Hey, there! Log in / Register
Back Bay intersection to get 'ghost bike' where bicyclist died
By adamg on Tue, 08/18/2015 - 11:41pm
Bicyclists will gather Thursday evening to place a white "ghost bike" where Anita Kurmann died last week in a collision with a flatbed truck at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Beacon Street.
Kurmann, 38, was a Swiss doctor doing post-graduate work at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. She died at an intersection identified as the most dangerous one in the city for bicyclists.
The memorial begins at 6:30 p.m.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Why Hasn't The Hit And Run Driver Who Killed Her Been Arrested?
I think
You already know the answer to that.
Let alone named. Seems odd
Let alone named. Seems odd the identity is being protected when that hasn't been the case in the past.
Because the young people on
Because the young people on reddit and facebook are thirsty for blood in this particular case. Seems also odd that this case is getting so much attention when ghost bikes are dedicated all the time without this much notice.
Not blood
Justice.
He ran someone down and didn't even stop, and isn't being held accountable for leaving the scene.
We want him and all other drivers held accountable for killing people on the roadway through negligent operation of their vehicle. "Gee, I didn't know that I smashed the head of another person with my truck .... My BAd!!!!" should not be acceptable defense against accountability for actions.
Do you take such shit excuses from your kids? No? Why should we give this guy a pass?
BTFW, it isn't "young people" either. This woman wasn't one of your hated group; cycling covers a broad range of ages, and us grownups are pretty damn pissed off that another trucker killed someone, drove away, and could walk free.
I agree that justice is due
I agree that justice is due but I suspect the absolute anger at wanting to hang this dude has been very extreme. I pay attention to cycling news and other cities and the taxi driver in NYC that ran down and killed multiple cyclists and drove away received less attention than this.
Anything between "hanging" and "nothing"?
Loss of license?
A trial?
Public shaming?
Any indication at all that the police spent more than 4 seconds talking to the driver?
That fact that she was killed is horrible; the anticipation that nothing will happen except a rerun of a hand-wringing Globe editorial and 14,500 Internet comments is infuriating.
I'm Angry That Anyone Thinks It's Somehow Acceptable!
Um, cause
perhaps the investigation is showing that there is nothing to charge him with?
The way the laws are written
MA laws are such that if you hit someone the best thing to do is keep moving without ever so much as tapping on the brake or looking in the mirror. Just drive, baby, drive.
You are not held accountable for hit and runs if you can make the case you didn't know you hit and ran. It's a bad law as it encourages people to be even more reckless then the otherwise might be.
It's of little comfort but hopefully her family will sue the city, driver, truck company, and just about everyone else into ground.
True that
As a pedestrian, I always try to remember that for most drivers, waiting 10 seconds for me to cross the road is a lot more inconveniencing than taking off and maybe someday having to endure a cursory investigation visit from "Law and Order: Special Sweeping Motor Vehicle Homicide Under the Rug Unit"
As a pedestrian I try to remember
As a pedestrian I try to remember that waiting 3 seconds for a vehicle to pass is a lot less inconveniencing for me than weeks of surgeries, casts, and months of physical therapy.
Shorter version of my comment
I try to remember any driver in any car could be Markk20474
For he is the CONDUCTOR OF THE CHOIR OF DEATH.
AND SINGS THE SONG OF OBLIVION TO ALL WHO CROSS HIS PATH.
A Word for Pedestrians
From an expert:
Citation please? Sure! http://www.universalhub.com/crime/20150807/bicyclist-killed-back-bay-hit...
Mass Law
My friend's aunt hit and killed someone over the winter. Total accident, completely sober, clean driving record, but the man was walking in dark clothes with his back to the traffic in the road due to the snow (not a hit and run - she pulled over). Apparently the DA must bring charges (I think automatically motor vehicle homicide?) in the event of a motor vehicle death under Mass law and had no choice. Charges ultimately and justly dismissed, but had to be brought according to how the story was related to us.
Not really the law.....
More judicial procedure I'd say. But judges and juries will ask themselves, "would a reasonable person be able to avoid this situation if that person used reasonable precautions."
this case seems to be negligence, unless the bike was directly behind the truck and changed lanes and overtook the truck at the turn.
I was cutting through Brookline on the way to work the other day. I was on Cypress St. going toward Brighton. The traffic on the other side of Cypress at was at a standstill, and I was going to take a left onto Davis Ave. a side st towards the high school on the way to Brighton. the light was green, and the traffic on the other side waived me on as they had no where to go. As I turned a bike whizzed the opposite direction and I almost hit him. If I did, I could not think of any way a reasonable peoRson could have avoided it. He had a green light, I could not see him behind the long line of cars, my visibility would not allow me to see him until my cars hood was into his path. His bike lane ended at the intersection, but I don't think he legally had to stop and wait for me....
Anyway, cases like that a judge/jury would probably read into and say I wouldn't be at fault. (If I hit the guy). There is no law which says bikes need to look if an intersection is gridlocked for cars in the same direction.
In case people don't know
In case people don't know what ghost bikes are: http://ghostbikes.org/
Ghost bike
Is such a great program. It reminds everyone on the road the importance of biking and driving safely, and alerts people who are unfamiliar to that stretch of road that the road may have an engineering hazard that requires extra attention.
Though I'm a cyclist
and pretty passionate about it, I actually feel very ambivalent about ghost bikes and public memorials in general. Bikes are so personal--and of course people are individuals. I understand the desire to protest but not sure about using a death to promote a kind of public agenda. Seems like memorializing should be left to the family and friends. I've made it very clear to my loved ones--if I get killed on my bike, no ghost bike please.
mystery
Accident or not... should be identified.
Stop using the word "accident"
Even insurers use the term "collision". Accidents are things that are not avoidable and "up to fate" (or "higher power" etc.)
Also "accidents happen" is lazy. Collisions are preventable and there is work to do.
I agree. Licensing and
I agree. Licensing and training of cyclists would be a great start.
Why don't we train drivers to
Why don't we train drivers to stop killing 30,000 every year?
Absolutely. When bicyclists start killing or maiming
a few dozen people a year, we'll get right on that.
Honestly...in the context of this story in which a cyclist was literally crushed to death while riding in a bike lane, that's a fucking asinine, assholish comment. I hope you have a great day.
So how would having a
So how would having a hypothetical cycling license prevent a cyclist from getting killed when some asshole hooks right without even showing a turn signal?
Oh, come now, SwirlyGirl, playing semantics are we?
Some days I whole heatedly agree with your posts, on others...
First, how many times in your life have you heard the words "car collisions" used when referring to "car accidents"? I'm speaking of in the media and not in your version of reality.
Second, this unfortunate incident could indeed of been an "accident" but you nor I can know for sure without further information. (Although I know you think the truck driver is guilty as charged and should be strung up by his ball-sack. If I am incorrect, kindly accept my apologies.)
And "accidents" do indeed happen, at least in my reality.
And not all "collisions", especially if they are "accidents" may be preventable.
Semantics
I.e. "Words have meaning." So use the correct one.
Semantics
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident
So it was indeed an accident, unless the driver actually *wanted* to assault and/or kill the cyclist.
You don't know
No one is sure if it was accidental, negligence, or malicious. But everyone can agree there was a collision.
Therefore collision is the only correct way of describing this.
My father....
... a retired police officer, has always gotten annoyed by the use of "accident" in place of collision. Who am I to disagree with with him... ;-)
Ditto for accident investigators and insurance adjusters
Both types of folks in my family insist on the word "collision".
'Accidents' imply an accidental cause as defined here already.
'Collisions' imply a cause affixable to someone. Win to the insurance industry, because it starts out as so 'neutral.'...
Lack of citation noted.
Was it intentional then?
Accident means it wasn't intended. Unless you say that the truck driver intended to hit the cyclist, it was an accident. That doesn't rule out criminal negligence -- you can still have criminal negligence in an accident.
Collision does not imply intentional
Accident, however, implies that it is not only unintentional, but unavoidable.
We need to stop shrugging things off as "unavoidable" when they are not.
I do not think it means what you think it means
Since when does "accident" imply it was unavoidable? Further down the merriam-webster.com definition from which I quoted before, there's #2a: "an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance".
"Crash" is the term re constructionist use.
And the RMV now as well.
Is there a smaller version of a ghost bike?
That would take up less space on sidewalks? Would be less in the way of pedestrians?
That would not be a hazard to the visually or mobility impaired?
Say, a child's bike, for being small, inexpensive, readily available, and lower in natural resources?
Have a memorial, by all means, but one that doesn't interfere with others has a better chance of being left in place longer by authorities.
It must be terrible to never get out of your small town
And see that some places have more space than the intersections in your little town apparently have.
I agree, in part.
Adam, I agree with you in part. However (and I hate that I kind of agree with Markk) but MAAB 521 CMR 20.00: Accessible Route does require that objects not protrude into the path of travel greater than 4" between the heights of 27" and 80".
Before people jump all over me, I do appreciate these memorials - I'm not saying don't have them, but maybe use a smaller set of handlebars. I don't know the dims of the pedals, but those should be looked at as well.
My thinking on this is not about intruding into my life making me more uncomfortable, but about making everywhere accessible to all. And these are the guidelines (along with the Dept of Justice Standards) are just one of the ways to make that work.
Two Points
#1 - The memorial being large and visible is the point. It might inconvenience you but for the people that walk, bike and drive in this area daily it is a way to cope with a tragic, senseless death. If it's in your way and you don't know why, than this is probably not your neighborhood so go impose your codes on people who care.
#2 - It's doesn't actually take up any more space than the bike that would most likely be chained to the street sign or whatever anyway. Look in any commercial area in Boston and almost every other available street post will have a bike locked to it. I don't see any big public outcry.
Did you miss the part about "visually impaired"?
If you have any consideration for other people who are handicapped, who can't see and can't ride bicycles, you might have a clue that they won't be able to see your ghost bicycle or marvel at its artistic statement.
Just because handicapped people have to negotiate random bicycles elsewhere doesn't make yet another any less of an obstacle. 300 + 1 wrongs don't make a right.
If you are visually impaired
You shouldn't be driving.
Otherwise, this memorial won't be placed in such a way as to hamper the visually impaired. But, hey, don't bother googling the guidelines when you are too busy being angry about being reminded of your responsibilities as a driver!!!
it's about
Walking on the sidewalk with a cane.
Please don't respond to every single one of Markk's comments - it's really not worth it.
Walking on the sidewalk
A visually impaired person walking on the sidewalk in that neighborhood is in no danger whatsoever of tripping over a ghost bike. To do that, they'd first have to plow through a plethora of advertising signboards and newspaper boxes that have been there all along.
Not quite
Not at the north west corner of Mass Ave and Beacon (coming from Cambridge and turning right onto Beacon) where the collision occurred and I suspect the ghost bike will be installed. Maybe across Beacon are the sandwich boards?
And yet...
They're pretty much everywhere, along with a lot of other business-promoting crap, and they often make the sidewalks challenging to negotiate even if you've got two good eyes. That being the case, I'm not sure why a memorial should be challenged on the basis of impeding the sidewalk when so much commercial activity is apparently A-OK.
it's subtle
the sandwich boards are noticed because they are on the ground and solid - thus able to be tapped by a cane. The handlebars stick out more than 4" from the bike.
If you go back and read my posts again, I'm not arguing against the memorial, just a slight modification of it.
You apparently didn't read what I wrote.
Re #1: I suggested smaller handlebars. How does that make a full sized bike less visible? I also wrote that I didn't know the dimensions of the pedals off of the bike itself. If either of those things are greater than 4" from the body of the bike, perhaps you make them a wee titch smaller. Just those two parts. The rest of the bike I made no suggestions as to making it smaller.
Further, we don't get to choose the codes.
Boston is my neighborhood. I do care, I'm trying to find a way for this to work rather than be assholish about it, but you're too angry to try and see that someone is trying to work with you rather than against you.
Re #2: the bicycles that are attached to signposts should have their locks cut and the bikes removed to a location where the owners can go pick them up. Perhaps to the same lot illegally parked cars are towed.
While your knickers are twisted
Perhaps you should advocate for actual parking space for cyclists, such as those dangerously forward neighboring communities of yours seem to have figured out.
Or those terrifying social democracies in Europe seem to have sorted.
Meanwhile, cyclists will use posts if there is no better place to lock. Sorry - it isn't illegal and Boston needs to deal with motorcycle and cycle users who want to spend money at businesses.
Motorcycles
Have been given some spots - Menino made that happen on trendy Newbury St.
We park in the same spots as cars. The only downside I've run into (figuratively) is that I was taught to park the bike at a slight angle to the curb but a meter monster got me in the North End for not parking parallel. Fine, I'll take up more space if that's what you require.
Parking garages don't allow motorcycles when they could make good bank off of us slipping into those odd triangular spots without losing car spots. Maybe they should provide spaces for bicycles - but then cyclists would raise a stink about that.
You've heard me say this before: I don't ride a bicycle, so the only bone I have in this is making certain codes are known and followed, and including cyclists in any designs I'm working on, and being a good neighbor to the many cyclists in and around my world. I'll leave the advocating at City Hall to you.
lol - Twisted Knickers. You don't seem to be able to read my tone. But that would be a good cover band name!
I'll bet 10 to 1 that you're
I'll bet 10 to 1 that you're from Cambridge and not Boston.
4'' handle bars, please. When there is a shooting do you recommend that the memorials use blinking LED candles instead of flames? Do you judge the size of teddy bears being laid for the little girls remains found on Deer Island?
And you've actually backed yourself into a position of cutting every bike off of sign post which absolutely no one in the world is advocating except maybe sawzall.
you'd lose
N/t
Path of travel = 3'
That section refers to interior hallways and references wall mounted objects that would not be detected by the cane for a visually impaired person.
For sidewalks, the requirement is to maintain a minimum clear width of 3 feet. That sidewalk appears to be 15 feet wide.
Narrow the sidewalk for cyclists then
to solve the problem of the disappearing bike lane becoming a turn lane. Many parts of Boston have such wide sidewalks that they get filled up with commercial restaurant and other space when they could be instead used to save lives.
Narrow the roadway
1. You have no fucking idea what the intersection is like at the location you are talking about. (I navigated it several times a day for 5 years in college when there were no trucks, and for another three years when commuting in the '00s).
2. The intersection is at a point where people exceeding the speed limit on the bridge meet narrowing and city conditions. Narrowing the sidewalk would be stupid - the intersection needs to be redesigned such that drivers get a very clear signal to slow down much earlier or contain physical features that force traffic to slow well ahead of the intersection.
What?
Narrow the roadway? At the Mass Ave bridge? Seriously?
That intersection is fine the way it is.How many times a day do you see people speeding across the Mass Ave bridge? I'm on it sometimes several occasions in a day and pretty much every one who comes across knows they're about to hit city traffic when they get off the bridge.
The real assholes? The people who fly off Storrow and then take that illegal left turn onto Mass Ave like maniacs because they think they won't get caught. And given the number of times I see cops set up at Mass and Beacon to ticket those same scofflaws, can you provide me with statistics that show how many of those tickets written were for speeding on the Mass Ave bridge?
Try "all the effing time"
Whenever I'm down that way I see people flying across the bridge at 20+ mph over the limit. I'f I'm driving, I get passed at 20 mph+ over my speed. Stand down there and look at the skid marks as they approach the intersection.
At the very least, there need to be speed bumps at the alley way.
It also needs to be narrowed to remove the right turn lane. It isn't needed - traffic on Mass Ave will back up past the intersection long before Beacon will back up. Traffic needs to be forced to slow down before it even gets near Beacon.
Come again?
Last year, I rode through that intersection (yes, on a bike - Hubway) almost every evening on my way to Back Bay Station. I did not witness people flying over the bridge at more that 20 miles more than the speed limit. Now, perhaps, it was the time of day that I was riding (5:45pm ish). But that rode was choked up with traffic; I was the fastest thing moving.
(Actually, I never road through - I got off the damn bike, right before the bike lane ended, and walked it across the intersection. Why? Because I like living).
Speed bumps, taking lanes away from car traffic, will not change the fact that some intersections in the city are dangerous due to a myriad of factors. Bike riders would be well served to become aware and respect the danger. Or they will keep getting killed.
What part of...
What part of sideWALK do you not understand?
Where cyclists need to dismount?
and WALK their bikes, just as on crossWALKs?
Seriously, cyclists are proposing raised bike tracks on roadways here and there. Well, wow, sidewalks are already raised and many are 10 feet, 20 feet, or wider in places. If narrower than ten feet wide, its not suitable for consideration. Also, if pedestrian traffic is so heavy in a place that it would become congested like Mass Ave. if a sidewalk were narrowed, don't narrow that sidewalk either.
If it's a bike track...
...then it's not a sidewalk, whether it's raised or not raised, separated or not separated, or decorated with pink polka dots. I know it goes against your obsessive nature, but please stop being such a disingenuous dope. It's Wednesday.
What do you call that on Vassar Street
in Cambridge at the MIT campus? Looks like a bike track. Do you call it a sidewalk despite all the signs saying its for cyclists?
Note that this half of Vassar street more clearly shows how Cambridge views pedestrians as below cyclists in importance. On the other side of Mass Ave the cycle track is older and pedestrians were given most of the width. Cyclists have to actually slow down there.
You're wrong
Markk - the side walk/track on both sides of Mass Ave takes care of both pedestrians and cyclists and separates them from cars.
More imagery on the landscape firm's site: http://www.crja.com/plazas/vassar.htm
And trust me - they know the appropriate codes and regulations for accessibility.
So you agree with me that lbb is wrong
in claiming that cycle tracks and pedestrian sidewalk space don't coexist?
The video shows the transition from bike lane to cycle track at about 45 seconds in, so its possible that dangerous places like Mass Ave. where bike lanes disappear could be made more safe by having the lane go to a bike track on part of the sidewalk space.
Heaven forfend!
Heaven forfend that a precious square inch of our city be wasted on people sitting to enjoy a meal or a drink, when instead it could be used to facilitate the smooth, orderly, and efficient flow of motor vehicle traffic.
Dining vs. lives
I'm suggesting that public land set aside for transportation be used for transportation, even for cyclists! Commercial restaurants who want to give patrons a sense of the outdoors can install big windows that open and pay rent on their own dining space for customers. Should we give away public sidewalk space for free or cheap any more than street parking space?
But, hey, where sidewalk isn't needed as intended for transportation and appropriate rents are collected, outdoor dining is a good use.
Careful
Sometimes portions of that sidewalk are within the property line of the building.
and vice versa!
Corners/edges of buildings on city property.
where?
And who did they pay off to get their building permit?
478 Mass Ave Arlington
Its an old building (1901) and the northwest corner is several inches over on the Mass Ave right of way. I learned that looking at the plans for the bike path crossing project, which oddly has not started yet.
That section
Is also linked to the exterior - from the main page from the public safety page.
How are you going to control which 3' someone is walking down? Do blind people and those in wheelchairs now have lanes they must adhere to?
Hey, look, guys!
Hey, look, guys... Markk is advocating for pedestrian safety! It is truly a joyous day, when one of UHub's most notorious car-loving curmudgeons reverses course and proves that--
What's that you say? It was a transparent attempt at concern-trolling, at the expense of bike-riders everywhere, and his principal motivation was derailing the conversation? Well color me flabbergasted.
I always advocate for safety
Don't know where you have been. Pedestrians wearing conspicuous clothing instead of all black at night is safer. Looking both ways is safer. Putting away your phone is safer. Being protected in a car instead of unprotected on a bicycle is safer. Wearing a bike helmet is safer. Waiting at red lights is safer. Having a headlight on your bike at night is safer.
That was an intersection made more dangerous by putting bike lanes poorly on Mass Ave such that they terminated into a right turn lane and get shared with bus stops. Some bike advocates will say the solution is a take the lane strategy. Putting bike lanes on Mass Ave. lulled riders into not doing that and that's what killed one here while injuring others. The bike lanes were a mistake. NYC has taken away bike lanes in exactly this situation where they have proven dangerous. Better to have parking again than kill more people.
Like hell you do
You don't "advocate for safety". You advocate for motor vehicles. Every time there's a conflict between motor vehicles and any other users of public spaces, your response is to lay some new constraint on the other users and call it a "safety" measure. I'm sure we'd all be perfectly safe if we just stayed in our houses, too, but it's called public space for a reason.
"It is not yours. You may use it. You may share it. If you will not share it, you may not use it."
If there was a smaller item...
I would urge you to shove it up your ass.
As a motorcycle rider
for many years, I can tell you the best advice I was given, right in the beginning was, "Consider yourself invisible."
1. Consider yourself invisible.
2. Everyone else is totally unpredictable.
Another, for motorcycles (nice shiny throttle for rocket acceleration), leave yourself a means of escape. Maybe.
You can call them accidents, collisions, Acts of God, manslaughter, whatever. Being in the right doesn't do you a lot of good when the responders are throwing a blue tarp over you and making cell phone calls.
A more aggressive version
We joke amongst ourselves that they ARE out to get us.
People in other cars say the
People in other cars say the same thing. It's not like bucket seats, padded dashboards, seatbelts, airbags, antilock brakes, side impact curtains, steel safety cages, crumple zones, bumpers, and everything else were added to cars because they look cooler than tail-fins. Other drivers are unpredictable, there are blind spots, and accidents do happen, a lot.
True but I think misplaced, perhaps
This thread is about a memorial, not about bicycle and traffic safety -- a very worthy subject, but maybe best discussed elsewhere. The focus here is appropriately on remembering someone who was killed.
I would add a # 3 after "unpredictable"
3. presume that everyone around you is both distracted and an imbecile.
I apply these rules not only while cycling, but also while driving. It has worked out so far [knocks on wood].
I hope that the memorial brings at least some solace and closure for the many who knew and admired the victim.
Heck, you should assume that even if you're...
...in another car!
Why do you want to hang this
Why do you want to hang this driver so bad? Wasn't he cleared of all charges?
Because he killed someone and
Because he killed someone and drove away from the scene of the crime.
What charges were those?
I missed that part -- exactly what was he/she charged with? AFAIK the driver hasn't even been publicly identified, am I wrong about that?
Boston should have a broader
Boston should have a broader conversation about out of town and out of state CDL drivers who get themselves into trouble driving big rigs into the city. We see this over and over again with trucks stuck on side streets, Storrowings, and various other very preventable and tragic incidents, like the death of Dr. Kurmann. At the very minimum the fines should increase so there is some monetary incentive to ensure that CDL drivers in the city are well-trained in urban traffic patterns. I didn't see the bridge/pedestrian/cyclist,etc should not be a valid excuse. Drivers of these big trucks need to be held accountable monetarily for the police time and traffic delays caused by their lack of skills in urban driving. Maybe then trucking companies will be more careful about hiring drivers who can safely and competently navigate our roads and urban environment.
We tried for decades to discourage
out of towners with horrible signage from attempting to enter greater Boston. We made the roads as twisty and illogical as possible. We cherished rotaries. We took away slip lanes and places where trucks could turn around and recover from mistaken or missed turns. We ignored efforts by the FHA to improve and standardize signs.
Then came the disruptive technology - GPS. Out of town drivers are now emboldened to enter Boston without even realizing the perils they face.
Klaus,
I understand your concern. But you are making assumptions galore in your post. For example, why do you think that truck drivers are not well-trained to drive in urban traffic?
And, as I have said, again and again and again and again, trucks and buses have blind spots where they can't see you, a bike, a car, anything. So, I know it might be difficult to believe, but the "excuse", I did not see him or her, could be a valid one (again, depending on the investigation). What frosts my ice-cubes are folks who automatically want to take the truck driver of this sad incident and hang him from a tree in the Common (acting as judge and jury). I am sure that he is not jumping for joy that he killed a young woman - ya think?
And drivers are held accountable if the investigation finds that they were at fault.
I did not intend to say that
I did not intend to say that all truck drivers or even this truck driver in particular are unfamiliar with driving in urban traffic. How can I be commenting on the truck driver involved? We don't even know who he is.
That said, I was speaking to the general laws involving CDL drivers on our urban streets. It is apparent to me that time and time again of truck drivers who are unfamiliar with their route get into trouble in Boston traffic. These incidents block major intersections and Storrow Drive on a regular basis taking up police hours and delaying drivers at a very large costs to the public (missed work, gas, clean up etc). In my opinion, the inconvenience caused to Boston residents isn't commensurate with the fines levied. For example, the fee for Storrowing your truck is only $200. If the fines were higher then it would be an economic imperative for the drivers hired by transportation companies to be knowledgeable of our roads and to drive very defensively. Professional drivers should be held to very high standards. When they make a mistake, even inadvertently, the cost can be very high.
Darren Wilson
Everyone wanted to hang Officer Darren Wilson in the days after Ferguson, too.
Then there was an investigation and grand jury, and he was not indicted.
And THEN the feds investigated, and I believe they also cleared him.
Moral: Things aren't always as they seem at first, and breaking out the pitchforks may be a bit premature.
PS- Has anyone seen any results of an investigation yet? Is there anything beyond pure conjecture regarding how this went down?