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
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
Thu, 11/27/2014 - 11:30am
That doesn't make it okay, no matter what, imho.
Why provoke anything?
By anon
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
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
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
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
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
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.
There are better ways to protest
By raz611
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:07pm
Is this a protest against anyone who happens to be driving at the moment? Seems like the only thing they did was try to disrupt traffic. What is the point of that? Just as some people use any excuse to riot or loot, these people are using it as an excuse to disrupt traffic and get on TV - hardly much better. I don't call it a peaceful protest if they are trying to shut down streets and get on the highway - the police should have arrested far more than the 51 that they did.
Definitely
By Kaz
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:32pm
They should peacefully protest in a net cafe over some chamomile where nobody will be bothered by their presence. Hell, the cafe will even benefit from their business. That will surely get the word out that they are angry at the goings-on in the world!
But what if the Westboro Baptist church did this?
By Pete Nice
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:35pm
I think there would be a different approach in defending their rights to free speech.
So what
By Kaz
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 12:50pm
Traffic has been stopped for WBC protests and counter-protests before. World keeps turning. I think we are safe.
Highways?
By raz611
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 1:20pm
Since when has the WBC ever attempted to shut down highways to protest? There is a difference between working with police and protesting on a city street while traffic is directed around it, and trying to get onto the highway and cause as much disruption as possible.
Frankly, I think that activism has its limits
By mplo
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 1:26pm
Frankly, I think that activism of any kind definitely has its limits as to how far it can be taken before it begins to disintegrate into total anarchy. Imho, blocking traffic, blocking or attempting to block highways, etc., should be off-limits to protestors. People who wish to organize a protest should be willing to obtain a permit to protest on special routes that consist of streets that're closed off to vehicular traffic for the purpose of protesting, or they should be limited to large public parks.
Have you ever been to this city called Boston?
By lbb
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 2:19pm
Have you ever driven in the area? Have you ever been in a traffic jam? Ever get stuck in non-moving traffic for an hour because someone dozed off or spilled their Dunks or changed the CD or got a text? It happens ALL. THE. TIME. And you put up with it day in and day out, but the second, the SECOND, that traffic is disrupted because of people protesting, oh no, THINGS HAVE GONE TOO FAR.
You people are moral weaklings. That's the only name for you.
No matter what the reason for non-moving traffic jams,
By mplo
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 2:56pm
they're inexcusable. The reason that these kind of unmoving traffic jams have occurred is because the police haven't handled things very well to begin with.
Here's a suggestion, lbb: Don't go calling people moral weaklings just simply because they're not willing to take stupid risks just for a cause, and/or to take chances with arrest, beatings, jail, or possibly worse. Thanks.!
I've lived in, driven through and been in traffic jams in boston
By mplo
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 3:00pm
for most of my life, and I still think that non-moving traffic jams, no matter what they're caused by, are inexcusable, imho. Here's a suggestion, lbb: Don't call me a moral weakling for not wanting to get involved in stupid stuff just for a cause (or anything else, for that matter). Thanks.
Well said Pete Nice.
By O-FISH-L
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 1:00pm
Not just the Westboro Baptist Church Pete, imagine the reaction if a handful of elderly religious were caught praying outside an abortion mill. The far-left would pass a law against it.
Lies
By Felicity
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 1:26pm
They SCREAM at and harass pedestrians, that have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood.
BMC, Juvenile Court results
By adamg
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 3:56pm
The Suffolk County DA's office reports it moved to have disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace charges against 18 people (two also charged with trespassing) changed to civil infractions. These were then dismissed.
Segun Idowu, 26, of Mattapan, however, declined the offer and requested a trial on the criminal charge. He was arraigned and released on his own recognizance.
Francis Donald Brooks III, 30, of Randolph, had prior convictions for assault and battery, which meant his disturbing the peace charge could not be changed to a civil infraction. Instead, he was arraigned and then had the criminal charge dismissed, the DA's office reports.
Antonie McKoy, 25, of Dorchester, had an extensive record and an active warrant out of Quincy District Court. However, he skipped out of court before his arraignment, so now he has a new warrant out for his arrest.
The people arrested ranged in age from 19 to 32 - 12 from Boston, the others from Cambridge, Newton, Quincy, and Somerville and Los Angeles.
In Juvenile Court, a Boston resident, 17, was charged with delinquency, to wit, disorderly conduct. Her case was dismissed prior to arraignment on the condition that she perform 10 hours of community service. Another teen will be summonsed in for arraignment at a later date.
Thanks Adam
By Waquiot
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 4:24pm
I've got to doubt the intelligence of Tony McCoy. I mean, you know you have warrants. Just stay with the herd and avoid getting arrested.
A friend who went through this type of civil disobedience a while back was surprised how easy the process goes. He was advised to bring a credit card along for bail.
Abortion protestors used to do this all the time....
By Pete Nice
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 11:29pm
Then the judge started making people to go jail for a month for the 2nd offense, and the protests stopped.
The antiabortion protestors were/are stupid, too,
By mplo
Thu, 11/27/2014 - 2:07am
and vicious, to boot.
Good for the judge for making these anti-abortion protesters go to jail for a month after a 2nd offense. Anything that can get such people to stop bullying people in the street who are just asserting their rights to make whatever choice they feel like regarding their bodies, and for reproductive rights.
I think it's a bummer that it
By anon
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 6:38pm
I think it's a bummer that it went down the way it did. I don't know what the answer is, but blocking traffic when people are trying to get home to their loved ones for the holiday doesn't sound like a great way to get people to see your point of view.
It also seems a little bit like preaching to the choir. People who think there was no wrongdoing aren't going to understand why people are protesting. People who see the problem don't need protesters to point it out to them. I get that peaceful protests are a right in this country, but instead of shutting down streets, what if all those protesters had spent a few hours volunteering in their community, or writing a blog post/article about their point of view, or having a discussion with a friend or family member about their concerns for society.
These days there are better ways to make your opinion known, aside from standing in a group and chanting. I also have to wonder if people know how often non-threatening people are killed by law enforcement. While I think it's horrifying, I also think it's weird that some are protest-worthy but most are not. And how about when any murderer isn't charged or is set free? These things are equally upsetting to me. Again, I don't know the answer, but if I protested everything I disagreed with in society, I would be standing in the street every night. There has to be a better way.
Pages
Add comment