Hey, there! Log in / Register
No doubt there's a good reason the cop has his hand around the protester's throat
By adamg on Sun, 04/15/2012 - 9:07pm
On the Common, no less
Paul Weiskel took this photo of a BPD officer with his hand around the throat of somebody protesting against the Tea Party rally on the Common today. More photos.
David Rothstein at Channel 4 tweets:
BPD: Officers were faced with a group of extremely aggressive protestors and were dutifully maintaining order under difficult circumstances.
Posted under this Creative Commons license.
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
Either the young man tried to
Either the young man tried to put that wig on the cop or the cop was pulling down the bandanna off the man's face.
what 'extremely aggressive' means
I'd like to know what 'extremely aggressive' means and if it's illegal, and...
Whether 'extremely aggressive' gives the law enforcement office the right to restrain the protesters with a hand at his throat.
The same officer went after the photographer's camera. Now WE KNOW for a fact that the officer has no grounds to interfere with the press, even the citizen press, in a place as public as the Boston Common. The Glik decision in the 1st circuit affirms the photographer's rights.
So if the officer is striking out at the photographer without just cause and without authority under the law, you have to wonder whether he's lost his cool and assaulted the one wearing the bandana too without just cause too.
Chokeholds
are illegal use of force in MA if I'm not mistaken. This is a big LEO no-no, especially if the officer wasn't being attacked.
Hard to tell what happened from the picture, but the face on officer Winslow does tell a story, doesn't it?
Look at the album on flickr,
Look at the album on flickr, the same cop is a series of shots, he looks ready to explode. I'm sure some people were being difficult, but it's his job to keep cool and be professional. Looking at the protesters he really had nothing to fear, aside from snarky picket signs. No need to get physical, just keep the two sides apart.
God Bless the men and women
God Bless the men and women of the Boston Police Department. They are purposely provoked by young people who receive many hours of training by cowards who would never let themselves be photographed and never show up at these scenes. The best way to remedy any wrong that may have been done is to demand that the police receive comparable training to counter these twits. No wait, that would never happen because it would cost money. It's cheaper to let someone be suspended or fired.
God bless the men and women
God bless the men and women who follow the grand tradition of public peaceful protest. They are purposefully harassed, beaten, falsely arrested and charged with crimes by police who receive many hours of training by cowards who would never let themselves be photographed and never show up at these scenes.
The best way to remedy any wrong that may have been done is to demand that protesters be treated calmly, professionally, and legally by these twits. No wait, that would never happen because Boston Police have a "first in the nation" entitlement complex the size of a battleship and consider themselves to be god's gift to society. It's cheaper to just ignore the problem unless the city gets sued.
I agree that the police need
I agree that the police need more training. They need to be better advised on how to interact with the public.
But if you're the kind of person who can't keep a cool and professional demeanor when someone is cursing you out with every name in the book and yelling at you then you've got no business being a cop. Period. I'm sorry for people who feel differently and really want to be cops, but it's not a job where you can blow up at people, ever, for any reason.
"I'm sorry for people who
"I'm sorry for people who feel differently and really want to be cops, but it's not a job where you can blow up at people, ever, for any reason."
What planet are you living on? Boston cops are so used to people being borderline-terrified of them, that when you do say something even remotely sarcastic or critical of their aut-or-a-tay, you get harassed, detained, maybe even arrested and charged with something that a judge will maybe dismiss in 24 hours...but not after you've got an arrest on your CORI, had to hire a lawyer, paid court fees, maybe missed work, etc.
Remember what I said about how lawyers...
...should accompany cops in the field on certain occasions? This is one of these times. $200 for an entry-level lawyer to go out in the field with these guys for an hour? Pocket change compared to what the city would pay to defend a lawsuit brought against it by the protester.
A lawyer could have told the cop "if you touch him, you will get written up and/or end up in the news (as he did here), and you don't want that." This cop could be the best one in Boston, but right now, he's on Universal Hub with his hands around a civilian's throat. Whether he's in the right or not, it's still a bad photo for him and for the Boston Police Department. Perhaps this photo wouldn't exist if the right law expert had intervened between the law enforcer and the citizen.
And this is coming from a man who himself has had the hands of a Boston Police officer around his neck (long story, but a drug unit thought I was on drugs and acted accordingly.) I hold no grudges towards them or any Boston police officers.
Self-Reliance and Self-Restraint
But why would a lawyer need to be present to tell the police officer what he can and can not do legally. Should not the officer himself know what he can and can not do and have the common sense and work ethics necessary to adhere to those boundaries?
I don't need a monitor at my job to tell me what is right and wrong to do in order to not do something gravely wrong that would result in damages to my company and my own reputation.
But why would a lawyer need
If I've learned only one thing over the last ten years or so, it's that most police officers don't know jack about actual laws or what they have the legal authority to do.
Tape is making my point
Think of the lawyer and the cop as drinking buddies. The cop has one too many and starts fixing to fight, the lawyer talks him out of it, the same way all of us have talked a friend out of doing something stupid when they're drunk.
But Will
A lawyer could have told the cop "if you touch him, you will get written up and/or end up in the news (as he did here), and you don't want that."
The lawyer would also have to say: " if you don't touch him, and this guy breaks the law, assaults someone, or is disorderly and doesn't comply with the first two levels of compliance after you already warned him, you also aren't doing your job and are responsible for keeping people safe."
These cops know they are being photographed and of course some protesters will go out of their way to end up in a photo like this. Usually by committing small time disturbances and pushing it furthere and further until they legally need a physical reaction by the police. Then the photo comes in and everyone can hate on the cops.
Or maybe the cop physically assaulted the guy and will be fired. Knowing the training officers gets for public protests, I'm thinking the cop is probably reacting with proper force.
Comedy gold
You mean "Or maybe the cop physically assaulted the guy and will be reluctantly given a week's suspension with pay."
No he would be fired
If this was unprovoked and on camera. 100% chance of that.
Here's what will happen.
Pete, you're wrong. Here's what will happen.
Due to the holiday, this officer will have a meeting with the someone from Corporation Counsel (the city's law office run by Bill Sinnott) tomorrow to determine sanctions against him, if any. Following that meeting, this police officer will be meeting with BPPA attorneys Sandulli Grace P.C. (likely Leigh Panettiere, Esq.) to discuss whatever sanctions were given. Corp. Counsel and BPPA counsel will go to mediation, and this officer will be ordered to do training, and will lose no pay.
Ha Ha Ha Ha!
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha (catches breath)
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
That's the funniest thing I've read all day.
Sheesh Pete...
I know you're all buddy buddy with the police, but could you at least *try* to be neutral this one time? Do you seriously feel that all these folks have nothing better to do than to try to get officers in trouble? How exactly does that help their cause?
Trust me some of them do have nothing better to do.
Most of them are peaceful, but some of them need the attention and want to be the victim. That's why they have tactics to get a physical response from the police or other protesters. This protest had plenty of videocameras from the City, Police, DAs office and shared ACLU cameramen, and this is why you won't see a huge fallout from most of the protester/police response as most of the confrontations will be on videotape.
But I've seen people "accidently" stepping on an officers or protesters foot (basically makes them off balance and triggers the person to grab the other person), others will push the limits of assault by slapping a hand away from them (then saying they thought they were going to be assaulted), or pushing their way saying ("someone was in my way in a public place")
Cities/police departments with help from the ACLU have started to videotape these protests to help protect police from bogus lawsuits, and the public from aggresive police tactics.
I really want to know the story here
Last night I went through the photos, and read photo comments which were mostly attempts at being humorous.
Does anyone know what really happened?
Does anyone know what really happened?
more here.
Were the protestors attacking people?
BPD spokesperson Elaine Driscoll referred to the "aggressive nature of these individuals" in the official police response. Certainly looks like she means the police on patrol.
Obviously she means the people protesting the T Partiers. She should refrain however from attempting a spin and instead just stick to the facts that this needs an investigation. To immediately begin an ad hominem attack against the protestors by describing them as having aggressive natures is propaganda and attempts to deflect responsibility away from the cop. Starting the spin machine suggests they already know this cop had the aggressive nature.
My experience with cops in this area is that they are a bad mix of people who desire and work for respect and other folks who police on the basis of fear, arrogance and intimidation. That police here are granted immunity from graft in the form of details does not help them remember that they serve the community and not vice versa. This cop who chose to use a hold that is a short step from strangulation and death appears to be one who believes in fear and intimidation.
Bottom line....
The cop is fucked. Suspension, write up in his jacket or worse. All because he lost his cool and got photographed with his throat around a protestor. Wonder how bad he's getting lit up by the brass right now?
Can you imagine how many papers and websites have this picture right now?
His throat around a protestor?
The police officer "got photographed with his throat around a protestor"??? I can only imagine how many websites would have that picture. But it probably couldn't get published in the newspaper.
Ouch!
Wakin and bakin.....!
This One Follows
Another Interaction
We don't know the whole story, so I'm not discounting that he still might have had good reason, but the guy does appear to enjoy getting up into people's grills.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
No good reason
as stated above, police can not use choke holds, let alone choke a person bare handed.
He might have had a right to detain, or even put the guy under arrest, but word is the choke-ie was not detained or arrested or even questioned.
The police are not judge, jury or executioners of the law. A police officer, save a life threatening situation, has not right to choke someone. Simple as that Sully.
Sully: Just followed your
Sully: Just followed your link to nowhere. Please either link to a related story or delete your comment.
Sully's link takes me to a
Sully's link takes me to a Flikr page showing the policeman in question (in someones face).
I think the problems at your end.
Shut Your Damn Mouth
Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction:
Is that really a cop?
Or is it Stanley from The Office?
it's not Stanley. . .
Sgt. Powell, LAPD?
Something to consider...
NOTE: I wasn't there, I can't speak to what actually happened, blablabla... the usual disclaimer.
For what it's worth, when I look at that picture, I don't see an ounce of shock or surprise in said protestor's eyes. One would assume that if this were an unprovoked case of police brutality/excessive force, and if this individual wasn't doing anything wrong/wasn't expecting this for whatever reason, there'd be a BLATANT sign of fear, disbelief, horror in his eyes.
... Instead, I see the eyes of someone who clearly knows what's up and what's going on. If anything, he looks almost expectant of what's happening.
AGAIN, I wasn't there. I'm not a behavioral specialist, and I'm not saying that the officer in question was justified or in the right. I also fully and completely understand that choke holds of any sort are more or less forbidden. Just something I noticed and found interesting.
A lack of fear or confusion.
You see what you look for
What I see is someone trying to be super calm and not give the over-amped police officer any cause to commit further violence.
I did the same thing when I was an usher at the Orpheum. Someone rushes at you to get to the front and you stand very still and use a calm voice and talk to them rationally until they deflate and go the right way back to their seat. It's the utter conviction that I am right and that I can do this all night and you still won't get past me that I convey with my body language.
Funny, when I was an usher at the Orpheum..
if someone tried to rush the front, they were met by a phalanx of red-shirted goons who would kick their ass into next week...
when was that?
Because I was an usher at the Orpheum for years as well, and never saw "red-shirted goons...kick [someone's] ass into next week". On occasion I saw security stiff arm violent people out the door, but I never saw them punch, kick or throttle anyone - they didn't have to, because they were big and they knew what they were doing, and they didn't get angry.
The first show I worked was
Dire Straits September 8, 1979 and I was there until 1992 for pretty much every show. Worst time was a Jerry Garcia Band show when a kid jumped from the balcony to the floor and broke his leg and the collarbone of the kid he landed on.
4 redshirts took him out by each appendage and took turns delivering crushing blows to his midsection as they were dragging him out.
Good times!
Fire exit ramp
I worked the fire exit ramp by the front door. Patrons could come down the ramp but not go up. I spent most of my nights explaining that yes, i know your seat is right there but you still have to go around. The metal heads always we're the most gracious and understanding. The folkies at the Passim's benefits were the most entitled pains in the butt. And it was a Dave Matthews fan who took umbrage at following the rules. I had my hands in front of me to stop him going past and he flicked his arm back as if to throw me off. The officers on duty thought he was going to punch me so they hauled him off to jail.
I saw security grab people by the arms and drag them to the end of the alley, but only when they were causing trouble and wouldnt knock it off after being asked. And that was the end of it. They were too busy doing their job to spend time more than that. And there were always police on duty. At least when i was there in the 90s.
kungfu?
Not sure on you, but I'm not poised for a tiger claw block when I'm not exactly expecting an officer, or other authority figure, to grab me by the neck in a choke hold.
Whats it take to do this? 1/10 a second?
Ever seen someone get cold clocked? Haha, their fault!...
DSLR's shoot fast, and if preset you can capture action as it unfolds. Capturing the protestor before he even registered what was happening is the more likely.
Also, the stories of how the officer went immediately after the camera first and then the cameramen once he realized what he just did doesn't exactly paint a good picture.
He lost his cool, did something stupid, and then tried to cover it up (something even more stupid).
But honestly, BPD brass deserves more of the blame. Why where these guys even needed in the first place? It's like dragging in the stormtroopers and shutting down half the city to justify their toys budget and give a show of force that only instigates a drunk response. Aren't police taught how to deescalate situations? Or is everything settled with a taser blast now?
Again,
I'm not justifying anyone's actions. All of these points made are completely valid. I'm just stating what I saw in the picture; that doesn't necessarily mean that "default guy in bandanda" deserved to be handled in that manner.
... And, in regards to the comment from the retired-usher: you seem to have a great grasp on the world and the way it works. Unfortunately, I find it very, VERY hard to believe that everyone is as enlightened as you. Food for thought.
Actually I see the opposite.
Actually I see the opposite. When we look at the cop we see him really angry. People are people, but a cop has no business being angry at a protest. But the protester has no aggression in him. His body posture isn't one of someone who has been caught in committing any violence, which would be the only thing which could justify the officer assaulting him. The fact that the protestor wasn't charged with anything backs this up. There was no legal basis for the cop to lay his hands on the protestor. He just got pissed and acted the bully.
Officer on his off days
I thought this profile picture from the officer's Facebook page was just too ironic not to share it with you all.
Wiley
Perhaps the protester stuck his tongue out at Officer Wiley and went Meep Meep.
Holy shit Kaz. That's unbelivable.
He's got good taste in beer. But if the T-shirt mirrors his point of view, he's the hunter who's foiled again and again, until he's finally vindicated as illustrated -- by grabbing the asshole firmly by the throat.
I don't care to see the officer get screwed, I care to see him learn something and get better at his job.
I agree 100%
...learn something and get better at his job.
Oh Lordy
Jesus.
If the papers didn't want to cover it, this image almost forces them to for page clicks and chatter. Not that is has any journalistic value, but then again since when did they?
The person in the bandana speaks
He then said "Don't shove you!?" and then choked me, for a short period of time.
Not What the Globe Reported
The person in the bandanna didn't tell the Globe that. Here's what the Globe reported, but you have to buy the paper to read the whole article:
"He pushed me," Allie said in a telephone interview Monday. "I turned to him and said don't push me ... Then he got angry. He grabbed me by the neck and then pushed me by the neck. He didn't choke me."
Playing into the Tea Party's stereotype
Of course it doesn't matter in the context of the police misconduct story, but this fellow's repeated use of the word "comrades" in the story adamg linked to plays right into the Tea Party's stereotype of the people who don't see the world as they do.
Bandana fellow probably doesn't care, and neither might anyone else, but it's just something that I noticed right away.
Words have meaning
It's something both the teaparty and occupyistas would do well to learn.