrong people for the wrong reasons," he said. He made a sign out of poster board that said "No War" and found a serious but upbeat crowd when he got to the university. It’s the way the protest went down that propelled Trafton into court seven years later to recall the events of that evening. The demonstration is remembered as one of the most volatile conflicts between civilians and the Albuquerque Police Department. Eleven protesters filed suit against the city and APD officers, saying their civil and constitutional rights were violated that day, including the rights to free speech and assembly. Some are suing for battery and excessive force. "I'm Just Fighting Back" Trafton testified on Friday, Feb. 26, that because of that charged night in 2003, he didn’t attend another demonstration for two years. At first, he said, he stood on the sidewalk and showed his anti-war sign to passing traffic. Then the flow of cars stopped, choked off by police who had blocked the road. So he moved with other protesters into the street and headed east, aiming to again show his sign to traffic. The group swung back west, he said, and he was separated from his family. He hurried forward with his sign over his shoulder, he said, looking for his family and chanting, "Whose streets? Our streets!" with everyone else when he was blindsided by a horse-mounted police officer. The horse's head struck Trafton in the chest and under his chin, he said, and spun him around. "It was a powerful blow.” He couldn't recall a chunk of time after that, Trafton testified. He said he heard loud bangs, smelled a strange odor on the air. His wife called him on a cell phone he forgot he was carrying, he said, and the family met up and left the nasty situation. "I was furious that a person trying to do a nice, peaceful protest would be put in a situation of danger, to my mind, by police," he said. Two years later, he went to a demonstration on the anniversary of the bombing of Baghdad. He said he was sick of feeling like a coward. "I was raised to fight back," he said. "And that's what I'm doing here today. I'm just fighting back." His wife, plaintiff Christina Maya Trafton, testified that at the intersection of University and Central, a man carrying a child told her, "They're going to use gas." Acrid orange smoke billowed in her direction, she said, and her skin and face were burning. "My daughter grabbed me and said, ‘We have to get you out of here.’ ” It was dusk and cold; a light rain was falling. When they got to their car at Silver and Yale, she remembered hearing what she thought were two rifle shots. She called 911, afraid someone had been injured, she said. She called her husband and told him they needed to leave, because she didn’t “want to die in Albuquerque” that night. She initially felt relieved when they left the protest, she testified. "Then I was very angry. I felt very helpless. It left a bad taste in my mouth for APD and police generally." Her husband insisted they attend the two-year anniversary protest. She said she made him drive the perimeter of the site to find the staging area. She wanted to make sure the same force was not present. "We didn't stay long” at the protest, she testified. "We'd Still Be There Today" Sgt. Steven Hill didn't get down to the protest until about 6 p.m. on March 20, 2003. He was off-duty, got the call and drove to the location, he said, using his lights and sirens. He'd been told the crowd had broken through the police line and was headed toward the freeway. He dressed out as quickly as he could next to his Suburban, he said, then heard a loud retort. When he looked up, he said he saw a flash and some smoke. Hill testified that he wondered why someone would have chosen to drop a flashbang, a nonlethal stun grenade, in that location—then he realized it was not APD artillery. Part of Hill's job is to order and catalog ammunition for the SWAT team. He keeps track of who it’s been issued to and when it is deployed. He testified that no officers used flashbangs that evening. But APD did use tear gas. Hill was one of the officers who threw a gas grenade, the effects of which he outlined during the trial. "You could feel like you're drowning," with your eyes and nose running and tightness in your chest. He said people could feel like they were having respiratory problems. A crowd of students sat in the road, their arms linked, he said. Officers would select one of the sitting protesters at a time and manipulate pressure points on their body to separate them—a common tactic. Some demonstrators sneakily tried to remove others who had been arrested from the hands of police, he testified, and pull them back into the crowd. Officers confiscated backpacks, he said, and two were loaded with clothing and water bottles. One smelled strongly of vinegar, he added. Officers warned the crowd they would use chemical munitions, he said. "It's important to do your best to get the message to the crowd." The protesters’ drumming and chanting interfered with that warning, he said. "It was quite loud out there." He first tried to use the smallest amount of gas possible, he said. The crowd scattered, he testified, but then came back. Then officers launched four gas grenades to the far side of the crowd. Still, some demonstrators remained sitting in the road. Someone advanced on officers, he testified, with a group in tow. Hill said he ordered officer Michael Fisher to shoot them with pepper ball rounds (pepper spray projectiles). When Hill was deposed in 2005, he said without the tear gas, "We'd still be there today." "Wait It Out" Lou Reiter, a police consultant, took the stand on Monday, March 1, as an expert witness for the plaintiffs to talk about handling protests. The former Los Angeles Police Department officer has been called in other cases to testify on behalf of APD. Over the course of his 20 years with the LAPD, Reiter handled civil rights demonstrations and Vietnam War protests. He spoke of the differences between crowd management and crowd control. In management, police are just a presence. They've gathered information and try to anticipate what may go wrong. In crowd control, officers are protecting property and people, and they make arrests. When people are passively resisting arrest—sitting with locked arms, for example—use of force by an officer is not acceptable, he testified. It's OK to deploy gas and beanbag guns, he said, when there is a high likelihood of injury or damage to public property. In most cases, when chemical agents are used, he said, it's a good idea to have a means for people to wash the chemicals off, and it's also reasonable to have medical assistance nearby. After reviewing video tapes and documentation, he testified that at no time did the 2003 march become a riot and the crowd did not fit the definition of a mob. He said without violence and property damage there should be no need to disperse a crowd. "You have to wait it out." Marisa Demarco http://alibi.com/index.php?story=31003&scn=news A bill was introduced at the Monday, March 1 Council meeting that would rein in the Albuquerque Police Department's policy of letting officers take home squad cars on the public's dime. Joey Segala, the police union president, told the Council during public comment that the perk of take-home cars is part of the union contract. He also said police cars in home driveways is a safety bonus for some taxpayers who like having a visible police presence in their neighborhoods. There was no action or discussion by councilors on the squad car costs, but they will talk about this at the next meeting on Monday, March 15. Carolyn Carlson 35.0884712 -106.6502377 http://alibi.com/index.php?story=30938&scn=news Whenever I read something of Mexican history, I'm always amazed at the variety of first names that apparently have no English equivalent. I'm only 40 pages into a book about Pancho Villa, and already I've seen such beauties as Indalecio, Fidencio, Maclovio, Nemesio and Belisario. I've tried Google but can't seem to find a place where the origins of these names and their meanings can be found. Any suggestions? —Flummoxed in Flagstaff Dear Gabacho: Try Google again. All the names you mentioned are the Hispanicized nombres of Catholic saints (respectively, Indalecio, Fidelis, Maclou, and Nemesius) with the exception of Belisario, which refers to the great Roman general Belisarius. Mexicans traditionally pulled their names from the Bible and the Papist calendar. This resulted in two separate celebrations for someone’s birth—the cumpleaños (the actual birthday) and the día de santo , the feast day of the saint corresponding to the person’s name; sometimes the twain did meet and knocked back Herradura. Those traditions and esoteric names are unfortunately disappearing, because American culture devours all. But you know what’s the weirdest male name I’ve heard? Susano. Etymology? From Susanna, obviously, but pinche clue how it became accepted for hombres … Gustavo Arellano http://alibi.com/index.php?story=30941&scn=news Dateline: England— A theme park in Surrey is on the hunt for England’s smelliest urine in hopes of lending authenticity to a new movie-themed thrill ride. On Friday, Feb. 26, Thorpe Park, near Chertsey, asked members of the public to submit personal water samples. The person with the country’s most pungent pee will win a £500 ($760) prize and have his or her signature scent immortalized in the park’s new SAW Alive attraction. Based on the popular Saw film series, SAW Alive is billed as “the world’s most extreme live action horror maze” and will feature “six traps depicting the most grisly and iconic scenes from the six Saw films.” The much-sought-after urine will be pumped into the attraction’s bathroom scene, recreating a “realistic and truly gut-wrenching sensory experience.” Thorpe Park’s entertainments manager Laura Sinclair is responsible for choosing the most eye-watering whiz. “We want SAW Alive to be as authentic and terrifying as possible to make visitors feel as if they are living in a real-life horror film,” Sinclair told journalists. “To do this, we need to really push the boundaries of what our guests experience from a sensory point of view.” Sinclair went on to say that the park needs the help of the public to “create the most realistic and unsavory urine odor. We are looking for a sample that will really get the public gagging.” SAW Alive is expected to open in Spring 2010. Dateline: Norway— According to a report on the Austrian Times website, a Norwegian man has gone to trial for shooting his mother to death and cutting her body into “bite-sized” cubes because she refused to read a best-selling book. A court in Oslo heard that the 40-year-old man went berserk when his mother declined a recommendation to read Girl in the Cellar , a true-life account of Austrian kidnap victim Natascha Kampusch, written by British journalist Allan Hall. “It’s a great read,” the defendant told his mother, who replied, “No, not my cup of tea.” As a result, he shot her and carved her body up into tiny chunks with a chain saw. The unnamed attacker, who was described by prosecutors as “severely psychotic,” allegedly became convinced that Natascha Kampusch—who was held for over eight years by kidnapper Wolfgang Priklopil in Strasshof near Vienna—was his daughter after reading Hall’s best-selling book. Dateline: Louisiana— Donna Louise Greenwell, 53, has pleaded guilty to selling two children under her care for $175 and a cockatoo. “It was a really clumsy attempt at an adoption proceeding,” said the woman’s attorney, Steve Sikich. “She was trying to help the children and get them situated.” Greenwell, of rural Pitkin in central Louisiana, was sentenced last Monday to 15 months of hard labor on two criminal counts of sale of a minor. According to investigators, Greenwell contacted Paul and Brandy Romero of Evangeline Parish early last year after seeing a flyer they posted offering a cockatoo for sale. Greenwell offered to sell them a 5-year-old boy and a 4-year-old girl for $2,000. The Romeros couldn’t afford that, but settled on the bird (valued at $2,000) and $175 cash. Sikich told the court that his client had custody of the children for a about a year before she bartered them off. “It’s my understanding that the mother had requested that she take care of the kids,” said Sikich. Neither the children’s mother nor father have been located. The Romeros pleaded guilty to two felony counts of sale of a minor child, the district attorney said in an earlier statement. Their five-year prison sentences were suspended in exchange for their testimony against Greenwell. Sikich had argued that the $175 was to cover attorney costs, while the bird was merely a gift to Greenwell’s granddaughter. Dateline: Florida— An NRA instructor wrapped up a gun safety class with some unexpected show-and-tell, shooting a student in the foot with his handgun. According to Orlando police, Robert Frauman Jr., 50, was taken to Florida Hospital after instructor Michael Phillips’ firearm discharged about 11:45 a.m. on Saturday, Feb. 20. The incident happened at Summit Church near the Fashion Square Mall. The bullet passed through a table before striking Frauman in the foot, the church’s communications director Kristy-Lee Lawley told the Orlando Sentinel . Frauman, who is a member of the church, was described as “recovering well.” Frauman was one of three students attending the concealed firearm certification training, which was not a church-sponsored event. According to Lawley, the church offered its upstairs conference room for free after some church members expressed an interest in the class. “We won’t be having anything like that in our church in the future,” Lawley was quoted as saying in the Sentinel. Devin D. O’Leary http://alibi.com/index.php?story=31005&scn=news It’s always rewarding when a creative project gets the positive attention of the community, especially when you are working with young people to paint and collage on the walls of buildings. As the first mural team of four collaborative projects between 516 ARTS and Warehouse 508, we learned many things about working together as artists, but much more about the logistical difficulties of working in an alley in the middle of winter. I was continuously impressed by the dedication of each of the youth artists to brave no sun, snow and sleet, sweeping winds and frigid temperatures up on ladders and high scaffolding to get their vision of "Form & Function" on the back wall of 516 ARTS. The article titled "Art and the Alleyway" [Art News, Feb. 25-March 3] was a wonderful tribute to the hard work and passion of the group, and we enjoyed having Julia Mandeville come out to the site to talk with us, really get a sense of what we were trying to accomplish. It was an especially cold Saturday, a bit later in the day than we’d expected her, so unfortunately our whole team was not there to tell the story. There are a couple of discrepancies that I’d like to set straight. First, I am not a co-visionary of the wonderful new coffeehouse The Kosmos, though I do love the coffee, yummy food, great atmosphere which is all the creation and vision of Maggie Ross supported by Jerry Miller and Factory on 5 th . Next, on that Saturday our team was missing one of its two mentor artists, Kevin Vigil, a recent BFA graduate of Ringling [College] of Art and Design. Finally, as well as the supplies and tracing equipment, John McClendon donated dozens of pints and gallons of paint in many colors that ensured the vibrancy of the mural. I hope the community will take a stroll in a Downtown alley and see our work. http://alibi.com/index.php?story=30963&scn=news Everybody loves to get something for nothing. But let’s say you went to Blake’s yesterday and bought a Lotaburger. Then let’s say you went back today and ordered a Lotacombo, which includes a Lotaburger, fries and a Coke. But when it came time to pay, you deducted the price of the Lotaburger from your bill, explaining that you didn’t need to pay for it again because you’d already paid for a Lotaburger yesterday. You might receive some choice words, but you would not get your food. Now let’s say you went to the office where they collect state income taxes, and you told them that you didn’t need to pay all of your state income taxes this year because you already paid them last year and you’d deducted that amount from this year’s bill. They would laugh you out of the office, right? Wrong. As long as you itemized on your federal income tax form, you get to deduct the state and local taxes you paid last year from the income you’ll pay state taxes on this year. You can also deduct last year's state and local taxes from this year's federally taxed income. It’s a pretty neat trick, kind of like getting a reward for doing something that everyone else must do—though not everyone else gets the reward for doing it. Most New Mexicans, about 75 percent, don’t qualify for this reward because they don’t itemize on their federal tax return. Itemizing is a way to get a larger tax deduction than the standard deduction that most of us take. Chances are, if you own a home you’ve tried to increase your deduction by itemizing because you know that you can include the interest you’ve paid on your mortgage on Schedule A—the form for itemizing. You threw in your charitable contributions and the state income taxes you paid last year, but after you did the math, you ended up taking the standard deduction anyway because it was bigger. In fact, itemizing pays off for only 25 percent of New Mexico taxpayers. Generally, they are the folks making the most money. Most other states require their wealthiest residents to add the state and local tax deduction back into their income when they fill out their state tax form. New Mexico is one of just seven states that do not. The upshot of this deduction is that New Mexico lets its richest residents keep a whopping $90 million every year. What the rich folks don’t pay, the rest of us make up for—either by paying higher taxes ourselves or by doing with fewer services. This tax deduction isn’t the only tax perk that those in the upper income brackets enjoy, courtesy of our fine state. In recent years, their income tax rate was cut in half. They’re also allowed one of the most generous deductions on capital gains income in the nation. Legislation that would have disallowed past state tax payments to be deducted from current state tax payments was floated in the just-finished legislative session. Despite the fact that the state is facing a historic revenue deficit, this commonsense bill failed. So did other legislation that would have asked the wealthiest New Mexicans to chip in a bit more during these tough economic times. Apparently, there are those in the state Senate who would rather see average New Mexicans pay a tax on flour tortillas than see the wealthy give up their special tax breaks. Most tax deductions serve some purpose—usually to encourage economic development or to level the playing field for those who are at a disadvantage. In other words, there is always some relatively logical reason for every exception to the tax law. For example, a company might get a tax break as an incentive to create jobs. But allowing taxpayers to deduct their old tax payment from their new tax payment does not serve the common good. So, while everybody loves to get something for nothing, in this case, a few people get something—a special tax deduction—but the rest of us get absolutely nothing. The rest of us always have to pay for our Lotaburgers. Sen. Eric Griego