State Police report 51 people were arrested at three locations during last night's wending Ferguson protest march, which made its way from one highway ramp to another in what turned out to be vain attempts to block a highway.
Some 33 people were arrested on or near the Mass. Ave. Connector, where protesters first tried to walk onto I-93 south; 17 in Dewey Square; and 1 person on a ramp down to the O'Neill Tunnel at Purchase Street, State Police say.
All are scheduled to be arraigned today in either Roxbury Municipal Court (Mass. Ave. Connector) or Boston Municipal Court on disorderly-person charges. The person arrested on the tunnel ramp also faces a charge of trespassing on turnpike property.
State Police say one protester bit a trooper on the wrist. The trooper was treated by Boston EMS.
State Police say they kept their eye on protesters both in person and online:
Our Commonwealth Fusion Center monitored social media and other open-source information sources throughout yesterday and last night and provided critical intelligence about protesters' plans to try to disrupt traffic on state highways.
They add:
We will maintain an increased presence around potential demonstration sites in Boston throughout the next few days.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Why can't the protesters just
By anon (not verified)
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 9:59am
Why can't the protesters just go through the normal public channels to express their anger at being shut out of the normal public channels!? Also, get a job hippy, etc., etc....
Right On
By BostonDog
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 10:30am
If they don't want their votes suppressed they should vote for someone else.
Someone should tell them we live in a democracy where every person has a right to pay to have their voice heard.
Evans: BPD officers "showed tremendous restraint"
By adamg
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 10:17am
At a press conference this morning, Commissioner William Evans said "there was a lot of name calling, a lot of pushing and shoving," even some officers pushed to the ground, but that his officers "stood tall" and didn't raise their batons and handled the protests peacefully.
Evans said the vast majority of protesters were peaceful.
He said BPD was determined to keep protesters off highways to avoid "panic" there. Imagine a young mother in a car with kids in the back - she might panic in a situation like that, he said.
"If they got on the Expressway, there would be panic," he said.
Evans said he wants people to know Boston Police are not Ferguson Police - they respect people's right to protest.
Oh, Evans also said he recognized some of the protesters are people he got to know during Occupy Boston - said they're generally good people, he even wrote college recommendations for some of them.
Well done, Commissioner and
By Rob Not Verified
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 10:20am
Well done, Commissioner and BPD.
Kudos to Comm. Billy Evans!
By anon (not verified)
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 10:33am
He seems like such a decent fellow and has the best Boston accent evah!
Let's take a moment
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 11:04am
Let's take a moment to reflect on the differences between Boston and Ferguson, and to appreciate the fact that the Boston Police Department is, basically, a classy, professional outfit.
Well said.
By roadman
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 11:16am
Now if only the local media could remember that this is Boston and not Ferguson.
Yeah
By Kaz
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 11:30am
Not like that one city that shot a girl in the face with a "non-lethal" round killing her.
Or that other one that used facial recognition software to catalog every member of the public at Boston Calling.
Or the one where all the cops keep harassing people for recording them even though it's legal.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/10/16...
I like Evans. I like that last night's protests went down without major incidents or police misconduct. I just don't think we should be so quick to hug it out without a better track record first.
Video recording harassment?
By Markk02474
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 1:50pm
Happened in Arlington MA at a public meeting of the Cemetery Commission! When a resident tried recording the meeting, the chair, told him he could not, and called three armed police officers to intimidate him. BTW, this was over his complaint that police officers (and others) were using the cemetery as a parking lot for their personal vehicles and the fire department was parking fire engines there and on graves when attending meetings in the community safety building (aka police station). The commission has yet to enforce state law against non-cemetery uses, and Selectmen have not changed members of this appointed board.
Corrections
By lbb
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 2:06pm
Aren't you a sweet little pumpkin
By Kaz
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 2:48pm
That poorly trained officer was trained by BPD, acting on behalf of BPD, was handed that weapon by BPD, and his intentions are irrelevant.
BPD acts on behalf of the city. They're not some mythically detached street gang that fights for justice and we're just lucky enough to have them here.
Also, you're right. She was old enough to drink. For almost a full year even. Lucky her. Correcting that really made a difference to the situation.
It's funny that the same
By Daveydave (not verified)
Thu, 11/27/2014 - 10:47am
It's funny that the same people who hate the word girl love calling mike brown a teen (and would call him a boy if not for the racist implications).
If this is true
By anon (not verified)
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 11:05am
Then Billy Evans is the best police commissioner this city's had in a long time.
Classy
By cybah
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 11:09am
Shows a sign of a class act. Not all cops are out to get you!
Boston Police are not Ferguson Police?
By O-FISH-L
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 11:54am
What a really shameless statement by Commissioner Mousey Evans. Barely 10 years after Victoria Snelgrove and you talk down to another department? Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson not only survived a life threatening encounter with a felony suspect but he was later at the mercy of a Grand Jury of his peers and totally exonerated. Maybe someday Evans will triumph over similar adversity. God Bless Officer Wilson and the Indian grocer who was robbed. Shame on Evans for casting a false narrative. If you worked patrol Bill, what would you have done differently?
Along those lines O-FISh
By Pete Nice
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:02pm
This ferguson incident could have happeend to any cop, or any other human being trying to defend themselves, in any part of the country. If it did happen in Boston, I would bet it would be similar to ferguson, maybe worse.
I dont think so
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 2:31pm
I don't think so. What really casts the Ferguson PD in a bad light, in the estimation of people who have been paying attention, is not the shooting itself, but the completely ham-fisted handling of the protests afterwards. To most people, that, and not the shooting, is the problem.
Well it might be apples and oranges anyway
By Pete Nice
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 2:41pm
The ferguson police probably only has about 100 members, and most of them are probably assigned to patrol functions. If this happened in Boston? With all the hotels that protestors could come and stay in? The police would have had sections blocked off like the DNC. It may have been worse still.
He wasn't referring to the shooting itself
By adamg
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:03pm
He was referring to the riot gear and the APCs and the tear gas and the arresting reporters and getting the FAA to shut off airspace over the town and just generally making a complete mockery of the First Amendment in the days after the shooting. My apologies for not making that clear. I'm sure even Fox News showed a little bit of that, so maybe even you heard about it.
However, since you bring it up: There was one incident last night that really illustrated the difference between BPD and State Police:
Both departments had just successfully defended the Expressway (and without violence): The protesters had turned around and were walking back down the Connector towards Roxbury.
Everything was peaceful. And then several staties come roaring down the Connector with their blues and sirens going to, you know, ensure the protesters respect their authoritah or something. Just the way to rile people up. A BPD commander (not Evans, but one of his senior people) immediately got on the radio to get his dispatcher to contact State Police and get them to turn those off to keep things calm. They agreed and it worked.
As for Snelgrove, yes, that is a black mark on BPD. It was also ten years ago and done under a different commissioner.
I guess my point is that the protest would be 100x the size....
By Pete Nice
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:08pm
at least if it happened in Boston. Things may or may not have gone down as peacefully as they did last night.
Not as peacefully based on what?
By lbb
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 2:09pm
AFAIK it's been widely agreed that a lot of the public response in Ferguson is based on a history of poor relations between the police and the public -- basically, years and years of bad policy coming home to roost. Do you think Boston has a similar history, and if so, could you cite some instances to support that?
No riot gear during a riot?
By O-FISH-L
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:23pm
How does wearing riot gear during a riot make a mockery of the First Amendment? Evans should have said that Boston Police stand with their brethren in Ferguson and the completely exonerated Officer Wilson, instead of saying Boston Police are somehow different. In the spirit of ditching protective gear, perhaps Evans will eliminate seat belts in the cruisers, rubber gloves to treat the contagious and bullet resistant vests. Toss the blue lights and sirens also. Why provoke anything?
Chicken and egg dilemma
By Waquiot
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:28pm
Do things like police wearing riot gear and the deployment of military gear in fact incite people to riot?
In other words, how do you keep people acting civil? Act civilly towards them.
Of course, then you get the biter, but if you've ever been at one of those championship parades we have had to endure practically on an annual basis over the past 15 years, you'd know that there are idiots willing to do stupid things in a crowd all the time.
Well...
By mplo (not verified)
Thu, 11/27/2014 - 11:30am
That doesn't make it okay, no matter what, imho.
Why provoke anything?
By anon (not verified)
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:51pm
Exactly! The role of the police should be to de-escalate a situation, not escalate.
And, btw, in my work in the BPS, I've seen BPD do it very well many times.
First Amendment mockery
By lbb
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 2:10pm
Guess you missed this bit.
Trial by jury?
By tachometer
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:27pm
"he was later at the mercy of a Grand Jury of his peers and totally exonerated"
This statement alone shows that you are confusing a trial by jury and an administrative procedure controlled by the prosecution prior to going to trial.
No confusion on Grand Jury v. Trial Jury
By O-FISH-L
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:47pm
There's no confusion here. I've testified many times before both. I'm also cognizant of the maxim, "you can indict a ham sandwich." The fact is the Grand Jurors couldn't find probable cause, a far lesser standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I give the Grand Jurors tremendous credit in weighing the facts despite the overwhelming pressure from the far-left media to indict. Joe Fitzgerald has a nice column in the Herald today, "Cops Can't Win - Unless They're Killed."
limit of evidence
By tachometer
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 2:17pm
Ordinarily the prosecution would only supply the evidence that leans in favor of moving forward with the case which is why they have such a ridiculously high rate of indictment. In this case the DA handed over absolutely everything which could very well muddy the waters of the process this grand jury was used to. If the DA wanted it to go to trial he could have very easily followed their normal protocol and it would be heading for a public trial right now with a judge and a jury vetted for bias by both sides for this specific case.
The DA can say whatever he wants but I think this was a calculated move to get him off of the hook. "Hey, they had all of the evidence and decided not to indict" was the best possible path and outcome for for him. The next option is to not send it to a grand jury which would spark more outrage. Otherwise he has to send it to trial where he would have the unenviable task of trying to convict a sworn officer where a losing outcome means he'll be accused of presenting a weak case (plus the potential riots) and a conviction means he will have pissed off and earned the distrust of the very people who bring him his cases and supply favorable testimony.
So, back to your statement, there was no verdict of guilt or innocence from them, so when you say that the cop was "totally exonerated" you're spinning a narrative about this proceeding that didn't happen.
I am not making a claim on the guilt or innocence of the cop (or Brown for that matter) but your statements certainly makes it clear that you have.
This just isn't true. It's
By basta
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 10:16pm
This just isn't true. It's not how grand juries work. The prosecutor has an ethical duty to present exculpatory evidence or else run the risk of an indictment being dismissed for misleading the grand jury.
Nope
By Kaz
Thu, 11/27/2014 - 1:55am
The Supremes decided they don't have to show exculpatory if they don't want to.
US v Williams
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_1972
Scalia wrote for the majority: "...requiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence would alter the grand jury's historical role, transforming it from an accusatory body that sits to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge into an adjudicatory body that sits to determine guilt or innocence."
The term is grand jury "investigation"
By basta
Thu, 11/27/2014 - 6:03am
This wasn't a federal grand jury. Since the states can afford the accused greater protections than the minimum set by the federal government, the presentation of exculpatory evidence may or may not be required in Missouri. I'm no expert in Missouri law. Nonetheless, from a tactical standpoint, it would be stupid not to vet a defense in grand jury. It's standard practice for any prosecutor worth their salt.
Yup
By anon (not verified)
Fri, 11/28/2014 - 11:10am
Kaz, you must know that states may grant defendants more rights than those available under the US Constitution.
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/392/392mass445.html
"The indictment was dismissed pursuant to a motion of the defendant which asserted that the evidence before the grand jury was insufficient to support an indictment and that the prosecutor improperly withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury."
http://www.mass.gov/courts/case-legal-res/rules-of...
"A prosecutor need not present the grand jury all the evidence available to the Commonwealth, even if some of it is exculpatory. See O'Dell, 392 Mass. at 447 . However, if there is exculpatory evidence that would greatly undermine either the credibility of an important witness or likely affect the grand jury's decision, the prosecutor should inform the grand jury."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-cou...
"[T]he judge cited two reasons for his ruling that the [prosecutor's] presentation of Fernanda's false and deceptive testimony was the product of a reckless disregard for the truth: (1) the prosecutor was aware of but omitted any direct reference to Fernanda's prior exculpatory statement that she could not identify the perpetrators; and (2) the prosecutor presented Fernanda's identification without qualification, despite compelling reasons to doubt the credibility of her claim. We conclude that there was no error in the judge's findings and rulings on this factor. "
What both of you keep forgetting is
By Waquiot
Fri, 11/28/2014 - 2:08pm
Missouri has it's own rules of court and case history around grand juries.
What, did you want citations? I barely understand Massachusetts laws. I'm not going to try to understand Missouri laws. I was the one that directed people to the statutes on grand juries, and still no one cared about that.
Blah, blah, blah
By CraigInDaVille
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:39pm
So, based on your comment history here, the government is bad if it is a black man and a Democrat running it. Hide your guns, hide your kids, 'cause Obamacare is comin' for you!
But the moment it has to do with shooting a black kid, you totally and completely believe everything the government says.
Seems legit.
The Grand Jury is not the government
By O-FISH-L
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:51pm
The Grand Jury is not the government. Even you could be on a Grand Jury someday. I trust the several black witnesses who bravely testified and confirmed Officer Wilson's story weren't part of the government either. "Facts are stubborn things." -- John Adams (F-Quincy)
How were black witnesses brave?
By Markk02474
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 1:58pm
I would think white witnesses who testified were the brave ones because they face more personal danger afterwards.
Nice
By BostonDog
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:52pm
Agreed. If the protests-turned-riots were over Obamacare do you think O-FISH, Fox News, etc would be jumping to the defense of the police? No, they'd be out there egging the protesters on and claiming this is the correct response to the fascist Obama government.
Hey, now
By Michael
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:54pm
I'm not sure we never got O-FISH's opinion on the Cliven Bundy situation; maybe he thought they were a bunch of dangerous thungs who needed to be met with maximum force as well.
Look online at videos from other protests
By anon (not verified)
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 10:48am
like in Portland (Oregon). They were a lot more violent. There are multiple videos of random people being assaulted by protestors, called homophobic and sexist names by protestors. And most of these protestors in the video certainly appeared to be 'radical' college kids, mostly white. The leaders, judging by those barking out orders, appeared to have been mostly young white females. Make what you will of that.
Then of course there's Ferguson itself, where multiple businesses were burned to the ground, and people were assaulted, some on camera. And again, the liberal use of homophobic and sexist name calling by the protestors.
I have lived through such 'protests' and violence as a youth, and know how quickly things can deteriorate, and how bad and duplicitous people and groups can take over a 'movement'. Hopefully, lets hope we see honest and blunt coverage in media and online blogs this time around, unlike in days prior to the internet, where a lot of violence was covered up.
Love that show Portlandia!
By Markk02474
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 2:30pm
Places like that and Seattle makes one wonder if mental illness is a communicable disease. Possibly passed by tattoos or piercing or skateboards or bicycle seats or flannel or some gluten-free, free range, organic foods. Combination of the above, or such places are magnets for mental illness? Perhaps its the excess of rainy days and not enough sunny ones.
People who live in glass Arlingtons ...
By adamg
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 2:56pm
Should perhaps not throw stones.
I don't deny it
By Markk02474
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 7:07pm
Makes for entertainment in this town emancipated from Cambridge and originally named West Cambridge. Now its increasingly losing its identity as being separate from Cambridge. Bike lanes, a Whole Foods joining Trader Joe's, out of step voting for Coakley, more bottle deposits, automatic tax increases, and no casinos, all blur the line. I laugh at some Arlington residents too. Like UHub readers, many are bigots (def: intolerant of different opinions). Yes, I enjoy exposing bigotry.
The best joke about
By anon (not verified)
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 3:07pm
The best joke about Portlandia is how the people who like it because it makes fun of hipsters are also the butt of the joke
Sons of Liberty
By gayirish (not verified)
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 11:00am
In a city where "violent thugs" poured tea into the harbor 240+ years ago, you'd think people in this town would have a deeper understanding and respect of non-violent protest and civil disobedience.
Imagine what the comments on a UH posting of the Boston Tea Party would be like?
"Because of those scoundrels,
By anon (not verified)
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 11:14am
"Because of those scoundrels, I didn't get to enjoy my morning tea! The shipments were all destroyed. I don't understand all this attention on the British anyways, nobody's talking about those natives and their violence."
And I had to ride my horse
By roadman
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 2:19pm
down Summer Street instead of down Northern Avenue last night just to avoid those meddlin' kids making a ruckus. Took me ten minutes longer to get home.
This
By deadheadtyler
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 11:34am
This. One thousand times this.
That was in response to the Tea Act
By raz611
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:14pm
Seems like a more direct response to the thing they were protesting.
A grand jury did not indict a cop for shooting an unarmed person in Missouri - so let's shut down the highways in Boston! That makes sense...
Learn your history
By lbb
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 2:14pm
Protest takes thought. The Boston Tea Party was a bloody drunken brawl in which the instigator deliberately got people severely plastered and incited them to go out and trash things. They were probably too drunk to spell "tea act" let alone explain why it justified their actions.
Pages