Hey, there! Log in / Register
Another protest planned over Roxbury Community College arrest
By adamg on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 5:27pm
Jamarhl Crawford reports on a march by Roxbury Community College students and staff to Boston Police headquarters tomorrow at noon over that arrest.
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
105 comments on a thread about some punk resisting
and getting taken down while getting an arrest warrant served on him and only 6 about a cop getting shot serving a warrant. And now this?
Am I nuts?
I have to agree with an earlier poster, why aren't these people marching down Tonawanda St. protesting the gangs that are literally holding entire neighborhoods hostage?
nope not nuts. I'm surprised
nope not nuts.
I'm surprised the after the videos there where still people here calling on the cop as the perp. Apparently he should have just asked please or something.
These people are single handily the reason why cops do not want to be taped, and pushing back against those efforts. Because asshats call any use of force too much.
Hypocrisy is the Greatest Luxury
But that group was never very popular anyway.
Judging by his site, Mr. Crawford seems to think the greatest threat to Boston's young men of color is the Boston Police Department and not, as every day's newspapers suggest, other young men of color.
Somehow, I think the repercussions of pointing a camera at a cop are a lot less serious than the ones that come from pointing one at an H-Block thug. No one seems too anxious to put that to the test, though.
Judging by his site....
Judge not lest ye be judged I think the good book says...
"the greatest threat to young men of color" no, as I fancy myself somewhat a master of the language if that's what I intended to say I would have said it, wrote it put it in 24pt Bold Red Font.
What I have done is lay out the facts reported in the media and provided additional research about the pattern of Police Corruption, Abuse of Power, Use of Force including Brutality and Shootings resulting in death and the origins of the BPD which many people do not know. Study, Research and History are a lost art these days, as is civility.
The difference between young men of color who, to use some of the sentiments here and echoed in the Herald, are a bunch of drug using/selling, gun wielding, knife flicking, violence prone type of thug miscreants - and the Boston Police Department are multifold.
1. They don't get paid and took no oath. Thugs aren't paid with tax dollars and took an oath of civil service, therefore they are not betraying any public trust in their actions. They operate outside the law. Police are supposed to operate inside the law and uphold the law and are paid with tax $$$ to do so and have sworn to do so.
2. Thugs haven't shot and killed any Boston Police Officer in decades, however since 1995, 19 people have been shot and killed by the BPD, they were all Black, Latino and Cape Verdean. Is there a pattern of Black people shooting just Irish and Italian officers?
3. Corruption. Corruption in crime is part of the deal, corruption in law enforcement though is contradictory and poses a serious breach of security.
4. Thugs have no major infrastructure, there is no coordination through radio, have no HQ, no cars and precincts, no budget, no union, and thugs have no historical pattern of using their power to oppress and gentrify. Thugs basically try to squeak by. Police are a part of society and therefore need to be closely regulated.
In short yes I am more concerned about the actions of the Police than the actions of criminals. Why? Because crime has been here since the beginning and there will always be a criminal element, from ancient times, to the wild west, to now the age of red laser beam automatic weapons. Criminals will be criminals and they engage in crime, so yes I am far more concerned when the so called "good guys" are engaging in some of the very same behavior that they are supposed to be in charge of thwarting.
I ask any of you who so vehemently defend the Police, I have asked this many times before to many people including top brass of Police.
1. Are the Police ever wrong?
2. Think of, name a case when Police were wrong?
3. What, if any, is the proper or acceptable way to question or critique the Police?
your answers will most likely prove that you are all too ready for a Police State and that the Police are one of a few select areas of government and society who would like to act as if they are beyond all reproach and critique, and that is UN-American, right?
I answer all 3
1. The police are wrong often.
2. I know dozens of cops who have been fired for being wrong, many others suspended, and many others disciplined for being wrong.
3. You can question them wherever and whenever you want. Just don't do it in the field when they ask you to do something like put your hands behind your back, tell you to stand back, stop, ask you to get out of your car, etc. You have to do it after the fact.
Those commenters would shit
Those commenters would shit their pants if a cat sneezed - what do you expect from them?
And zero comments on post after post about people getting shot
, stabbed and mugged. People do protest the violence, you just chose to ignore it.
Given that the classes at RCC
Given that the classes at RCC are remedial high school classes, these people might want to stick their noses in their books and keep them there. Then again, there's a reason why they're out of high school and still going to Romper Room.
Please provide
us with some evidence as to how you have determined that all of the classes offered there are such.
Community college classes are
Community college classes are remedial by their nature. Don't embarrass yourself and claim that there is no difference between "community college" and a real college. They exist to serve those who aren't prepared to do college work. It's their business.
And that's not getting into the amount of remedial work necessary in those "real colleges" I cited above. This has all been discussed for decades in the general media and in venues like the Chronicle of Higher Education. If you don't know about it, that's a 'you' problem.
remedial by their nature
I don't think you're familiar with the course catalog, a sample. Ever looked on one? PDF What is your direct experience with community colleges?
No, really, what?
Elite colleges and universities will accept community college credits for transfer, provided they're college-level classes. Community colleges do teach remedial classes, yes, but they also teach college-level classes.
Also, community colleges have programs resulting in certificates for healthcare and other professions. Yes, I know some high schools also do dual vocational certifications, but that's considered to be education beyond a high school diploma even if done in high school.
I was unexpectedly impressed with the rigor of cc classes
I don't know if any of the state universities (UMass, but also the newly renamed ones) would be considered "elite", but they not only will, but must, under the community colleges compact, accept credits from the community colleges so long as the student achieves a certain grade (I want to say a B or better, but I'm not sure on that).
On a separate note, I have a bachelor's degree and a graduate degree, and I've been taking a series of science classes at one of the community colleges. Maybe it is just the subject matter (mostly DNA forensics, biotechnology and healthcare related stuff), but I can say that the classes are fairly rigorous.
Right, and most colleges will take them
The college I attended (private four-year liberal arts school, listed on those various pompous top-whatever lists every year) accepted credits from any accredited school, provided they were college-level, aside from a few categories they deemed "vocational" or whatever.
Harvard's policy is similar.
http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/tr...
There's this attitude in New England where community college is where you go if you're older, parenting, poor, or you screwed up in high school. In other parts of the country, it's considered a smart choice for people who want to pay half as much money to take the same classes with 20 people in the class instead of 500 and a professor who teaches because s/he likes teaching rather than to get research funded.
Stepping Stone
A former coworker of mine started at a Community College in California while working as a Nurse Aide and living at home (she had ESL issues and eight siblings)
After taking 3 years to get an associate degree, she went to UCLA on scholarship
Masters from Yale
Doctorate from Brown
I also had a roommate at MIT who transferred in from Tidewater Community College in Virginia.
Of course, there are also plenty of people who have taken much more traditional routes with their community college educations - like, getting the training they need for the job market. In any case, I wouldn't sneer at the education offered or provided - if it gets people from where they are to where they need and want to go, it is all good.
actually
i graduated from a four-year college but racked up a couple of early credits at RCC. the thing is, a good teacher is a good teacher at RCC or at Harvard. one of the very toughest classes i took was at RCC. i had a couple of profs there who were very knowledgeable and effective teachers, and one guy who was there for a paycheck. the difference is that after the top level, the dropoff is more precipitous.
past that, there were some very serious and committed students, also some kids who really should have been at DaYcareS. but you can say that for just about any c.c., can't you?
s smear on RCC and community colleges in general
and what for? Bunker Hill teaches a writing course that meets at midnight so that parents who work can attend classes and improve themselves. One such class is taught by an excellent prof who attended Williams College, one of the best LACs in the Nation. Their hard-earned writing skills help them advance in their field of work. We NEED people who want to advance themselves, and community colleges help them do that.
Education is the single best path to realizing the American dream and community colleges make it possible for many many people.
Public support for community colleges seems like a no brainer for every person concerned about the direction of American society.
No, it's not a smear - it's
No, it's not a smear - it's the truth. Community colleges are called community colleges - and not colleges - for a reason. And the reason is not because they are in a community. They are differentiated by name to differentiate their mission. Their mission is to serve a pre-collegiate student body. Is this really news to you?
You got another think coming
You didn't do much with your first one. Try research - its been shown to lead you to actual information.
But if they were pre-collegiate credits
then they wouldn't be able to count toward a degree at Harvard or other fine institutions.
another think coming
Your defense of that pablum as not a smear consists of these assertions:
So please, look at the course catalog and come back so we can have a conversation about
im pretty sure thats where i
im pretty sure thats where i met your mother at!!
Maybe if the 'community'
Maybe if the 'community' expressed the same 'outrage' at the youths routinely fighting, stabbing, and shooting each other in that part of Roxbury there wouldn't be a need for the police to ever arrest anyone in that neighborhood. Honestly these people complain about people have a negative perception of the area because of crime and then circle the wagons around every two bit thug that gets slightly bruised when being busted by the police.
I also have to laugh how people in Roxbury proper are complaining more and more how Mission Hill, Longwood, and JP are being thought of as part of Roxbury less and less. The reason is those parts of the 'bury aren't full of murderous thugs and stupid people to condone their behavior. The public's perception of those areas versus Roxbury proper are causing a gradual schism between the geographic locations for good reason!
Marches, peace rallies, candle light vigils, etc.
happen all the time, and it’s ignorant to think that the good hardworking people of these communities are the ones at fault here.
Does this encourage resisting arrest?
Would someone resist arrest and force the cops to crack down on them if they knew there was a high likelihood that the community would call it "brutality" and start filming?
no, it should encourage bpd to clean up their acts
Other police departments around the world have figured out how to subdue people without punching them repeatedly. Maybe at some point BPD will realize that professionalism will serve them better than street justice, and that with cameras everywhere in the hands of citizens, the days of roughing up a suspect are over. And people who enjoy beating up other people won't be able to hold a badge.
There is ZERO excuse for punching someone during an arrest, especially someone who is being held down on the ground, and 4+ trained officers have no excuse for not being able to subdue and cuff a suspect without injury to all involved.
Let's also not forget that the douchebag cop doing the punching was involved in Woodman's death.
You really need to stop
You really need to stop talking.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and it's obvious that you hate the cops.
I'm the first to speak up against brutality and idiocy; but this was a textbook takedown, and warranted. The kid had a warrant, he's fled before, and he was considered dangerous; then he fought back.
I'd love for you to be put into a room with the punk and tell him he couldn't leave. Bet you'd be wishing these officers where there with you.
Off topic for the thread but on topic for the site...
...You should include attribution when you embed someone else's creative work - especially when the artist explicitly requests that you do so.
My apologies, as I had no
My apologies, as I had no idea. Some things on the net end up taking on a life of their own, and someone should get the picture off that image site if that's the case.
Now you have me wondering who owns ceiling cat...
Although, the link you provided seems to cover re-publication dealing with editors of papers, blogs, ect; and not us lowly one off commentators. Still, you're probably right.
Continuing to say it doesn't make it true
Where's proof that "other police departments around the world" don't use a closed fist or knee to force compliance to lawful orders of arrest like "put your hands behind your back" when it's clear that the person is resisting?
Where's proof that the officer enjoyed doing that?
Where's proof that you can subdue and cuff someone without injury if they are intent on fleeing/ignoring/resisting or even outright harming you (see: SOMERVILLE DETECTIVE SHOT)?
Let's also not forget that you have no idea what you're talking about...you just hate cops.
Plus..
Well I agree that punching someone in the ribs might not be the best tecnique here, but punching him in the arm would be. Although repeated punches anywhere does little when someone is jacked up on drugs or adrenelin and wants to either pull out a gun or just keep resisting. Then again, punching someone in the stomach or neck might hurt their breathing, so if the person was trying to get a gun, people might end up living at the end of the struggle.
Also, a lot of departments have tazers, and when they tell the person that they are under arrest, that person gets tazed the second they give a hint that they don't want to be placed under arrest.
There are some good baton tecniques which can get a persons arm out as well.
BPD police's own use-of-force manual
As of 1994:
http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/rule3...
"Officers should use the defense oriented Pressure Point Control Tactic (PPCT) whenever possible in subduing a subject. This places primary emphasis on striking motor function controlling nerve points in the body. Except in extreme situations, where the officer is in imminent danger of serious injury, no blows should be struck above the thigh, other than to the arms."
Repeatedly punching someone in the stomach doesn't sound like "defense oriented pressure point control tactic." It sounds like "beat the punk up" and "anger management issues." Which should sound familiar, given that the same cop was the one who took down Woodman when Woodman made an obnoxious comment.
I've noticed a lot of anonymous Keyboard Heros who have implied the suspect 'deserved' it. I wonder how they'd feel if they were mistakenly ID'd as a murderer, arrested and had the stuffing beaten out of them by a bunch of BPD cops?
If I were mistakenly ID'd as a murderer...
I'd probably stop moving when they said "Stop right there".
Then I'd also probably put my hands behind my back when they said "Put your hands behind your back".
Thus, I wouldn't be videotaped getting beaten on the ground.
Like I said, textbook. He
Like I said, textbook.
He wasn't struck in the stomach. You need to stop making shit up.
He was struck in the side ribs and upper arm as they tried to get him to release his grip from underneath his body.
During a struggle, it's also not an exact science. The officer, clearly, was doing what he was taught, which was to attack the pressure points.
Keep at it though Brett. You're part of the problem, along with the crooked cops.
That is part of it, but there are many other factors.
The nature of the crime, safety of the general public, the behavior of the subject, age, size, sex, subjects actions, experience, skill level, subjects possible training, exhaustion, special circumstances, prior knowledge of offender.
And like anonsquared said, it looks like the officer is striking down on the arm, which would be different than punching him in the stomach, and it is probably less force than placing the knee on the shoulder which wouldn't look as bad the punches either.
Military training
Blackwater aka Xe teaches Coasties training to take down pirates to not punch, and it ain't for humanitarian reasons, either. They are taught more effective means in order to subdue adversaries while protecting themselves.
Punching may be emotionally satisfying in a school-yard spat kind of way, but it apparently is NOT a very effective maneuver for subduing a combative person in hand-to-hand. Furthermore, it carries two types of risks to the puncher: the risk of hand and arm injuries due to the way that fist meets whatever; and the risk that, while your hand is balled in a fist, the guy you are punching is reaching for a weapon with hands free (instead of being less able to reach for that weapon due to that punching arm being put to more effective use).
Watch some boxing and then some martial arts and some ultimate fighting and you can see why this might be.
SwirlyGrrl, this wasn't a
SwirlyGrrl, this wasn't a takedown.
This has getting compliance / suspects hands out from under him. Body strikes to pressure points are the norm, just like in MMA, when you're trying to get someone to release their grip.
I'd say so. Likewise, as I
I'd say so. Likewise, as I said, it's the reason the police and authorities are so against mandatory filming (Which I support). Who wants to allow that, when you get this kind of blowback for doing what you're trained to do.
Body blows to pressure points of a suspect resisting arrest to get his hands out from under him is not a police beatdown people. The city councilors should be ashamed for jumping into this.
Boston Police wrongful practices vs. Criminals
Judge not lest ye be judged I think the good book says...
"the greatest threat to young men of color" no, as I fancy myself somewhat a master of the language if that's what I intended to say I would have said it, wrote it put it in 24pt Bold Red Font.
What I have done is lay out the facts reported in the media and provided additional research about the pattern of Police Corruption, Abuse of Power, Use of Force including Brutality and Shootings resulting in death and the origins of the BPD which many people do not know. Study, Research and History are a lost art these days, as is civility.
The difference between young men of color who, to use some of the sentiments here and echoed in the Herald, are a bunch of drug using/selling, gun wielding, knife flicking, violence prone type of thug miscreants - and the Boston Police Department are multifold.
1. They don't get paid and took no oath. Thugs aren't paid with tax dollars and took an oath of civil service, therefore they are not betraying any public trust in their actions. They operate outside the law. Police are supposed to operate inside the law and uphold the law and are paid with tax $$$ to do so and have sworn to do so.
2. Thugs haven't shot and killed any Boston Police Officer in decades, however since 1995, 19 people have been shot and killed by the BPD, they were all Black, Latino and Cape Verdean. Is there a pattern of Black people shooting just Irish and Italian officers?
3. Corruption. Corruption in crime is part of the deal, corruption in law enforcement though is contradictory and poses a serious breach of security.
4. Thugs have no major infrastructure, there is no coordination through radio, have no HQ, no cars and precincts, no budget, no union, and thugs have no historical pattern of using their power to oppress and gentrify. Thugs basically try to squeak by. Police are a part of society and therefore need to be closely regulated.
In short yes I am more concerned about the actions of the Police than the actions of criminals. Why? Because crime has been here since the beginning and there will always be a criminal element, from ancient times, to the wild west, to now the age of red laser beam automatic weapons. Criminals will be criminals and they engage in crime, so yes I am far more concerned when the so called "good guys" are engaging in some of the very same behavior that they are supposed to be in charge of thwarting.
I ask any of you who so vehemently defend the Police, I have asked this many times before to many people including top brass of Police.
1. Are the Police ever wrong?
2. Think of, name a case when Police were wrong?
3. What, if any, is the proper or acceptable way to question or critique the Police?
your answers will most likely prove that you are all too ready for a Police State and that the Police are one of a few select areas of government and society who would like to act as if they are beyond all reproach and critique, and that is UN-American, right?
By the number
Prove that what they did was outside of the law. The outcry has been that this was "police brutality" but I don't see anyone defining how what was observed was "brutality" given what's known of the situation. Is it somehow "brutal" for cops to lay their hands on anyone ever?
Have thugs *tried* to shoot or kill any police officers in decades? Have thugs proven that they've shot and killed others and wouldn't hesitate to kill a cop if given a good opportunity during the commission of other crimes? 19 people in 15 years is extremely low...considering it's been 19 people in like the past 3 months for thug shootings/killings. Who cares if the thugs are bad shots but our officers are trained how to accurately use their weapons when they have needed to?
Are you claiming that this case has any relevance to any kind of corruption in the BPD? That's a bold claim without any assertable evidence. If you aren't, then "corruption" is purely a red herring here.
This is just nonsense. Thugs have tons of infrastructure (ever heard of the term "gang" or "mafia"?), they use cell phones and drops, their whole point is to generate revenue and a budget, they themselves are a union, and their only means of generating money and power is to oppress and terrorize a neighborhood into giving them what they want and doing only what's allowed that keeps them in power. This isn't a coffee klatch, it's gang warfare!
Gangs aren't a part of civilized society and therefore need to be removed.
Now, NONE of what I've just written excuses police misconduct or claims that the police aren't without their own problems. But to treat gangs as "just some guys making do" and painting cops as "corrupt" and having a "pattern" of killing blacks (n.b. 19 people in 15 years is a pattern? How many of those 19 were actually justified by the situation?) is extremely short-sighted and unhelpful.