Hey, there! Log in / Register
You've had your protest, now go away
By adamg on Tue, 11/25/2014 - 7:50am
As Paul Nutting shows us, State Police seem to have figured out that they can forestall trouble outside the State House this morning by using cruisers to fill up pretty much all the space where protesters exercising their First Amendment rights would normally stand.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
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
Parking on the sidewalk
is illegal......
Not for Police or TV
They might just be trying to keep the news trucks/cameras off the sidewalk. Either way you slice it, a win for democracy!
They're the cops. They can
They're the cops. They can act without impunity. Didn't you learn anything from yesterday?
Also, thanks to everyone who
Also, thanks to everyone who ignored the fact that I said "without impunity" when I meant "with impunity."
So that's why cops are always
So that's why cops are always parking on sidewalks in Boston? Protecting sub shops and dunkin donuts from protesters?
So they figured out a way to quell freedom of speech. Bravo, no cash your paycheck and go back to sleep.
What we need is a tank ...
If only they had 2 large vehicle instead of all those little ones. That would be much more efficient. It's time to get the State Police some tanks.
The MSP play the long game.
The MSP play the long game. They're holding out for an Apache helicopter.
Nice try...
You're obviously just trying to stir the pot buy pretending that you are just another ignorant, "lets beat some protesters bloody" knuckle dragger.
Pretending?
Pretending? Is that what they call sarcasm where you come from?
No...
I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Calm down.
You are missing the point
The point of this isn't protest threats - otherwise, they would be out there whenever the red line broke down.
The point of this is overtime. Nothing like a good "ZOMG threat of a protest!" event to justify tapping the coffers.
Wrong again Swirrly....
Although everyone who gets paid overtime loves overtime, do you really think those in charge of the state police budget wanted to spend overtime money on this? Do you really think Deval was excited to tell the MSP that they now had a reason to go ahead and pay everyone OT to sit in front of the statehouse in case something happened?
They seem to enjoy staring into holes
... to the point where they put stickers on their private cars spreading the "public safety" ruse, despite MA being state 50 of 50 to authorize flaggers.
I think they love the overtime - to the point where they have held their own protests over it.
To the point where they demand ridiculous levels of it when an event comes to town.
I think the grand performance in the key of whine when Governor Patrick authorized flaggers is a firm rebuttal of everything you just reacted with.
Overtime...
Yet you're not on here complaining about CEOs who make 400% more than their emplyees. I know...apples and oranges. Except not really.
Except
that it is. In what way are police officers getting paid overtime and the amount of money CEOs make comparable? It's not even the same conversation.
*sigh*
My point is that they are doing a jab that very few could do. While this country is being brainwashed into thinking that all law public safety officers are corrupt, murderings psychos, the fact is that the MAJORITY of these men and women are putting their lives on the line on a regular basis. Yet some elitist type comes along and snorts about them getting overtime, attacking them as if those risking their lives for people like you are the problem. Meanwhile, they never even dare to attack those who do nothing dangerous, yet sit atop their ivory tower absorbed with greed. I'm just trying to put the proper perspective on things for people who have given in to the propaganda that has been force fed down your throats for years by those who hate the ones who serve.
Lives on the line?
"Putting their lives on the line"?
In 2012, there were 105 dead officers, with the Fatal Injury Rate being about 15.0 per 100,000 officers. Of these officers, only 51 died of "violence and other injuries by persons or animals"; 48 were killed by "transportation incidents".
For perspective, here are Fatal Injury Rates for other occupations:
Police Officers are at as much risk as our groundskeepers and taxi drivers. The only lives on the line are the people of color and/or mentally disabled that are being summarily executed in cold blood by "those who serve".
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries
Cool
Cool I knew all police officers are horrible racists who want to murder minorities to fullfill their blood lust for nothing because the zionist media (or whatever) told me but now I know they want to murder the handicapped too! Thanks Alex!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got anything about how the military are baby killers too?
I have a good friend who's a cop
When you talk to these guys what you realize is it's not the reality of getting shot - which as you point out is statistically low. It's the possibility of getting shot (or stabbed, or blown up or bitten by a dog and on and on). You NEVER know what's behind that door. Could be a grandma offering you cookies and could be a spurned lover in a homicidal rage. The stress has to be numbing - and if you happen to be having an off day - somebody on either end of that gun in your holster could die. Sorry - I cut these guys (and girls) A LOT of slack. Innocent until proven guilty goes multiple times over for a cop in this one person's opinion.
Take your "summarily executed" and stick it. That's a giant load of crap. One of the only probabilities lower than a cop getting killed on the job is an innocent civilian getting killed by a cop - and it's LOTS lower. 15 out of 100k cops? Odds of getting killed by a cop for any reason are literally about 1 in 750k. Getting "summarily executed" for no reason is about 1 in 5 million according to stats posted today in the WSJ based on a study (I think source was a Bowling Green prof) and that's only if I assume the 41 murder by cop convictions should be closer to 100 actually guilty cops - a 150% margin of error.
Ah, statistics!
Or exactly almost nearly precisely really very small.
I once lived in a small (6k)
I once lived in a small (6k) town; the only full-time cop was the chief; the other 4 officers were part-time; when we moved into our new house the entire police dep't came by to say hello.
The chance of anyone in the dep't being shot was less than zero.
My point here is that a whole lot of police should be excluded from your numbers.
The real question is what are the chances that a cop in an urban environment being shot... all police environments are not the same; but your numbers pretend they are.
I'm sure the environment loggers work in is much more similar job-to-job, than are police environments.
I actually agree
with you on both points, individually, but drawing a comparison between to two is a stretch here. You could theoretically compare anyone who gets paid too much money relative to their positive impact on society to professions like law enforcement, teachers, nurse, etc.
Well, no
You're using the failed logic that says an egregious violation over here must be ignored because there's an even more egregious violation over there. Instead, why not kick both their asses?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Completely apples vs oranges.
CEOs making obscene salaries has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Mass police staring into holes, talking on their cell phones, or parked every 1/2 mile along I95 at 2am.
Way to spin your own point swirly....
First off, troopers are exempt from the flagger law, the governor made sure if that so he wouldn't have his own people after him.
Second, who is "they"? The troopers who got forced to work OT last night, or the person in charge who wanted to spend money on OT just for spending money's sake? You seemed to choose the latter in your first post, but changed it in your second post because you just can't help yourself and your hatred for others.
The overtime point is not a bad one
as, now that we know that we are staring down a $300 - $600 million deficit that has to be closed in the next couple of months.
That is, it's not a bad point unless you believe that the current administration is running it up so that the incoming administration is made to look bad when the first thing that it has to do is make significant cuts to close the gap.
(There are a non-trivial number of people who I know who have suggested that there might be a bit of this going on - and these people are not talk-radio callers - they are people who might have reason to know.)
What happened in Ferguson is
What happened in Ferguson is a serious issue. Derailing this discussion with the police overtime pay issue is disrespectful.
Respectfully, The Thread Is About Events In Boston, Not Ferguson
No offense, but I'll wait for
No offense, but I'll wait for adamg to tell me what his post was about.
with regard to this post,
with regard to this post, Adam posted this link:
This is about Ferguson. This is about the Boston citizen's response to Ferguson.
The post is not about police overtime pay. Please show some respect to those who care about this issue.
Brain's Lottery
No one will ever accuse the Mass. State Police of winning the Brain's Lottery. At least they are not shooting at a fleeing trannie!!
I think you mean...
Is a brain holding the lottery, or are brains the prize? Brain power is not a lottery, it's something people get from working hard and having certain birth advantages, which are not random instruments, and besides, it's clear that the brains in MA are in pretty clearly established areas.
So, did the cops...
...give you that info about the protest? It's actually in Dudley Square: https://www.facebook.com/events/792638324117882/
No, not police
Thanks for the correction. Post updated.
Really?
Last time I checked, first amendment did not grant one a right to beat up cops and rob convenience stores. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Really?
Last time I checked, this is Boston, Mass., not Ferguson, Mo., and the First Amendment still applies here.
Last I checked the death
Last I checked the death penalty wasn't appropriate penalty for robbery, and most people in the US get a trial, not just the cop metes out the punishment he wants.
Take a breath
Read the grand jury transcripts, and check back in.
Report on the radio said the evidence was all over the place - and that was the problem - there was no way to know what really happened, much less bring him up on charges and far much less convict him. If you can't get to probably cause - highly unlikely you're going to get anywhere near guilty.
That's why this was prosecutorial misconduct
Grand juries aren't supposed to look over all of the evidence and decide if charges should be brought. You've been fed a line of shit from the county DA that sounds like what you think you know about grand juries.
Grand juries are a check on corrupt prosecutors. The prosecutor is tasked with determining if the evidence is present to take someone to trial. They go to the grand jury and explain why they think they should get the right to put a citizen on trial so they can convince a trial jury of the defendant's guilt. This is why grand juries finding no probable cause are the *extreme* exception (thus the source of the proverb that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich). If a prosecutor were to target someone unfairly, then the grand jury steps in to say "that's not probable cause, go away".
The DA in Ferguson instead provided all the evidence he could muster including false eyewitness testimony that he then impeached with physical evidence...because "it was only fair". The grand jury isn't a fair process. The defendant should NEVER be called before a grand jury because it gives him a forum to protest his innocence. That's what trials are for! But Wilson was allowed to testify to the grand jury in this case. The entire time, the prosecutor abrogated his responsibilities to the grand jury and treated them as a trial jury along with presenting the defense's case too! It's a disgusting abuse of prosecutorial power over the grand jury and it resulted in exactly what the prosecutor wanted. It was a document dump with the intention of sandbagging his own case because it was a case he would have never tried in the first place (check his history of cop brutality claims).
You can't get to probable cause if you're not even trying to. The first question the dim-witted media should have asked him yesterday is: "Did *you* even want to try Wilson?". Because if he says anything other than yes then he never should have been the one to go to the grand jury. Anything else would be an abuse of the system.
I think Kaz....
That the DA knew that there was not enough evidence at trial to get a prosecution, especially in a bench trial in which I suspect Wilson would have chosen.
The DA might not have wanted to try this case if it were an armed black man defending himself against a KKK member either, but do you think he should have simply said that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute? Or just go about the "unfair" grand jury process and see if he can simply waste everyone's time and money in a case he knows he won't win?
Is there something wrong with just bringing out all the truth at the grand jury to make it clear to everyone what evpxactly happened, since grand jury testimony always helps the DA anyway?
I know Pete
I know that's exactly what he did. But that's why this was so criminal of him.
He didn't want to go to trial. Well, then say "I'm not convening a grand jury". In doing so, but sabotaging his own grand jury proceedings, he basically attempted to placate the anger of the community while engendering even further mistrust that the system has failed them...which has only generated more anger. If he doesn't want to go to trial, then don't go to trial. Recuse yourself if the public thinks it should still go to trial. There has to be someone who could have taken this to trial if they tried to. You have a cop who shot an unarmed civilian. It would have been easy to suggest this cop acted incorrectly and against his training in a wide number of ways. Let the defense argue that he acted in everyone's best interests IN COURT.
Why would you ever present a witness and impeach their testimony with other evidence within a grand jury?! That's just blatant sandbagging. No prosecutor does that unless they don't want to go to trial. If you don't want to go to trial, you don't convene the grand jury.
Was he forced into going to the grand jury? Absolutely. The case demanded a trial. He should have made his weak attempt at trial when the case was *supposed* to be argued, not at the grand jury where his intentional disruption of his own case was an abuse of the process.
I know but you want the DA to try to find someone?
That will get an indictment, if most of the ADAs believe they don't have enough evidence? Would that be better than why happened here?
I also believe that the DA should just say what he really thinks and not skirt around the issue, but is presenting the truth any better or worse than trying to find someone who might not believe in their own case at trial? Is that any more fair?
Exactly, Pete. Now you've got it.
The DA should have said "I can't try this case". Then, the public could have demanded a special prosecutor who would have had less bias and actually tried the case. They also could have voted for a DA next election that is competent to hold the criminal system on trial instead of one that coddles the police no matter what they do.
Playing games with a grand jury as a means to deflect the blame for failing to try a cop that shoots an unarmed civilian is, sadly, working...because the discussion is barely about the prosecutor here. And he's half of the problem.
He can't try the case why?
Because there isn't enough evidence to convict? Or because he doesn't like to prosecute police officers? If you think the DA thought that the police officer was guilty, but didn't want to be on the wrong side of the courtroom, then that's another story.
But the public can demand things now? Like what? A police review board to decide guilt or innocence? You say he coddles to the police, which shows your hand either way, so why should the public listen to you? (Or your suggestions, which may also be biased?)
So, your area of expertise is in criminal law?
The grand jury heard evidence, not only selective evidence that would skew their decision towards or against indictment, but all brought to them.
Also, the last thing a defense attorney would have is his or her client going in front of any court to testify. That is fraught with peril.
The grand jury exists as its own body. Check Missouri Statutes if you want to learn more. Disagree with the decision of the grand jury all you want, but in the end it was their decision.
And yes, my guess is that we both have the same amount of legal training. None.
Kaz may have a point though....
If, and it's and if, MO grand juries do things one way for citizens, and the other way for police. That could be a problem.
I think what happened here is that the DA has pressure to bring this to a grand jury, even though he knew the case had no chance in court, the evidence was stacked against them. But evidence can be stacked against you in regular cases too, it doesn't mean you can't use the "unfair" system like you would in any other case.
Nothing you posted matters
Nothing you said speaks to what I wrote at all. Grand juries aren't supposed to receive all of the evidence. That's not their place within the system. I don't disagree with their decision. If you think that, then you didn't read a thing I wrote. I disagree with the way they were manipulated by the DA.
Two options
As others have posted - it seems he knew he had between little and no case to prosecute. He could have simply said - not prosecuting. Can you imagine the holy hell that would have emerged from one man making that decision? Guessing he was an elected official too and that is the LAST thing he wants on the plate in his next election debate.
So - he went for option 2 - let the grand jury deliberate. You may say he "manipulated" them - I don't know, nor do I admit to knowing grand jury law, proceedings or how it may differ from state to state. Sounds like you are making some pretty bold statements in an area that is not your field of expertise though. Personally, I'm going to listen to a few lawyer friends and talking heads before making judgment.
As I said above, I think we should all step back and take a breath. Even if you are right about the grand jury, none of us know what happened. Article on WSJ cites research that of roughly 2750 cases of homicide by police - only 41 were prosecuted for murder/manslaughter. They didn't say how many white/black victims, cops etc., but with overwhelming numbers like that - it's not a white/black thing. It's a cop/civilian thing and has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a) split second life/death decisions and b) a very small percentage of bad apples. When you think about the volume and type of police interactions a year in this country - it's a credit to them that only 2750 people get killed, the vast, vast majority with very good reason - not an indictment. Can we do better, sure. But that's a pretty good number.
Same to you
Okay, here's something from the Missouri Statutes-
That's their job. Look, UHub has cast a wary eye at grand juries before, but at the end of the day, as Jake Wark notes, grand juries are there to look at evidence to see if there is probable cause for a prosecution. If they are there to rubber stamp what the DA wants or allegedly wants, let's just get rid of grand juries altogether.
Again, like with the local example I cite, if you want to blame someone for the lack of indictment, it's the grand jury. But then again, I freely admit the lack of a JD.
The DA did handle this grand
The DA did handle this grand jury differently than others I have seen. I don't know it would have changed the outcome in truth, because police are given so much deference in the law and by juries. But the nature of our system is adversarial with the idea that the truth comes out between the competing sides. The prosecutor is supposed to stand for the victim. But in this instance, as an attorney and having read as much of the grand jury testimony as I can so far, it really does seem the prosecutors gave significant deference to Wilson and a default view that he was in the right. It comes across during his testimony especially when he discusses why he went right to lethal force based on a punch to the face from Brown, and the prosecutors barely follow up on such a significant statement that goes to the heart of the case. Again, I'm not sure it ends up changing the end result but I don't feel this was handled in an appropriate way and does not lend itself credibility. And dumping all evidence on a grand jury in the manner the DA did is not standard procedure that I'm aware of. Did he do it to confuse them and prevent an indictment? I can't say that but it is questionable. It's almost as if the grand jury became the trial jury in essence, which is a problem when you have no judge present, lackluster cross-examination, inadmissible evidence considered, and so on.
Bingo
Exactly.
Here's more on the topic from SCOTUS blog. You know...someone with a JD, since that logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority means my comments must be somehow meaningless since I don't have a JD.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/cases-and-controversies-not-your-typic...
Their conclusion: either the prosecutor abused the system to let this cop walk or every person in Ferguson should suddenly get a grand jury appearance where they get to extoll (with legal counsel present!) all the exculpatory evidence to avoid getting a conviction. I won't hold my breath for the latter.
Thanks for that link
n/t
Whoa Whoa Whoa
The benefit of a grand jury isn't the low burden of proof. It's that you can build your case before you go to trial. If you put one witness in for your indictment, you can't fully prepare for contradictory trial testimony and you won't know the potential defenses. You're essentially tying one hand behind your back.
The reason a target usually doesn't testify isn't because he might protest his innocence. It's because he has an absolute 5th amendment right not to provide testimony against himself. If you get a target who wants to testify, call him right in. It gets you his statement, under oath, under your questioning, which can then be confirmed or refuted by further investigation. This can be a gold mine, which is why most defense attorneys will tell you to never, ever do it.
A sloppy DA who only calls witnesses who support his theory of the case and asks for a vote is more likely to get his indictment, but he's less likely to convict at trial. And he runs a much greater risk of indicting the wrong person or overcharging him because he doesn't have the potential defenses mapped out. A full GJ presentment allows you to change direction or even pull the plug if it looks like you have the wrong guy, and because it's all confidential that innocent person is never indicted or tried or wrongfully convicted. I'm actually kind of shocked that someone would think putting an exculpatory statement on the record amounts to "prosecutorial misconduct."
The criminal justice system employs defense attorneys to get their clients off, or if they can't then to get them the best deal. It employs DAs to 1) identify the right target, 2) charge them with the right offense, and 3) try to convict them. You seem to think that DAs should go straight to 3 without first accomplishing 1 and 2. Why on earth would you want that?
Yeah that's clearly what
Yeah that's clearly what people are talking about in regards to the First Amendment.
Last I checked, we in Boston
Last I checked, we in Boston made a bunch of Redcoats stand trial for murder even though they had a stronger case for their defense than Darren Wilson.
They still had to present their defense in a trial where their lives were on the line.
Last time I checked, Judge
Last time I checked, Judge Dredd isn't supposed to be someone to admire and imitate
Last time I checked, starting
Last time I checked, starting any social commentary with the phrase "last time I checked" is kind of tired and played out at this point.
Adam, where did you get the
Adam, where did you get the information that police are parking on the State House sidewalks in an effort to block protestors?
Oh, strictly out of thing air, of course
Do troopers normally take up all the space in front of the State House like that?
No, they do not. Not even during dueling Palestine/Israel protests.
You may want to be specific
You may want to be specific that this is opinion/editorializing.
They could be staging or having a meeting. Are they still parked there?
Why are you getting pissed
Why are you getting pissed off at me? I support peaceful protests and rallies. All I wanted to know was if you had evidence to back up your claim or if you were making an assumption.
My apologies
No, I did not ask State Police why they were there. Yes, I made an assumption, based on the fact that you don't normally see a large cluster of State Police vehicles parked in that tiny, little plaza. Yes, they could have been there for some completely different, random reason.
Adam had already lost
Adam had already lost credibility by lashing out at certain posts he disapproves. So I would have reason to question his sources of posts to begin with
"lashing out at certain posts he disapproves"
So? It's his blog.
If you don't trust the sources
anon, then please simply go away and don't bother the rest of us who enjoy the posts regardless.
The distinction between Palestine/Israel and last night
Adam, I understand that you are reacting to some troll-y comments, but let's not let the trolls get in the way of the obvious (which I know that you understand and appreciate), specifically: in the Palestine/Israel protests, there was little risk to a public building owned by the Commonwealth, which has absolutely no say over the United States' policy toward Palestine/Israel; whereas in an issue about policing, the quintessential state issue, it is reasonable to think that any anger might be directed at a symbol (and the seat) of state power.
On a related note, I think that the picture on the front page of bostonglobe.com (which I cannot embed for some reason, sorry) taken from behind three state troopers looking out over the crowd and Common is telling in several respects: (1) in my opinion, the state police look quite relaxed; (2) the protesters seem quite relaxed. I think that this says a lot for this city and Commonwealth, which despite efforts by some to revisit the bad old days, have come a long way.
Good point
But there was a heavy police presence the day of that Palestine thing - just they were there to prevent trouble, not cause it, and they didn't block off public spaces at all (except to block streets so protesters could march down them without fear of getting run over). And, yes, it's a credit to law enforcement in the Boston area that they understand the Constitution and the rule of law - down to William Evans declaring that officers assigned to protests would not be suiting up for a war zone.
Capital Approch
I'm surprised they don't just close off all of the upper portion of Beacon St. for "Security Reasons" and simply leave it that way permanently. This is what they did with auto traffic in front of the White House and they are attempting to do the same with pedestrian traffic. After all, if the people really cared about a topic they'd hire a lobbyist.
The statehouse blockade is disgraceful and something Patrick can and should put an end to with a 10 second phone call. At this point he doesn't need the "support" of the state police so he can call and tell them to get off the sidewalk and not to come back.
The state house blockade is
The state house blockade is basically gone. It appears that this may have been a good photo op more than an actually intention to prevent a public assembly.
Deval approved it.....
He isn't going to put a stop to it.
Maybe
Maybe he got word of the parked cars last night and did make the phone call which is why they were gone by morning.
Regardless of what it's like now the question still remains as to why the state police suddenly couldn't find anyplace else to park their cars last night.
Respect your chain of command
He is Governor Patrick.
And yet...
And yet from the looks of it, the general hooker entrance is still accessible.While we are shooed off the sidewalk, our cops and leaders are lavished within the capitol by hordes of concubines. One law for them; another law for us.
Though I could be completely misunderstanding what that entrance is for. I've never actually been inside the building, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
<bows>
I've never seen that emoticon before and I LOVE it.
It's a happy version
Of my personal favorite emoticon, "dunno lol"
General Hooker?
So where do the really specific hookers enter?
Click Bait
Adam is bating us today. (in all loving kindness too!)
Let's see. I think we'll get over 120 replies to this by 5pm? Any one want to wager?
JV Protests
Last nights protest on City Hall / State house was comprised mostly of college students and professionals. Tonight the agitators will be out in full force. Police looked relaxed last night because nobody was up in their face. BPD has grown accustomed to dealing with these protests and being hands off until prompted to move in and clear an area. If the protests remain peaceful, as they should, the police will not intervene. If people start damaging property and losing site of the reason they are there, I'm sure the police will be equipped to handle it. I just think the last thing they want to be doing 2 days before the Holiday is dealing with this, so I think the OT issue is not a good one.
"agitators"?
So what's an "agitator"?
"synonyms: troublemaker,
"synonyms: troublemaker, rabble-rouser, agent provocateur". The way I was using the term reflects someone who rather than voicing their opinion, is there only to cause chaos and destruction. These people are usually easy to pick out as they have covered their faces and are flanked by cops.
Also known as
Infiltrator, plant, salt, instigator ...
You clearly have never watched "The Graduate"
Couldn't find a youtube clip.
Mr. McCleery: [asks Benjamin why he is in Berkeley] I just like to know what my boys are up to.
Mr. McCleery: You aren't one of those agitators, are you?
Benjamin: What?
Mr. McCleery: I hate 'em. I won't stand for it.
City versus state property
Aren't those cruisers parked (at least partly) on city property? Those cars should get a ticket.