Hey, there! Log in / Register
Chelsea police officer charged with repeatedly punching handcuffed man, lying about it
By adamg on Tue, 08/04/2015 - 8:04am
UPDATE: Rivera released on personal recognizance.
A Chelsea police officer is scheduled for arraignment today in Suffolk Superior Court on charges he beat a man in handcuffs behind a Chestnut Street residence on Sept. 26, 2014.
A Suffolk County grand jury indicted Felix Rivera, 34, of Lynn, on charges of assault and battery, filing a false police report, and violating the victim's civil rights, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office and Chelsea Police say - adding Rivera has already been suspended from his job without pay.
The man Rivera allegedly beat was himself originally charged with assault and battery on a police officer, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, but in March, his lawyer gave authorities a video clip, "filmed by an unknown witness showing the incident and argued that the charges against the victim were unfounded," the DA's office and Chelsea Police say.
The video shows both the beating and the man not resisting arrest, a spokesman for the DA's office says.
The investigation revealed that multiple Chelsea Police units responded to the rear of 155 Chestnut St. that night for a report of a man with a gun. Among those present at the scene was the victim, whom a supervising officer found to be intoxicated and interfering with the investigation. This supervisor directed other officers to place him into protective custody and remove him from the area.
As the handcuffed victim was being escorted away, Rivera allegedly struck him four times in the face, knocking him to the ground. Another officer reached out to stop him. This officer denied the allegation in Rivera's report that the victim had pushed him while being led from the scene.
In the statement, Suffolk DA Dan Conley said:
There is no room in law enforcement for anyone who would beat a handcuffed prisoner or lie in a report. The evidence suggests this officer engaged in criminal conduct, not police work. I want to highlight the professionalism of Chief [Brian] Kyes, his team, and our prosecutors in building this case. They made clear that there is one system of justice for all of us – sworn or civilian.
Kyes added:
The allegations as charged in the indictment against Officer Felix Rivera are extremely troubling and concerning. The Chelsea Police Department has cooperated fully and completely with every facet of this criminal investigation since its inception. A police officer's credibility and integrity are two of the most important attributes in this challenging profession. Both operate at the core of our ability to build trust and confidence in our community members so as to effectively police our neighborhoods alongside our residents. Please rest assured that Officer misconduct in any form including excessive use of force by our personnel will not be tolerated under any set of circumstances.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
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
So wait
Am i reading this right in that its likely the man that called the police was beaten by the police?
I don't think so
Sounds like the police showed up to arrest somebody else for something else, then this drunken guy wouldn't shut up, so the commanding officer on scene ordered him put in protective custody and then Rivera decided to show him who's boss by way of his fist. Allegedly, of course.
He was resisting
He was verbally resisting, which I'm sure you know is grounds for atleast a mild tazing.
ugh
Another black eye on Chelsea.. sigh.
What about the other officer?
What happened the the officer who witnessed the assault, and then allowed the officer to file a false police report? He let the victim be beaten and then let him also be charged with assault and battery on a police officer. He probably would have watched him get convicted for it had this video not surfaced 6 months later.
But there is no blue wall of silence
It's just a few rare bad apples that give all the good cops a bad name. No police officer would ever allow misconduct to go unreported. That would be unprofessional. And if a police officer is reprimanded or fired for misconduct, the police union will alway support it because they don't want bad cops on the force. Public safety is their top priority. Cops who report other cop's egregious, violent misconduct are always supported by their departments and peers and backed by the police unions. That's one reason why police brutality is so rare in this country.
Meanwhile, in Boston
Evans drags his feet over putting body cameras on Boston police. While he goes on and on about the need to develop trust with the community, which is true, he misses the point that large segments of the community don't want to trust the word of the police anymore.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/03/boston-city-council-examine-...
Another benefit of body cameras....
... is that they protect officers from false claims of abuse.
Absolutely
Just now, John GrelandBPD retweeted a link about a police dash cam "destroying police brutality charge" (http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/08/02/cops-dash-cam-destroys-police-bru...).
Eyewitness accounts are often wrong, intentionally or unintentionally. It's hard to understand how anyone thinks the negatives of body cams outweigh the positives.
Commissioner Evans is not
Commissioner Evans is not dragging his feet on the issue of body cameras. There are so many balls in the air on this topic, it is not just as easy as saying all police officers must wear body cameras. There are privacy concerns, victims that wish to remain anonymous, private conversations that officers have (think calling home to say goodnight to the wife and kids), what happens when the officer needs to go the bathroom, etc. There are data management issues, who stores the data recorded, how long, who can obtain copies of the video. There will be effects on the criminal justice system as a whole, are the courts and prison systems ready to receive the flood of additional arrests due to the breaks (and yes, police officers do give a LOT of breaks to members of the community) that were previously given that can not be anymore because the officer is forced to make an arrest because it is on camera? And funding has to be considered. Not only the initial cost, which I am sure there will be grants available, but upkeep and maintenance of the cameras, bringing in tech folks that know how to process the data, and storage of said data.
This is a very complex issue, with pros and cons to both sides. But giving in to the masses blindly and ordering all law enforcement officers wear cameras immediately is not the answer, and will not solve all of the world's problems instantaneously.
BUT
We are a "world class city"!! Haven't you heard?
Yes, the issue is complex. Why can't we be the ones to tackle it? Evans explicitly said he won't commit to anything until cams are "vetted across the country." Why do we have to wait for every other city to try it first?
Couple points
A few of the arguments against body cams, which you cover in your comment, really have no basis when you think about them realistically. I don't think anyone arguing for body cams is under the assumption that they will be reviewed daily, or reviewed at all unless needed. Why would an officer feel compelled to not let someone off the hook because he is on camera? Is the guy he just let go going to get in contact with the police, file a complaint and want to see his videotaped interaction with the police so that he can be properly arrested or ticketed? Why would he feel "forced" to make an arrest? That doesn't make any sense. Nobody should be going through these things on a regular basis.
Look at every instance we have seen come to light because of video of a police officer, or even because of a body cam. It is due to a conflicting story after the fact, due to an officer outright lying, or due a previously unknown video that existed contradicting a statement. Officer shoots someone in the line of duty? Pull the video, correlate the story with his report. Someone files a complaint against an officer citing abuse? Pull the video. Officer makes an arrest and the suspect's story is different than his report? Pull the video. I can't see any logical reason a video would show up in court or the public that shows an officer doing that would violate his privacy.
One of the best definitions of character I've heard is the difference in how a person acts if they know they are being watched. If an officer is doing his job the right way a camera shouldn't affect his actions at all, they should be there to protect both the officer and the public. If they do body cameras the right way there will be a process and permissions for acquiring the relevant footage of any dispute from a secure, access controlled database of the videos, so that nobody is arbitrarily seeing a cop take a piss or say hi to the wife.
Data management and access is the biggest challenge I can see with this, but it is completely manageable.
Where is O-Fish-L?
Certainly he should have been the first commenter on this thread, so he could explain to us all why the victim had it coming to him and that this cop could do no wrong?
(Also paging Pete Nice for a no-BS assessment of what might have gone down)