Boston Police report that David Woodman, 22, of Southwick, died today at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 11 days after he collapsed while being arrested on Brookline Avenue in the Fenway following the Celtics win:
Officers observed an individual, crossing the street with a group of four others, drinking from an open container of what was believed to be alcohol. Officers attempted to conduct a threshold inquiry when the suspect attempted to flee. He was soon subdued by officers. The suspect began struggling with the officers as they attempted to handcuff him.
At that time, officers realized that he was in medical distress; they immediately began to administer CPR and summonsed EMS to that location. An ambulance arrived on scene and took over emergency CPR. He was rushed to Beth Israel Medical Center.
The Suffolk County DA's office, Boston Police homicide unit and Boston Police internal-affairs unit are all investigating. Autopsy results are pending.
The Herald had previously reported that Woodman had a pre-existing cardiac condition.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Perhaps it was ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 06/30/2008 - 1:45pm
a new form of Godwinning a thread?
DA to investigate
By anon
Mon, 06/30/2008 - 10:14am
I predict the DA will find (1) the police filed a misleading police report. The cops have exposure for (2) excessive force, the claim about (3) resisting arrest will demonstrated to have been manufactured and they (4) were negligent because they did not notice the perpetrator was in physical distress.
yeah, right.
By anon
Mon, 06/30/2008 - 5:21pm
I predict:
1)The DA in the "joint" investigation will not find anything wrong 2)The cops involved will not even get so much as a verbal reprimand 3)Boston PD will be sued and 4)fight the lawsuit tooth and nail for a decade, thus 5)running up several million dollars in legal expenses 6)that will go straight into the pockets of lawyers who were former City Hall 'residents' (it's happened before.)
problems reconcilnig two accounts - police, eyewitness
By anon
Tue, 07/01/2008 - 7:48pm
The police made two fatal mistakes. They smashed this kid to the ground so hard he stopped breathing and they didn't notice he stopped breathing until it was too late.
Then to compound the problem, they asserted in writing:
1. the perp tried to flee
2. the cops used justifiable force to detain him
3. as soon as they cuffed him they noticed he was having trouble breathing and they uncuffed him immediately and they tried to resuscitate him immediately
To the contrary;
a. there is an eyewitness who says he did not flee. the eyewitness says they grabbed they kid, smashed him up against fence and dropped him on the ground face first.
That is likely when he stopped breathing.
a2. when they first called for an ambulance, they didn't know he needed resuscitation but the say they noticed he stopped breathing as son as he was cuffed. So which was it?
a3. when they called a second time for the ambulance, they did know he needed resuscitation. this is six minutes later. (Now we know, they didn't notice right away that he had stopped breathing. But how long did he lie face down in danger of brain damage and death, and in need of resuscitation?)
a4. He sustained brain damage because he stopped breathing and was not resuscitated within four minutes. When he is cuffed and in police custody, they are responsible for his well-being.
a5. The police department was not forthcoming in answering questions the parents had about the events.
a6. All of the officers went to stress counseling... what was the stress a result of? Certainly not because a poor kid with a heart condition and a outstanding warrant happened to die in their presence though no fault of their own. Maybe they had stress because some of some of the actions they took, and some of the actions they should have taken butdid not.
No eyewitness has come forward
By Gareth
Tue, 07/01/2008 - 8:20pm
To my knowledge, no eyewitness has come forward to say this. Do you have a link?
I've seen a few anonymous blog postings, but those don't really count. I could post anonymously that I'd seen Dick Cheney doing the Mambo on the kid's face.
I'm still trying to locate
By anon
Tue, 07/01/2008 - 8:44pm
I'm still trying to locate the source eyewitness statement that said he did not flee but this is relevant:
Relevant
By Gareth
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 5:01am
Many things can be learned from this text. First, he was arrested because he approached the cops with an open container of beer and made a wise-ass remark. Second, he struggled with the cops. So far, that corroborates the cops' story.
As for "he wasn't being a punk..." I think the threshhold of punkitude has raised since I was a kid. What did his friend mean, that he wasn't grooming his hair in a faux-hawk?
I'm sure there were eyewitnesses. That friend sounds like one. And if there are, I hope they'll come forward, speak to the press on record, and later testify. Whatever the truth is, it should be known. What makes me a bit disgusted is someone logging onto a blog as anonymous and claiming he was there and saw it all and that's not what happened. Until they go on record, it's just a rumor, not evidence.
Yes, it is rumor, much like
By anon
Thu, 07/03/2008 - 7:55am
Yes, it is rumor, much like everything else being printed. Of course there were witnesses....at least 4 of them were walking with him. Why haven't they talked to the press? Because, unlike the police department who is trying at all costs to paint a picture that will discredit the kid as being a valued member of society (therefore he deserved it), they are working with investigators.
woodman's friend said woodmen did not flee
By Anonymous
Thu, 07/03/2008 - 8:08am
The friend who returned to the scene is the person who said woodman did not flee. The globe takes old versions of the story offline when they publish updated ones, which is why I cannot find the quote.
Police commissioner's statement
By adamg
Mon, 06/30/2008 - 4:57pm
Here.
DA's statement
By adamg
Mon, 06/30/2008 - 5:24pm
From Suffolk County DA Dan Conley:
The boston.com headline read
By roadman
Mon, 06/30/2008 - 7:16pm
Davis - No 'excessive force' used (quotes in original headline).
Do I detect a subtle editorial comment from the Glob here?
Yvonne Abraham has a point
By adamg
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 8:02am
I disagree with her saying Davis should not back his men, but she points out all the unknowns at this point and concludes it was too early for Davis to say no brutality was involved.
The main point being: we don't know.
By Gareth
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 8:37am
Is it too early for Davis to say "While our investigation is still preliminary, it appears from the evidence that we have reviewed thus far that officers did not use excessive force?" I'm not so sure. Is it too early for an objective observer to agree with him? Yes, I think so.
Davis isn't an objective observer, nor do I think he has to be. He's the Police Commissioner, and if there are sides to an issue with the police on one, that's the side he's on, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's not a conspiracy, or a cover-up. It's preliminary, and it's biased, and it's not the end of the world or the end of the story.
The investigation continues, and I hope all the people who know something come forth to testify.
The fact that the cops didn't use batons or spray is a start, but it doesn't prove they didn't use excessive force. It's quite possible to do that without batons or spray. Just ask Thomas Junta.
I know from personal experience that it is possible to knock someone out by slamming him into the ground, or to break six of a guy's ribs, and I have no trouble believing you could stop someone's heart that way. Time will tell if that's what happened.
the main point
By anon
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 11:20am
I think the main point is that the facts, important facts, key facts, are disputed and therefore not necessarily facts.
Secondly, the commissioner is not just the top supervisor of the police, he also is responsible for the trustworthiness and credibility of the department. He should support his guys but mostly he should support a truthful process. He's gotten ahead of the facts here. His support should not have advanced into disputed issues.
Wait: All nine cops needed counseling all at once?
By adamg
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 7:14pm
From the Globe:
9 cops with stress; none of whom file the report
By Anonymous
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 8:17pm
this is a problem. the guy who documents the course of events and timing was not even there when the events occured.
this thing smells, worse by the day.
can someone explain why all nine police officers were suffering from stress when, according to all accounts, Kenmore was dead as a doornail, except for four college boys, one of whom had a smart mouth and an open container, but he was taken care of pronto
Watching somebody go into cardiac arrest isn't stressful?
By adamg
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 8:26pm
"I shot a man just to watch him die" isn't reality, unless you're thinking all cops are sociopaths.
The cops that dropped him,
By Anonymous
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 8:38pm
The cops that dropped him, cuffed him and didn't notice he stopped breathing probably have some stress but that doesn't take 9 cops, it takes three or four at the most. Half the guys were uninvolved except as spectators. (I know you're not that gullible so why are you arguing devil's advocate?)
At the very least, they went ALL went in to counseling for cover. Stress is a mental condition that gives them some cover. And it also allows someone else to file the report, someone who was not an eyewitness.
Read the the story about the 2AM incident and tell me you think these cops are behaving in a reasonable manner. the 2AM incident is telling because it sounds like the same procedure (MO) as the "procedure" that killed Woodson.
The cops are overreacting and using excessive force. Explain why its OK for a cop to punch a person in the face twice and kick them when they're down.
In the other incident, which
By Anonymous
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 8:58pm
They're using overwhelming
By Anonymous
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 8:42pm
They're using overwhelming force as a deterrent for mob behaviour. The problem is that the citizens are not a threat that justifies overwhelming force.
Police Commish covers his own ass
By Anonymous
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 8:53pm
David is asking for a review of department procedure, not for oversight by or investigation by the US Attorney's office.
At the least, the is political cover. I mean, he chose a lawyer in private practice who used to be the US Attorney. At most, he's aware of procedure that is problematic - like maybe slamming citizens to the ground when they're being arrested, punching them n the face and kicking them while they're down. What if that's policy!
Still, Woodman's parents don't trust the DA who is working with the Police and internal investigation. I don't blame them. The police have been circling the wagons from the word go and you don't need the Woodman's to tell you that to know its true.
LINK
a man who stopped breathing after his arrest
By Anonymous
Thu, 07/03/2008 - 1:36pm
Police had faced discipline before
By Anonymous
Thu, 07/03/2008 - 2:12pm
Police had faced discipline before
By Shelley Murphy and Maria Cramer
Globe Staff / July 3, 2008
STORY
another arrest that night
By Anonymous
Sat, 07/05/2008 - 9:17pm
The kid - criminal justice major - that was apprehended at 2AM for trying to walk to his car from Remington's was supposed to have his arraignment today in Boston Municipal Court.
He said the police punched him in the face twice when they dropped him and pushed his face onto the ground. He also said one of the cops kicked him when he was down and cuffed.
I'm asking because I'm curious if this is standard procedure for police working crowd control. It's seem like excessive force to me. If I were walking to my car and a policeman asked me to walk around the block, I think I could try to discuss the request before I deserved to be arrested and beaten.
true!
By Anonymous
Mon, 07/07/2008 - 6:48pm
[IMG]http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk143/nfsagan/b...
FBI to probe death of fan - about time
By Anonymous
Wed, 07/09/2008 - 11:13am
Commissioner Davis worries me. He thinks his own detectives would be the best investigators to determine if there was a crime committed. Why risk a poor investigation or pit uniform cops against detectives? He could handed this over to the FBI with an understanding that nothing would be leaked unless charges were brought, and that a factual report would be delivered to the commissioner but no, we've put the FBI on the tail end of this relying on the quality of the work by department insiders.
.
By Gareth
Wed, 07/09/2008 - 11:45am
.
What's your point?
By Anonymous
Wed, 07/09/2008 - 12:09pm
What's your point?
Full stop
By Gareth
Wed, 07/09/2008 - 12:30pm
My point is put a period on it. Repeatedly editing the same post so that it will pop up again and again on the recent comments list is asinine.
David Woodman's parents lawyer on NECN
By Anonymous
Wed, 07/09/2008 - 1:47am
David Woodman's parents lawyer on NECN video link here. This is a good review of the information the lawyer has been able to obtain..
beat down
By Anonymous
Wed, 07/09/2008 - 4:47am
skepticism about fair investigation
By Anonymous
Thu, 07/10/2008 - 1:22am
Another big moment for Police Commissioner Davis
By Anonymous
Thu, 07/10/2008 - 1:31am
Boston Magazine >> Boston Daily Blog
[snip]
Man Taken Into Custody by Police in Boston Dies
By Anonymous
Thu, 07/10/2008 - 1:33am
New York Times
By PAM BELLUCK
BOSTON —The death of a 22-year-old man who had been taken into custody on the night the Boston Celtics won the N.B.A. championship has prompted an official investigation.
The family of the man, David Woodman of Brookline, is questioning whether the actions of the police in subduing him or seeking medical attention for him after he had stopped breathing may have contributed to his death.
More
It's really easy
By Michael
Thu, 07/10/2008 - 8:33am
to start your own blog these days.
Some replies deleted
By adamg
Thu, 07/10/2008 - 9:18am
That were pointless and had absolutely nothing to do with the death of Mr. Woodman.
Friends, family, clergy remember David Woodman
By Anonymous
Thu, 07/10/2008 - 1:39am
An attorney for the family
By Anonymous
Thu, 07/10/2008 - 9:25am
Stern appoints 2 investigators
By Anonymous
Thu, 07/10/2008 - 10:29am
Stern appoints 2 to investigative team
July 10, 2008
BOSTON—The former U.S. attorney leading the independent investigation into the death of a Celtics fan has appointed a former FBI bureau chief and a former U.S. Marshal to his team.
Donald Stern said Wednesday that Barry Mawn and Nancy McGillivray will help him probe accusations of excessive force by police during the arrest of 22-year-old David Woodman.
Mawn led the FBI's Boston office from 1997 to 2000. McGillivray was a supervisor with the U.S. Marshal's service in Boston from 1994 to 2002. more
US attorney: Police role key
By anon
Fri, 07/11/2008 - 12:40am
US attorney: Police role key in death probe
One officer faced prior suit; independent panel in place
By Shelley Murphy and Jeannie M. Nuss,
Globe July 10, 2008
US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan [not former US Attorney Stern] pledged yesterday to find out whether Boston police officers used excessive force against David Woodman, a 22-year-old former Emmanuel College student who stopped breathing after his arrest during the Celtics championship celebration last month and died 11 days later in the hospital.
At the same time, a lawyer [former US Attorney Stern] who was tapped by the police commissioner to conduct an independent review of the circumstances surrounding Woodman's death said he has recruited two high-profile security consultants to help determine whether officers followed regulations.
The Globe has also learned that one of the nine officers involved in Woodman's arrest was accused of beating a man with a flashlight during a 2003 arrest, according to a lawsuit. The case was settled for $1,000, and an internal investigation cleared the officer, according to officials.
It is unclear what caused Woodman's death on June 29. Officials said they are awaiting autopsy results.
The public interest - firemen, police
By Anonymous
Fri, 07/11/2008 - 10:31am
CLOSE RANKS
Protect self interest, not the public interest.
By Joan Vennochi, July 10, 2008
The Boston Firefighters' Union is once again flaunting its me-first culture and resistance to change.
Four months ago, Boston Fire Commissioner Roderick Fraser demanded that a department board reopen its investigation and examine autopsy reports of two firefighters who died last year in a restaurant fire. The board - composed entirely of union members - did nothing. As reported by the Globe's Donovan Slack, board members refused to examine autopsy reports that indicate that one firefighter had cocaine in his system and the second had a blood alcohol level of 0.27, more than three times the legal limit to drive in Massachusetts.
[snip]
The "culture problem" at the Boston Fire Department is the big problem.
The Boston Firefighters Union continues to play the role of rebel with only one cause, self-protection. Union president Ed Kelly recently told Boston Magazine that the scandals of the past 11 months have been twisted to serve a single purpose: "to bully us into an inferior contract," so the city can save money. "The only time you read about alleged abuse and gaming of the system is when they're trying to attack us, to put pressure on us at the bargaining table," said Kelly in the magazine's July edition.
A me-first mentality is not unusual for public employee unions. You can see another example after the death of David Woodman, 22, who stopped breathing while in police custody after his arrest during the June 18 Boston Celtics NBA championship celebration.
The first reaction of police officers involved in the incident was to coordinate their stories to protect each other. Thomas J. Nee, president of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, responded with immediate certainty that "nothing those officers did that night caused his death." Nee's certainty was backed up by Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis, who also declared, "While our investigation is still preliminary, it appears from the evidence that we have reviewed thus far that officers did not use excessive force." The FBI is now investigating the matter.
Dude, cut it out
By Kaz
Fri, 07/11/2008 - 12:55pm
Seriously, stop. First, you are doing nothing but adding tons of copyright violations. This site isn't for aggregation of every news article and this discussion isn't for posting every single thing that has David Woodman's name in it. You add nothing of interest to what you post, you just copy and paste someone else's work. Sure, you link back to its origin, but if you're going to do that then there's NO POINT in copying the entire thing here too.
Stop spamming this story every time someone somewhere says "David Woodman". Hell, some of your additions here aren't even related to Woodman.
????
By Greg
Fri, 07/11/2008 - 3:01pm
What the fuck. Why are posting this shit about David Woodman death? He's dead man. Give it a rest.
It's sucks an effin waste of
By anon
Fri, 07/11/2008 - 3:37pm
It's sucks an effin waste of effin fucking time.
RE: This site isn't for...
By Anonymous
Fri, 07/11/2008 - 6:11pm
I may be mistaken but I don't think it's up to you to decide what this thread is for. How about this? You post on the threads you want to post on, I'll do the same, and if Adam wants me to do it differently I'll comply, negotiate or leave.
OK, here's the deal
By adamg
Fri, 07/11/2008 - 6:16pm
By all means discuss David Woodman. But rather than reprinting whole sections of every single column on the case, you could do something like "Joan Vennocchi today raises more questions about the case, saying X, Y and Z. Here's a link."
Will do Adam.
By Anonymous
Fri, 07/11/2008 - 6:38pm
Will do, Adam.
Kaz, you post as you choose and I'll do as I choose. What makes you think there's a certain way to do it and it's your job to tell other people? I'd call you a presumptuous a-hole but Adam frowns on that.
Since you don't actually exist
By Ron Newman
Fri, 07/11/2008 - 6:58pm
why should anyone listen to what you are saying? Get a login handle if you want people to take you seriously.
Technically
By Kaz
Fri, 07/11/2008 - 7:05pm
Anonymous is their logged-in moniker. That's the name they gave their user account.
It's entirely up to you
By Anonymous
Fri, 07/11/2008 - 7:12pm
It's entirely up to you Ron if you want to agree or disagree or ignore my posts. Beside, as Kaz pointed out, I do actually exist, in both senses.
A globe columnist call it a cover-up
By anon
Fri, 07/11/2008 - 4:14pm
A globe columnist call it a cover-up
The first reaction of police officers involved in the incident was to coordinate their stories to protect each other.
I thought it was weird when all nine officers at the scene went immediately to the hospital for stress therapy. And I thought it was weird when none of the officers involved including the lead officer, wrote the incident report. Instead it was written by someone who was not there when the incident happened.
This incident has a certain stench to it. The bottom line is, at worst, a smart-mouthed kid carting an open beer opened his mouth, not to say something hostile, just to say something smart-mouthed. Arresting him is perfectly normal. On the other hand, they could have even told him to dump the beer and left it at that but they didn't.
Even if they didn't use excessive force but they did neglect him after they arrested him, and his brain damage was a result of the neglect, its manslaughter at a minimun.
If they did use excessive force and lied about him fleeing, then we have the indication that they knew exactly what they had done.
If it was the cop who had been sued for beating a suspect with his flashlight, then the BPD is in trouble for putting him back on the street.
from bpdnews
By Veokler
Mon, 07/14/2008 - 10:23pm
Officers attempted to conduct a threshold inquiry when the suspect attempted to flee. He was soon subdued by officers. The suspect began struggling with the officers as they attempted to handcuff him.
"Subdued" is interesting choice of words. He was subdued with overwhelming force. The question is "Was it necessary or did one or two of these cops have a hair across their ass?"
Did he "began struggling...as they attempted to handcuff him" or did he began struggling as they "attempted to conduct a threshold inquiry" because according to this report, he started struggling right off the bat.
When exactly did they smash him on the ground and not notice he had stopped breathing?
did they drop the charges?
By Anonymous
Wed, 07/16/2008 - 10:27pm
How drunk would a person have to be to try and outrun 9 cops in riot gear who were close enough to him to hear him say "there must be a lot of crime on this corner"?
Any word on whether the police dropped the charges of drinking in public and resisting arrest?
did he flee or did he not flee?
By Anonymous
Fri, 07/18/2008 - 12:40am
Here is an interesting account of the incident. It does not include any description that resembles David Woodmen's alleged attempt to flee, which is the only justification for handling him so forcefully. Without the attempt to flee, it is clearly excessive force. In other words, if he cooperated, they can't smash him into a fence and then smash him face first on the ground.
Here's another thing to consider: If you walked close enough to 9 cops to be heard saying "Wow, it seems like there's a lot of crime on this corner" would you run if they told you to stop?
who started the encounter with Woodman?
By beaten by cops
Sun, 07/20/2008 - 4:52pm
Unanswered questions about who started the encounter with Woodman
Why have the police and the commissioner not been able to answer questions about which of the nine officers started the encounter with David Woodman?
Not a long struggle: at least two officers had contact maybe as many as six
Commissioner Davis said in a telephone interview:
Commissioner Davis in a press conference:
Why does Commissioner Davis assert there was a "violent resistance" in the phone interview and make no mention of it in the press conference?
Note the passive construction, which is frequently an attempt to conceal known facts, with or without malicious intent.
Presumably the press conference is to clear the air about what actually happened. Don't you think it's important for people to know the suspect "violently resisted" arrest and it was that resistance that caused the police to reasonably increase the force they used to arrest the boy carrying an open beer?
Two officers previously disciplined: relevant or not?
Globe forces Boston Police to release names of officers at the scene
Commissioner Davis said Parker, Blake, and Morse had no physical contact with Woodman.
My word
By sheenaspleena
Mon, 07/21/2008 - 8:14am
let the kid RIP.
your word
By priscilla
Mon, 07/21/2008 - 1:25pm
How could anyone rest in peace after being brutalized to death by 9 cops in riot gear just for saying what's on your mind? What kind of country do we live in? The United States used to be the home of the free- now it's the home of the cops everywhere. They are tazing people to death everyday, too. Scarey. Don't breath wrong.
word
By anon
Mon, 07/21/2008 - 5:12pm
i agree.
a season ticket holder who saw it coming
By Anonymous
Mon, 07/21/2008 - 3:28am
Cullen finds a season ticket holder who saw it coming.
What happened?
By anon
Mon, 07/21/2008 - 11:11am
I don't know if you heard this but David Woodman's parents hired a lawyer because they think it might have been wrongful death. The Boston Police Department was less than forthcoming answering their questions about what happened.
On top of that, not one of the nine police officers at the scene filed a report on the incident. Instead, they all went off for stress counseling. The Woodman's lawyer said that is unprecedented in Boston. He thinks they may have done to get their stories straight.
Do you know what David Woodman's last words were?
No they weren't
By Kaz
Tue, 07/22/2008 - 2:50pm
Stop adding misinformation. He said that after waking up from the coma on the 23rd. He died a few hours into the 29th. He was alive, awake, and talking that whole week.
Woodman
By anon
Tue, 07/22/2008 - 1:09am
If you happened to be a civilian coming home that night from the game maybe with your kids in the car and Dave Woodman or someone of his ilk decided to jump on your car at a red light and kick in your windshield (which happened elsewhere that night), you'd be damn glad that 9 police officers were there to grab him.
It's called personal responsibility. Woodman was drunk in the street, acting up, and was arrested. Blame God or bad genes for his preexisting condition.
BPD does an excellent job in very tough conditions.
Yet, at the same time,
By independentmind...
Tue, 07/22/2008 - 1:28am
Yet, at the same time, this:
does not excuse the BPD cops having used excessive force that resulted in Woodman's death.
What if
By Kaz
Tue, 07/22/2008 - 12:22pm
If I happened to be going home from the game and Dave Woodman was an alien scared by the loud noises who was about to eat me to calm his stomach but he was vulnerable to police-issued pepper spray, then I'd have been damn glad that 9 cops were there to douse him in the stuff.
I like this game; what else can we pretend happened?
BPD shot Victoria Snelgrove in the eye. Their "excellent job" when it comes to near-riot/riot conditions is very much in question.
last words
By anon
Tue, 07/22/2008 - 1:18pm
David Woodman's last words were, "What happened?" He spoke them after he woke from a medically induced comma. He was talking to his mother. He died shortly after.
Bullshit
By Kaz
Tue, 07/22/2008 - 2:48pm
Don't add misinformation to an already contentious situation. His last words weren't "What happened?". He woke from the coma on June 23rd, a Monday. He was alive, awake, and talking in the hospital until early morning on Sunday, June 29. He even discussed wanting to go home on Saturday the 28th. He died SIX DAYS after being woken from the coma.
What's the timeline
By classmate
Tue, 07/22/2008 - 5:23pm
What's the timeline of events from when he left the bar, was forcibly detained, cuffed and placed face down, released from cuffs, two ambulance calls, woke up in the hospital, died?
Timeline
By Kaz
Tue, 07/22/2008 - 5:43pm
early June 18, just after the game: he leaves the bar to walk home
around 12:30A-12:47A: officers cuff him and call for an ambulance for a drunk
sometime between 12:47A-12:53A: police begin CPR and call at 12:53 for a second time for ambulance this time asking "please push"
12:58: Cataldo ambulance flagged by hand and begin working
1:11A: Cataldo deliver him to hospital
June 23rd: wakes from medically induced coma and asks "What happened?"
June 23-28: meets Globe reporter on that Thursday, talks with parents, seems confused at times
June 28th: asks to go home
2:30 AM, June 29th: dies in hospital
All of that taken from this Globe article.
Pig there
By Sport
Fri, 08/01/2008 - 10:39pm
How the fuck do you know? You're a pig. You're the one planting yourself here in order to contaminate the truth with misinformation.
You'd like to see ONE person doused with NINE cans of pepper spray. You're a pig, indeed. No other person on this planet is as PORKLY and PIGGISH.
He awoke from the coma only briefly while on life support because let's face it, he was dead before the pigs even called in for medical support. Even then, the Boston Pigs were disparaging an innocent man. "Some drunk guy, nonresponsive on the street" ...
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. You pigs don't decide guilt. You may only allege. YOU ALLEGE he was drinking in public. YOU ALLEGE he resisted arrest yet ONE FACT WILL FOREVER REMAIN TRUE. ONE MAN is dead after being jumped by NINE PIGS.
Dead.
So, not only does the Boston Police believe they are able to find guilt or innocence but these renegade pigs now believe they've been entrusted with blindly laying down death sentences in immediate response to an ALLEGATION of drinking in public.
"Don't run, bitch! Don't resist! Lay there and let the nine of us kill you!" That is the state we live in. Renegade pigs everywhere we turn. Ripping faces off with cement, making young people eat curb because you don't like their sarcasm, electrocuting citizens, throwing bombs at seven year old children, repeatedly raping the foster children they adopt.* That is what you pigs do and you have a nerve to come online and plead a case?
"We don't call them bombs. We call them "bangs" ... that is our word. We give you our word. Now accept it!"
Your word is not worth shit and the citizens of this commonwealth are fed up.
*See:
www.sexcriminals.com/forums/101/13529/153430.html - 143k
www.janedoe.org/about/about_news_05_23_05.htm
Oh. But wait ... there's more!!
www.sexcriminals.com/forums/101/13529/140370.html
http://www.prisoners.com/lukantkj.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enU...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enU...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enU...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enU...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enU...
What is that now? MILLIONS of hits leading to stories about a pig cop and his criminal activity? Rape, Murder, Brutality, Theft?!
History is prognostic, Mother Fucker.
What are you going to do when the citizens arrest you? Resist?
Pages