Police officer cited for running down baby in Jamaica Plain

Abel also doesn't seem cognizant of the extent to which the speculation and rumor mongering on Boston's blogs might have been curtailed if a real journalist had, you know, laid out the facts of the case at the time of the incident rather than two months later.

Agreed. This should have gone to court. But he does seem to have gotten off essentially home free. He filed a false report - that's a crime, beyond the original crime of hitting someone in a crosswalk.

The discussion "veered off in that direction for some time, as others chimed in about their issues with rogue pedestrians," David? Kaz made one "devil's advocate" type comment stating that we still didn't know the facts of the matter, and one person responded to him, stating "I was coming out of a restaurant on Centre Street and saw the flashing blue lights at the intersection in front of the Purple Cactus." Everybody else on the thread tried to find out more information, offered more information, or expressed outrage.

Nobody on UHub did what David Abel seems to have imagined. He's either got a deficit with reading or with citation. But, hey, even if his article is part fiction, at least he wrote an article about this incident. Because there is a big problem here.

You're right on this one, Brett. (Hard to believe I said that, eh?)

You all know that I usually give cops the benefit of the doubt, and some of you criticize me for it a lot. But PO Patrick Wayne Wood? Sorry, buster, you used up your doubt. Patrick Wayne Wood isn't a cop in my book, he's just a lying scumbag who belongs in jail, who just for now happens to have a badge he doesn't deserve. He assaulted an infant with his automobile and then lied about it on an official report. His lying on the official report demonstrates his lack of remorse. He abused his position to cover up his crime. He should be dismissed from the force and charged.

A police official read me the account from Wood's report, which said the Giards "walked into the path of the motor vehicle, at which point [the officer] locked up the brakes, and the vehicle stopped abruptly, brushing the baby carriage."

Says the man without honor. And then the truth of the matter?

But at the same time Giard watched as the bumper on the driver's side of the patrol wagon struck the stroller, flipping it several times, until the 8-pound Maclaren Volo landed on the far side of Seaverns, on top of Leo.

Giard ran to her son, struggled to unstrap him, and scooped him up. She wanted to hug him tight. She wanted to cover him with a blanket. She wanted someone to call an ambulance. There were cuts on his face and blood dripping from his forehead. He was hysterical, sobbing inconsolably.

He's goddamn lucky his victim was such a nice lady. Some people aren't so nice. Some people would have given him an eye for an eye. "Brushed" the baby carriage, he says. Hey, mind if I "brush" your neck a little bit, fella?

PO Patrick Wayne Wood, resign from the force. You are a disgrace as a police officer and as a man.

I largely agree Brett but I am still interested in understanding the problem the victim (the mom) is referring to. Frankly, I don't trust David Abel to do a good job explaining it.

The Bostonian correctly identities the problem: Abel doesn't decide whether he's going to report on blog communications or the underlying story. As a result, bloggers are the bogeyman, the mom and her baby are the victims, and the policeman is off in driving school.

As I recall, the discussion on this blog was about how the BPD characterized the accident, that they did it in a way that minimized what really happened, and as a result concerns about how the BPD investigation of the incident would be handled.

I recall the context, that our reaction to this accident was heightened due to recent prior BPD incidents that we (some of us anyway) felt were brushed aside.

Much of the opposing viewpoint were posters who thought we were be too critical of police. Some of the comments were questioning witness accounts as vigorously as other commenters' theories and feelings. Abel seems to think that if a blogger or comment contributor posts it, it better be true. Sorry Abel. It doesn't work that way. People spend as much time posting their ideas and opinions as they do posting facts.

I'm glad Children's Hospital found no serious injuries. Mom was clearly and understandably traumatized by the accident - She doesn't put the baby in a stroller anymore, she carries him. If she hasn't already, she may want to seek help processing the trauma so that it doesn't control her. A lot of work has been done on trauma therapy, PSTD, etc. I'm sorry if I contributed to her anxiety in any way. I'd like to understand her concerns better.

I am disappointed in the consequence the policeman was subject to. He is just a guy trying to protect us but until there is a real consequence for doing one's job in a way the puts other people's health and welfare at risk, the BPD will continue business as usual, and frankly we deserve better.

Has anyone heard from Commissioner David on the David Woodman case? It's been four months.

If not, have they decided to put civil rights lawyers on duty when BPD takes to the streets to control mobs?

After reading this tabloid journalism today, I'm seriously offended. I specifically stated in my quoted post:

I'm not defending the cop in this case (because we don't know what happened yet), but I'm pointing out that you [Brett], on the other hand, have already assigned yourself judge and jury on something where the facts were already stale before *any* of them were even known. You talk as if reporters can just magically find these things out and put them in the paper, but they've been given less than nothing to go on...36-48 hours after it happened.

My comments regarding the eyewitness testimony's credibility were made in response to the fact that the police statement (the only other real information made available to the public at the time) was being discredited by other commenters. I even *defended* the paper in its quest to gather more information to disseminate to us, the public, so that the truth of the matter could be told since we basically had 2 completely discrete viewpoints (he bumped the baby, he mauled the baby). In return for my defense of the news organizations, I get steamrolled by being quoted as leading some sort of mass action against a maligned mother! The writer confuses the two online conversations intentionally. The writer points to my comments and rhetorically responds to those words with a friend of the mothers with comments from a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WEBSITE/FORUM. I have never heard of JP Moms, never read a word there, nor had any idea the issue was being discussed outside of UHub at all! This statement made by the reporter is just an OUTRIGHT LIE:

It [Isabella's comment] was the first acknowledgment for all of the bloggers that their words were, in fact, being seen by the mother.

That is just outright disingenuous reporting! Furthermore, I was making a specific point as to the accuracy of a story when you have a police report that is such a polar opposite from the victim/eyewitness. In the case of what I referred to as the drunken news director fiasco at the airport, you had one account of a woman sexually harassed on a flight...and police accounts of how she was just raging drunk and even lashed out at the officers when they wanted to escort her away. Guess what? In *that* case, the police reports were the far more accurate story! My point is that having only the police report and a single witness interview means you don't have enough information to determine the truth of the matter as we sit here in our "echo chamber". As I say, I said we needed to wait for the reporters to gather more information on a story that got very little attention from the press at the time it actually occured!

In the end, this reporter sat on information (like the condition of the child after the incident and the response by emergency officials) that would have actually enabled me to determine whether my concerns with the eyewitness testimony were valid (in light of its conflict with the police statements, the only other piece of info available). This is why I used the vocabulary of "may be" and "we don't know"!

I actually spoke up FOR THE MEDIA asking for a reporter to get more info to the public and instead, I was railroaded MONTHS later by that very same reporter who SAT on the information instead of informing the public. That is just disgraceful for any news organization to withhold information on pertinent news at all...let alone to then use it as prequel to some kind of attack on the very people left in a lurch...who were actually asking for the reporters to do their job and get that kind of information to us!

Yes, the victim's lawyer would file a claim of damages in court and they would have to prove it unless the BPD settled. Medical costs won in an award would reimburse the families insurance company. Unless the child has permanent injury, I don't think they'd get much of an award. Plus I don;t think the mom wants to go through a court case.

What do you think about the consequence that the officer got? Do you think a citation and driving school is sufficient? too much? too little? Why?

...that the victim would need to file a claim in order to receive compensation.

If it were someone else who was accidentally struck? Consequences might be similar or more severe depending on the officer called to the scene. If it were an officer who was accidentally struck by a civilian who had no connections to the force? The civilian would be in for a world of hurt. No way would that person get off with a wrist-slap citation and a requirement to attend a driving course. I mean, seriously.

If that happened, you would see the jails filled with bad drivers. You really need to know the citation/sentencing history of MA drivers before you can come to a conclusion like that.