Hey, there! Log in / Register
Did David Woodman need to die?
By adamg on Mon, 07/21/2008 - 6:03pm
He's a bit late to the game, but Kevin Cullen today writes what Dan Kennedy calls a first-rate column on the guy who died after being detained by police during the post-Celtics-win crackdown.
Topics:
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
We got that already.
We got that already.
Scribe should try hand at police work
regular citizens wonder what happened
It is not clear whether Officer James W. Carnell is responding on behalf of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association or for himself when he says “it would be my pipe dream to grab Rufo and Cullen by the scruff of the neck, put them in a police uniform for the night, and have them deal with these alleged "fans."
What I take away from this statement is the implication that policing a mob is extremely difficult and officer Carnell doesn’t think Rufo and Cullen are up to it. Officer Carnell also seems to imply that if you can’t do the job, then you have no right to criticize it. We are all subject to criticism. We are all accountable for our actions, more so when a young man dies, and especially in a case when a young man has respiratory failure in police custody after being forcibly arrested.
What is lost on officer Carnell is that that a young man ended up dead. The boy wasn’t a threat. It could have been you or me. That is why regular citizens want to know what happened.
I can say with confidence that everyone in the city of Boston wants to hear that David Woodman’s death was accidental, a result of his cardiac health, not a result of excessive force or negligence in police custody. It is consistent with law enforcement policy to collect all the facts first and then draw conclusions. We will not know if that is the case until Boston Police Detectives, the DA, and the FBI finish their investigations. Officer Carnell’s (as well as Commissioner’s Davis) public assertions that (there was “no excessive force used” and) the officers “are guilty of nothing more than doing their jobs.” are prejudicial, premature and may be misleading.
That said, why does Officer Carnell manhandle Rufo and Cullen in his pipe dream by grabbing them by the scruff of the neck? Is it out of anger? If it is, then Office Carnell in responding to what he found to be unfair opinion, is illustrating the kind of police action that law abiding citizens fear and find abusive…. that an officer’s anger justifies an escalation of physical force against their person when force is not otherwise justified.
Police officer friends have told me that they are trained to diffuse situations, not escalate them and that they are trained to use the sufficient and necessary force to secure a suspect, not overwhelming force like military police and combat soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On the night David Woodman was arrested another young man was arrested. He too was forced to the ground, cuffed and left face down. He claimed he was punched twice in the face and kicked when he was cuffed and facedown on the sidewalk. The force with which these citizens were dropped and the practice of leaving arrested citizen’s face down may need policy review. There are some studies that indicate lying facedown with one’s armed secured puts their respiration under stress.
It would appear that both citizens’ worst transgression was not obeying orders. In addition, David Woodman had a smart mouth and an open container, which may have been beer, but he was not otherwise a threat or looking for trouble. The other young man was about the same age. He had been at Remington’s. He wanted to get to his car and go home. His transgression appears to be asking the policeman to reconsider his order to walk around the block to get to his car. He was subdued with force.
In 1968, a more violent time than now, Mayor Kevin White came up with a clever solution to avoid a riot in Boston while other US cities were being torn apart by them. I wonder what Mayor Menino, Commissioner Davis, Robert, Wyc and John could come up with as a way of avoiding these unmanageable and potentially lethal situations. They owe it to their fans and to the citizens of Boston to try.
Well.....
This:
was invariably true, but what about the horrific riots over mandated school busing here in Boston that came six years later, which police could not/would not bring under control, and neither could (then)-Mayor Kevin White?
two strikes
I agree that its not an easy problem to solve. The Mayor White example stands as a successful solution for dealing with a similar situation. Ergo, It is possible to anticipate and diffuse undesirable, destructive and lethal mob behavior by creating a more attractive alternative.
When court-ordered busing started, it lasted for years. I don't know how the mayor could have offered a solution to that. Predictable and spontaneous post game celebrations, at night in the streets of Boston immediately after a championship game is the risk that needs to be managed. The best way to do it is to provide an attractive alternative in the same time frame.
I'd like to think that we can rely on Mayor Menino, Commissioner Davis, and the owners of the three professional sports teams to take up this issue and work together to develop a plan.
The current plan has two strikes against it; Victoria Snelgrove and David Woodman.
Wow
WOW! what a long way post to say
I'll wait until the investigation is over.
James Carnell has a thin
James Carnell has a thin skin and a hair-trigger temper. And
I can say this, for real, I hope I don't have a run-in with officer hard-on some day after he's done reading the Boston Globe editorial section.
tell Officer James the cops are not the victims here
Sure seems like a pissed off cop who can't help himself from blasting back in a public forum, at what he feels is unreasonable criticism.
His reasoning is perplexing. It goes something like this, Don't criticize how we do our jobs until you try it. I ought to force you to try it. Nevermind that kid that died who suffered a serious medical event while under arrest, it was all above board.
Really? All above board? Is that why the parents were stonewalled by the police? Is that why none of the officers on the scene wrote the report? Is that why the commissioner provided no specific details about any of the events that occurred between the time Woodman walked pass the officers with his friends and when EMTs put him in an ambulance. No doubt Davis' statement is a terse as the officers attempt to initiate an inquiry with Woodman. The question of whether Woodman tried to flee is still open for discussion. When do we get to see the nine officers statements. They ought to have been completed by now.
when will the nine officers' statements be released?
Didn't some smart sonofabitch say "The truth is the engine of the justice system in the United States of America."? That guy started his career as in intern in the US Attorney's office in Boston. Now he is the US Attorney in Chicago. In the meantime, he won a conviction of Scooter Libby - Cheney's right hand - on lying and obstruction of justice. It seems Libby didn't want to tell the truth about how cover CIA agent Valarie Plame's name was leaked to the press. In his closing argument he said, there is a cloud of the vice president. You know what they say, where there's a cloud there a... hmmm. Why didn't he say, there's smoke int he vice president's office... he he
Back to the point, it's time for the nine officers to tell the truth and not hide behind the thin blue line. Their reason, their purpose as professional law enforcement officers is to enforce the law (even when its hard). In this case, the truth, their hard truth will lead the way.
By the scruff?
Grabbing "them by the scruff of the neck" seems to be the problem here, copper. Just what gives you the right to assume you have any right to grab anybody, anywhere? You divine the guilt or innocence of your colleagues based on what? The mere fact that they are your colleagues? You clearly hate the people you are sworn to protect. You'd like to grab them by the necks, remember. You'd like them to walk a mile in your "miserable shoes" ...
If you hate your job so much, step down copper. We, the people protest the likes of you. You're not welcomed to protect us.
You don't even know Woodman and your refer to him as "the likes of" ??? Is that what you do? You and your pig colleagues have NO GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO HAND DOWN DEATH SENTENCES for any act, large or small. In Woodman's case, your pig colleagues sentenced him to death for carrying just a few liquid ounces of 8% alcohol in a cup.
You're going to lecture someone on something?
The Boston Police Department is an embarrassment to the state of Massachusetts.
An abomination!
Nine on one highly religious YOUNG ADULT. Nine. Nine on one and the one died. Do the math pigmeat.
To get back on topic:
No. Woodward didn't need to die. His death was tragic...and needless. The cop(s) who placed Woodward under arrest that night clearly acted inappropriately by their excessive use of force. All the kid did was to sass the cops back, and the cops blew the whole situation out of proportion. Disgraceful.
I hope you're wrong but you may be right
I hope you're wrong but you may be right. Boston Police detectives, DA Conley and the FBI are on the case.
You know what flat out
You know what flat out amazes me .. is how quickly people want to presume that the cops working that nite did something wrong. The Kevin Cullen article was an irresponsible joke. Articles are written for several purpoes .. sometimes they're written to expose injustice and make things better .. other times they're written because the boss at the newspaper says, "Hey guys .. we are so irrelevant as a news source .. if we don't start creating some controversy .. we're f'ed."
Let me throw an idea out there that I haven't heard yet. If you think police officers go to work hoping .. as some fools have suggested .. to abuse their police power to the point where a young man tragically dies .. you are absolutely certifiable. I'm amazed how quickly people are prone to embrace suggestions of police brutality and impropriety. Time and time again .. I've listened to people drone on about how intimidating the police officers looked that nite. Hey Einstein .. they're supposed to look a little scary. On a nite where kids were drinking heavily and completely disregarding the neeed to behave and respect the rights of those fans hoping to attend and enjoy a championship basketball game in safe manner .. we act as if the police presence weren't necessary at all. We act as if the history predating this game somehow never existed. We act as if those went to that game and misbehaved had a right to do so. Honestly .. it's one thing to go to the game .. drink .. have fun and celebrate .. it's another to flip over cars, destroy property and put people in harm's way. My heart goes out to the Woodman family. And I don't know if his heart condition contributed to his passing or not. I don't know if he was a good kid or a bad kid. I also don't know if the police officers mistreated him. But .. I do know this .. from what I've read .. a lot of things were done to keep this kid alive. Again .. if u think the cops involved are happy about what transpired .. then .. u just don't get it.
Kevin Cullen should be ashamed of himself .. the family from Connecticut should get over themselves. And those who speak with sush certainty on the issue flabbergast me. To the fool who wrote, "The cop(s) who placed Woodward under arrest that night clearly acted inappropriately by their excessive use of force." HOW DO U KNOW THAT??? WERE U THERE??? This isn't about the movie Serpico .. or .. the cop who pulled you over 2 years ago and wrote u a ticket and .. maybe .. spoke to you in a disresptful or stern way.
This is about irresponsible journalism that fuels irresponsible comments. The Globe has shown the ability to incite and lead people on a speculation filled journey fueled by tales of police brutality. It's as if the paper wants you to condemn thess officers without knowing all the facts. The paper is less concerned with the facts and more concerned with people wanting to buy their paper. No media outlet has pursued this story as doggedly as the Globe. I wonder why????? Maybe .. because other media outlets are witholding judgement until the hear and see all the facts.
I am eager to see what this indepent investigation bears out. If it shows the police screwed up and acted inappropriately .. I'll accept that. But .. I refuse to condemn people with a tuff job because a newspaper tell me to do so.
To attend that game and not think police presence would be high .. given the propensity for large crowds to misbehave, riot, and destry cities .. is almost child like.
No. Woodward didn't need to die. His death was tragic...
...and needless
You're right.
If only he'd listened to the news, and stayed out of Boston that night - the way the public was advised to.
If only he hadn't been drinking in public - which is illegal, and again, the news advised that the police were going to have zero tolerance for that stuff
If only he hadn't tried to run away, making himself look guilty & criminal - the police may have instructed him to dump out his beer, or PCed him that night.
If only he had learned his lesson the first time he was arrested - he might still be alive today & his friends wouldn't be beating this to death, making everyone sick of the story, instead of letting the kid rest in peace.
Huh?
Stayed out of Boston? He lived in Boston! Where did you want him to go? He walked to a neighborhood bar and was walking home at the time that he was arrested.
Yes, his drinking in public was a mistake but I don't really see any real info on his "running away", only that he resisted arrest. You also assume that the police "may have instructed him to dump out his beer", but they were peeved at his snide comment and they had nothing better to do (Fenway was relatively quiet after the game).
I'm not putting him on a pedestal as a model citizen, nor am I absolving the cops of not paying more attention to their detainee (it took nearly 20 minutes to get the kid full medical attention and that's only *after* they finally realized he wasn't breathing and nobody is giving a better timeline on *that* than "well, it was 8 minutes between the first call and the second call for an ambulance" because those two timepoints are official record and the rest is now only known to the cops who are trying to hide whether they knew he was unconscious or only figured it out after he'd been without oxygen for minutes). Much like Snelgrove, cops tried to do their job and screwed it up resulting in someone's death. These problems need to stop occurring during city celebrations and neither of the two citizens who are now dead were doing anything wrong enough to end in death which puts the onus on the cops to figure out how they can stop killing people during these celebrations.
the media had full coverage of what people could expect...
...and suggested that people NOT go to Kenmore Square or near the Garden to celebrate in the street, because they would be asked/made to leave the area.
Where did your buddy get his plastic cup of beer? From the bar??? I don't think so.
He wasn't just walking home from a bar.
He was drinking in public & being a smart ass.
The police wouldn't have stopped him for being a smart ass though, it was for drinking in public, something that he'd been in trouble for before.
Considering his history - that LAST place he should have been was with the masses after a championship game.
TOTALLY different than Snelgrove - the police had a specific person in mind when they stopped your friend. He was breaking the law, and tried to run away from the police. With Snelgrove - they weren't targeting her - but stupidly shooting into a crowd. Snelgrove didn't break the law & didn't deserve to be killed, which is why her family got a settlement.
I'd predict that your friend's family won't. With his history, he has a reputation of breaking the law & being obnoxious. With his medical history, he'll look like a time bomb.
REGARDLESS OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY THE POLICE OR NOT - your friend was not innocent. Any defense lawyer can paint that image clearly enough.
this was posted online & discussed in the news
4 days before the game.
http://wbz.com/Boston-Police-gear-up-for-a-possibl...
Your friend knew he could get into trouble if he drank on the street.
Posted: Friday, 13 June 2008 6:01PM
Boston (WBZ Newsroom) -- With the Celtics leading the Lakers 3-1 in the NBA finals, Boston Police reviewed security plans Friday afternoon in advance of Sunday night's game five in Los Angeles.
Police Superintendant Dan Linskey says bars will be asked to cover windows so that crowds won't gather on the street to look at television screens.
Linskey also says there will be parking restrictions around the Garden on Sunday as well as extra patrols near the Garden and in Kenmore Square.
He reminds people to use public transportation and to obey the laws against public drinking
original reports document that he was trying to flee
and mention 23 other people who were arrested that night:
http://www.bpdnews.com/2008/06/post_32.html
http://www.bpdnews.com/2008/06/boston_police_arres...
your friend wasn't a target. he was breaking the law, and wasn't healthy.
you're blaming the victim
You're blaming the victim.
First of all, we don't know if he watched the news. Second of all, the news did not advise against going to a bar in Kenmore square to watch the NBA finals. Third, no one claimed he drank to excess but if he had, he would not have been breaking the law by doing so. Fourth, we live in a free counrty. We are allowed to go to bars to watch playoff games. Fifth, There was no mob in Kenmore. David Woodman was not collateral damage amid the mayhem in the way Victoria Snelgrave was.
Once again with the news. Secondly, it has not been established that he had an alcoholic beverage in his cup. You and I may think it is more likely than not, and so too the cops on the scene, but as a matter of law, until its established as an alcoholic beverage, he had not broken the law. Fwiw, his friends say he did not drink to excess in the bar.
Whether he tried to flee is a disputed fact. The police said he did. Two friends who were there, who spoke with anonymity said he did not. I think the smart mouth comment is what set the cops off. One or more got pissed and reacted to him with prejudice. Assuming David Woodman did try to flee, what amount of force would you then allow the police to exert on an unarmed young man with a cup of beer and a smart mouth? He was forced to the ground, cuffed, and left face down. When he stopped breathing, the police did not notice it at first. While he is in their custody, they are responsible for his well being. They failed on this count.
Do you think if you jaywalked in Kenmore Square and then tried to escape the police, that they have the right to detain you with overwhelming force, such as smashing your knee with a billy club or firing a handgun at your person? I think the right answer is the the police response is supposed to be proportional to the danger. It may have been in this situation but then again, it may have been excessive. That is what the investigation is for.
This paragraph makes no sense:
if he knew about the celtics game
chances are he watched the news. he also had previous experience being arrested, so he knew better than most of what to expect.and, yes - he was drinking in public, and yes, he tried to flee. it's well-documented.
I'm not blaming the victim - I'm not even sure that he IS a victim. He had a lot of responsibility in getting himself into trouble. It is not all the BPD being aggressive assholes.
it sounds like it
You're blaming the victim.... he should have heeded the warning on the news, he should have not have carried a open container in public, he should have known better becuase he had been arrested before... you're blaming the victim.
don't you think this would have turned out differently
if he HAD payed attention to the news & laws?
Should his personal responsibility be ignored?
your out of your mind
Where in the Constitution does it say citizens are responsible for watching the news so as to avoid situations where the police have warned people to stay home?
Where in the Constitution....
...is the use of deadly force as punishment for sassing police officers authorized?
huh?
Where in the Constitution does it say citizens are responsible for watching the news so as to avoid situations where the police have warned people to stay home?
that's dumb. Who said it was in the Constitution? The news just stressed an existing law - that public drinking wouldn't be tolerated, and they mentioned where the heaviest police presence would be.Given that he'd been arrested in something like this before, he should have known exactly what to expect.
When people DON'T pay attention to what's happening, it causes trouble.
Remember the gridlock we had after the awful snow storm last year, people were saying then "why were they driving? they knew it was going to snow"
Same thing with Katrina, "why didn't they get out when they were warned to?"
this is so different than an innocent victim
ie: the little boy shot while playing kickball, or the baby shot while in her father's arms, or the kids on the 3rd floor balcony waiting for their cab. THOSE examples are total innocence. This guy WAS breaking the law, and it was his actions that got the police involved.
Again, I'm not convinced that there is a victim here.
Dunno who you're talking to
He wasn't my friend, friend-o. I never knew the guy. Not that I'll get the chance to now, either.
Look, internet detective, bars use plastic cups when they are dealing in high volume...like say the final game of a championship series. I've been in plenty of places that have needed to use plastic. In the commotion of the bar after the win, he walks out the door with a cup still in hand? Been there, seen it happen. Hell, Sunset Tap and Grill brands all of their *good* glasses with "Lame Stolen Beer Glass" because people walk out of there with their fine ware sometimes and they want to shun the practice for obvious reasons.
Drinking in public and being a smartass? Wow, glad they didn't just ship him off to Gitmo right then and there. Also, he wasn't in Kenmore Square, near the Garden, nor celebrating in the streets. He was walking from one place to another and hardly being all that disorderly about it.
And based on your final thoughts above about his innocence, you're suggesting that guilty people deserve to die in police custody? Or if they do then it's all their fault?
Once he's in police custody (a choice the police made based on whatever reasonable reasons they chose to enforce that night), then he's in their *custody*. They are responsible for his well-being to the best of their abilities. Leaving him cuffed face down while he stopped breathing, only to discover that it had happened minutes later, is not the best of their abilities. In their minds, they bagged and tagged a drunk and just had to wait for an ambulance to finally arrive to check him out before booking him for public intoxication. They had a person in custody that was in need of an ambulance to arrive and they didn't observe him for 8 minutes? What if he had choked on his own vomit instead? If he was in a way that required you to call for an ambulance in the first place, then what excuse for not attending to him better than after 6-8 minutes when CPR was started and a second, more urgent, call for an ambulance was made (and wasn't answered, because they ended up needing a passing Cataldo ambo to stop after another 5 minutes had passed).
These cops overreacted and then underperformed. Woodward was drunk and stupid. I don't know how a trial would pan out and if the investigations come back showing the mistakes made by police that night, then it likely will settle before trial (just like Snelgrove did). The real problem for the rest of us is not related to Woodward's issues though, but the performance of the cops. If they can't perform appropriately during these "riot"-class situations, then something needs to change.
sorry buddy
I thought you were the same person who says that the kid was his friend, but won't post any info about themselves.
you do know that bars don't let you take anything outside?
right?
I didn't say he should be shipped off to Gitmo. I said that if he didn't try to flee, he probably would have been told to dump it out or possibly have been PCed for the night. He was drinking in public and making smartass comments to the police. One is illegal and one is obnoxious, so I bet he sounded like a drunk.
The real problem isn't just the police. It's unhealthy kids breaking the rules and being obnoxious in public so that the police have to get involved. He should have had a medicalert bracelet, and he shouldn't have been violating the open container laws.
what was coming to him
Woodman got what was coming to him. Shoot your big mouth off to cops in riot gear and you desrve what you got comming.
Good to see
UH isn't blocked in China, at least in government offices.
ALLEGEDLY
Hey, listen pal. We have a system of justice which COMMANDS a person's INNOCENCE until PROVEN GUILTY. David didn't have an opportunity to defend himself against charges which weren't even filed until AFTER he was left without air and was brain damaged. You cannot charge a man with crimes AFTER YOU DAMAGED HIS BRAIN and then speak as though the man committed any crime at all.
He is an innocent man. He was never tried nor convicted. He was robbed of not only the opportunity to defend against charges but also, OF HIS LIFE. He was given the death sentence BEFORE CHARGED and then charged as some form of so called "justification" for the murder.
Get real!
"Your friend was not innocent", you say. What kind of ignorant person are you? You speak of the man as though he's been found guilty of something. You speak of the dead in an accusatory fashion.
He's not here to defend himself against your charges. What right do you have?
This, within itself, IS GROUNDS FOR SUIT!
Dude, settle down
First, if you feel compelled to use obscenities to make your case, over and over again, you're not really making your case, just turning off people who might otherwise be willing to listen to you.
Second, "innocent until proven guilty" applies to everybody in the justice system. Including those nine cops. Unless you were right there, you don't know what happened anymore than the rest of us.
obscenity in this post
I don't see the obscenity in this post. Yea his style is aggressive and you're right about your "innocent until proven... etc" but sport doesn't appear to be outside the bounds of decency, imho.
not innocent
his friends and the police agree that he was drinking in public - that's a violation of law, and therefore, he wasn't innocent.
innocent would be more like snelgrove, or a case of mistaken identity, or someone who was not breaking state laws.
carte blanche
By your reasoning, if Snelgrove had broken the law, let's say she jaywalked moments before the incident or maybe she had beer, and then was shot and killed by police with a rubber bullet, you would have no problem because "she wasn't innocent."
Your argument doesn't hold water because it implies that once police have probably cause to detain you for breaking the law, then they have immunity for intentionally, accidentally, or negligently causing you harm, and that is simply not true in this country. Before you respond, I would ask you to do some reading on the topic.
In this case, the police may or may not have taken action that resulted in David Woodman's brain damage but if they did, they are just as responsible as you or I would be, if we bashed him in the head, slammed him on the ground and as a result, he stopped breathing. Just because he was drinking beer does not give them permission to harm him, with intent or by accident, or to be negligent by not notice he stopped breathing while he was under arrest.
well, she wasn't
and the police weren't trageting her specifically, they shhot into the crowd and hit her, she wasn't the intended target, she was innocent.
this kid was breaking the law, and the police were interested in apprehending/talking to him, specifically because they saw him breaking the law...that's all.
he wasn't an innocent bystander - he had a record of similar charges as well.
The purpose of the illustration
The purpose of the illustration is to have you apply your principles to a slightly modified fact set and see how it bears out. If you can't do that, then there's no point in it.
Consider, Snelgrove was carrying a beer and that was the only thing that was different in her case. Is she then "guilty"? So what if she was shot dead accidentally by police with a rubber bullet? Is it ok because "she was guilty"? You say yes, I say no.
From your frame of reference, with a beer in her hands, she's not an "innocent" bystander because she is carrying a beer, which is against the law. Her death - an accidental shooting - would not need to be investigated because she was guilty.
I'm not saying that death is okay
understand that.
what I'm saying...pay attention here...
is that David brought this attention upon himself. Enough whining about an innocent kid.
There may be NO victim if he died due to his heart condition.
The police weren't targeting him unfairly - he was breaking the law & continued to do so when he resisted arrest.
He's not innocent.
That's very differnt than saying that he deserved to die.
Come on.
excessive force, dunno. negligence, yes
David Woodman is not guilty. He is a suspect. You are right, he can be arrested. That is usually what police do when they have probable cause that someone broke the law although I've seen police ask partiers to dump the beer and not arrest them if they are not otherwise breaking the law. It is police discretion.
However, if they arrest him, he must be treated in a way that upholds his rights. I will be agree that we do not know if the police violated his rights or not, perhaps by using excessive force but I'll assume they did not and wait for the investigation to conclude. What we do know is they they did not start CPR immediately because they left him alone and did not know he needed CPR.
They have an affirmative obligation to care for a suspect in custody and they did not do so. If there was a mob in Kenmore, they might have had an excuse for leaving him alone because they were called to duty. But if they cuffed him, left him and went back to standing on the corner then they blew their responsibility to serve and protect. They did not protect David Woodman in their custody. The difference between giving him CPR right away and much later is the difference between brain damage and none.
Did David Woodman need to die?
No, he did not.
His brain damage is a result of neglect by police. They cuffed and didn't notice that he stopped breathing. Unless something in the hospital caused his death - and the autopsy will answer this question - it leads back to the neglect when police should have been administering CPR.
a threat
The police showed contempt for David Woodmen - due to his snarky comment about crime on a corner in Kenmore. It provoked their anger and caused the police to use excessive force when arresting him, shoving him into a fence and smashing him face down on the ground.
I don't care if this caused his death or not, it's not right. The police have no right. If you or I did it, we'd be arrested for assault and battery.
David Woodman was not a threat, he carried no weapon, he did not advance of the officers, he does not (nor do you and I) deserve to be psychically abused by the men in blue.
People say he shouldn't have done a lot of things, like the girl who got raped who was wearing a short dress. Rape is rape, no is no, and police having temper tantrums and smashing college kids with a drinking cup to the ground is a violation of their rights.
David Woodman is not an armed dangerous felon who had to be taken by force. At most, he was a walking misdemeanor.
None of the nine police officers remained on the scene. They all went to get
their stories straighttreatment for stress.he committed at least 3 crimes and therefore the police
had to take him into custody:
1) open container violation
2) public drinking
3) fleeing from police/evading arrest
If the police picked on him when he was just walking down the street, then he'd be a victim...but he had an open container, was drinking in public and tried to flee, so he was SOL. Quite possibly they could get him on public drunkeness and other charges too, but these are the three that made the police want him that night, and all three were his choice.
I so want to Godwin this thread
Are there criteria for when it is appropriate?
He had a yellow star, was out after curfew, ran from police. Doesn't sound much different than what has been put forth as justification in this case, does it?
Is that the society you want to live in? The founders of the country seem to disagree with your vision, if you read the things they wrote in "that piece of paper".
the difference is
that ANYONE who is in violation of an open container, or who is drinking in public or who evades arrest is subject to police attention.
What you're referring to (and I understand what your point is, and I'm not going to say the word), is vastly different and another stupid attempt at being funny
You know this how?
An open container of soda? Beer? Oh, the cops told us it was beer ... while under investigation. Or maybe they assumed it was beer and wanted it to be beer when they attacked somebody with intense force for having the gall to mouth off. Hard to tell.
Do we really want highly trained, highly paid people to attack the first loser who mouths off? Shouldn't part of that training impart discretion? Couldn't a terrorist organization cause a diversion with a sacrificial jerk and then do their real work while nine cops jump an unarmed provacateur? Do we want to pay for the privilege? Shouldn't we question the level of response given the minor infractions, if they even existed?
Like I said, we have some pretty fundamental foundational documents that were designed to address abuse of power. I highly suggest you read them sometime, as well as some contextural information on why they were so worked up about free speech, free assembly, freedom to move around, etc.
Then again, maybe you like living in a police state. May I suggest North Korea? Or would some of the former Soviet organized-crime states suit you better?
you mean
in North Korea you can run from the police and they'll just let you go?
that's the simpson's you're thinking of.
If he wasn't doing anything wrong, why did he evade arrest?
His personal responsibility/actions don't enter into your thinking, do they?
Regardless of what was in his cup, when he tried to flee, that was an illegal action, and the consequence was arrest.
Especially when the media started saying a week before the final game that open container/public drinking would not be tolerated, the kids, and everyone else had fair warning. If he had water in his cup, he could have shown the police and it would have ended there...but he tried to evade - which is criminal behavior.
Of course the cup and its contents are long vanished
The question isn't "why did he evade arrest", the question is "why the hell did they even bother with him?".
Terrorist organizations notice this shit, and they will use it. Happens in NYC too. Don't you think that these guys should be better trained to avoid taking the bait? Sure, this time it's a college kid, but next time it may be a deliberate distraction to draw attention.
North Korea, China, etc. sound like your dream date if you like men in uniform acting tough. Consider relocation, leave my US alone if you so desire police state living.
argumentative & incorrect
no. that is not the point AT ALL
no one is debating the contents of his cup
not the family, not his parents, not the friends he was with, not the lawyers, not the police....
in fact, no one but you!
VAZQUEZ TONESS: That night, David Woodman was shooting pool while watching the game at a bar in Kenmore square. he and and four friends were walking home and were in front of Emmanuel College when they saw police officers. Both sides agree Woodman was carrying a cup of what was probably beer. And that's why the police were interested.
Davis describes what happened next according to his officers.
DAVIS: Officers attempted to conduct an inquiry when the suspect attempted to flee. he was quickly stopped by officers. the suspect began struggling as they handcuffed him.
VAZQUEZ TONESS: That's where the accounts start to diverge. Attorney Howard Friedman, who represents Woodman's parents says he interviewed Woodman's friends who were with him that night. He says they told him Woodman didn't flee.
FRIEDMAN: When he saw the officers he said something like, 'boy there must be a lot of crime on this corner.'
Obviously the police officers heard him. They then heard officers say, "hey you, hey you". They continued walking as they did before. Then Dave thought, wait, maybe they mean me. When they realized that, he was grabbed by police. pushed up against the fence.
http://www.wbur.org/news/2008/78355_20080701.asp
Davis' statement of events
Davis' statement of events is devoid of any distinguishing characteristics. This is not surprising because the report was not written by any of the 9 officers who witnessed the event. It was written by someone who was not there.
All 9 officers left the scene to be treated for stress.
Why is it, that the report has not been resubmitted with input from all nine officers who witnessed the events?
Perhaps none of the officers wanted to be on record with a lie or the truth becuase of how it would affect the officers with whom they work.
Because it was written by someone who was not there, we know that the person who wrote the report spoke with one or more of the officers who was there (or lets hope so.) If they can tell him what happened then why can't they put it in writing with their name on it?
What does this mean in concrete terms: Officers attempted to conduct an inquiry. Did they say "Stop"? Did they say "hey you, hey you"? Were they looking at him face-to-face and asked "What is in that cup?" Did Woodman make the remark as he and friends were walking passed? Did any one of the boys know the cops were referring to them when they called out "hey you, hey you"? Does "hey you hey you" constitute 'attempting to conduct an inquiry'?
Was Woodman walking or running away? Is that how they know he was attempting to flee or was he walking with his friends?
Did the police have to give pursuit? How far did the police run? How many? Which ones? Were the boys running or walking?
Davis statement is devoid of details. It states, attempt to inquire, suspect flees, quickly apprehended, struggled while being cuffed. No details, no description of flight, who was involved. Ask yourself why? Qui bono?
Struggle while being cuffed covers explains the head wound... it was him own dam fault.
argue the points that are to be determined
like- did his heart condition kill him, or did the police ignore his medical problems
not - what was in the cup. that's not a debate. Both sides agree that he was walking on the street with a beer.
Probably
Probably beer. Probably.
Heart Condition?
David Woodman was not in medical distress prior to being apprehended by police. Again. David Woodman WAS NOT in medical distress PRIOR to being apprehended by police. Not an hour before being apprehended. Not ten minutes before being apprehended. Not five seconds before being apprehended and then SLAMMED AROUND BY NINE MEN.
Again, NINE MEN.
No. David Woodman's RESOLVED CONDITION was NOT the cause of death. David Woodman's physician has already made the statement. Keep grasping at straws and hope for an out but there isn't one.
Now, because it appears to be so difficult for the general mind to wrap around, let me walk you through this very carefully.
Here is a photo of nine pigs:
http://www.stewartsdurocfarm.com/images/2006/03-06...
Here is a photo of the thin, young, adult David Woodman:
http://medicineagency.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/...
Follow me?
Here's a photo of one fat pig who had something to say about what went down:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/a-W...
Now, here's the same fat pig standing with yet more ... yup, that's right ... FAT PIGS.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/images/uploads/artic...(773).jpg
"Early in his tenure, he had to contend with charges against a cabal of crooked cops that worked with undercover FBI agents to help protect a shipment of drugs headed for Boston."
"CABALS OF CROOKED COPS" ...
A few FAT PIGS begin to PIG PILE atop the thin David Woodman. The thin David Woodman screams: "PLEEASSSSSSSSEE!!! I CAN'T BREATHE!!!"
"Stop resisting!!!", the fat pig hollers and another fat pig piles atop the man. "PLEEEEAAAASSSSEEEE!" David struggles. "I CAN'T BREATHE!!!"
"Shut up, punk! I'll crush your face into the curb! Do you want to eat curb?! Stop resisting!!"
So on and so forth.
How does one stop breathing when crushed by NINE FAT PIGS?
It's not rocket science.
Now, listen. I grew up in Boston. There isn't a single Bostonian around who would pretend the CABALS OF CROOKED COPS walking the beat in Boston wouldn't rip your face off with cement and make you eat curb for making a wise guy comment.
Freedom of speech? Land of the free and home of the brave? Something worth fighting for? Bullshit. That's what they "sing" to you when lulling you into combat.
They rip your face off and suffocate you here in the state of Massachusetts. You're not allowed to make a wise guy comment without being killed for it. This, when they sanction other countries while charging "human rights violations."
Get bent.
Public Drinking & Arbitrary Enforcement
Ah yes, the loathsome crime of drinking alcohol in public. Next year the cops should raid "Shakespeare on the Common" and handcuff some members of Beacon Hill high society (see "stashes of chilled wine" in the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/200... ).
I'm sure they bust the
I'm sure they bust the people drinking out of their brown bags on the common, they should do the same to the Shakepeare crowd - although I can't imagine the crowd there is anything like the Celtics crowd.
4th of July too!
Beacon Hill high society gets higher than the fireworks, sipping from civilized flasks.
I guess as long as their pinky fingers stay raised when they sip and their upper lips stay stiff, who cares.
Like the girl who got raped?
Like the girl who got raped? You are a piece of shit.
You are a piece of shit.
People blaming the victim. They are asking what did Woodman do to bring this on himself. Like the girl who got raped. Was she wearing a short dress and dancing suggestively. It was her fault. Woodman went out to Kenmore on a night when some authority told people on the news to stay home, he made a smart crack to 9 cops, and held a cup in his hand. What did he do to bring it on himself? (I do not concede that he tried to flee. It was a necessary lie the police told to justify the physical force used. Would you run away from nine cops? No way he both makes the comment, then tries to run away.) What he did was go to Kenmore, mouth off, and carry a drink. He did not deserve the brutal treatment. You are a piece of shit.
yes
Unfortunately for Woodman he brought this on hiself He was out drinking when he was warned not to He shot off his mouth at the cops He tried to get away from the cops and hes lucky the cops didnt shoot him in the back. His heart was a ticking time bomb. It gave out so don't blame the cops
It remains to be seen
It remains to be seen whether Woodman's brain damage was a result of neglect or abuse by the police.
The key question is whether Woodman lost consciousness as a result of something the police did or whether his brain just picked that time to turn off.
If you keeled over right now, it would probably take a lot more than eight minutes before you would be in an ambulance.
Either way, whether neglect or abuse
Either way, whether neglect or abuse, the police have a problem.
The neglect here would be negligence, a breached duty of reasonable care.
The BPD policy of leaving suspects cuffed and face down may have caused the respiratory failure but their neglect caused his respiratory failure to go unnoticed.
They have an obligation under the law to give him reasonable care while he is under their control, for example to notice if he is chocking or not breathing, etc. You see, he can't help himself with his hands cuffed behind his back.
Abuse here would be improper treatment such as excessive force. Who knows, the investigation will render is judgment. But ehe guy who got arrested on the same night coming out of Remington's said he was surprised about the force the police used to subdue him - not that he needed to be subdued. He just wanted permission to walk to his car. Two policeman took him down. He said he was punched in the face twice and kicked once while he was cuffed and on the ground. The only reason I think it's credible is that the arrest method seemed similar to the description given by Woodman's friends and this guy was studying criminal justice in college and had just taken took the police exam.
For David Woodman, the issue was not how long before he was loaded in an ambulance but how long before they administered CPR.
Doctors in the hospital concluded that the police on the scene did not administer CPR in time to avoid brain damage. His brain was damaged as a result of his respiratory failure. The policeman who did administer CPR was a former EMT.
Adrenaline is not always your friend
There have been studies and a Discovery Channel special about adrenaline overload causing impairment. Otherwise good officers standing around waiting for something terrible to happen after anticipating events for hours or even days is a recipe for bad judgment.
Agreed
This is like psyching the paratroopers up before they jump from an airplane into hostile territory. These cops knew for days that they'd be in full riot gear waiting to clobber the first fire-starter or window-breaker that shows up in their corner of the world.
On the edge of Longwood that day, those cops were ready to go and next to nobody was in their area until a drunk smartass showed up and mouthed off to them. It was go time. Then, he stopped breathing.
the truth.
the truth.
Jacked up on
HGH and adrenaline, and setting punk ass bitch college kids with smart mouths straight
Cops vs. Everyone
One thing is certain: in recent history, at least in Boston, police have killed more unarmed civilians than criminals have killed cops.
(http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=...)
res[ec
the unarmed civilians were asking for it, no doubt. If you Mouth off, you'll get roughed up. Flee, you'll get shot. It's survival baby. Until folks realize who has a gun, they keep dyin'. respec.
Adam -- just how much longer....
...are you going to allow anon crap like this?
Not that some of the former anons that have adopted "names" aren't still _almost_ as repulsive.
Sometime this week, I think
I wanted to wait until I was back from vacation before doing something that might require some serious work, such as going non-anon (and now I'm back).
Obviously vacation takes precedence....
...and then (if necessary) recovering from vacation.
;~}
silly arguments are ok, they're transparent
Nah, the argument speaks for itself. It's absurd. Can't everyone see that? Now if anon was calling other posters names and berating them, well that's different.
What's strange....
...is this particular anon sounds so much like the spleen of Sheena.
I don't get the reference,
I don't get the reference, spleen of Sheena. I don't spleen's arguments either.
wasn't me
someone else.
good news bad news
Thanks for your comment. I was kind of surprised by the numbers:
[snip]
Does anyone know the details of Ann Marie McNally's demise?
DA's investigation into McNally's death
OFFICER WILL NOT BE CHARGED.
thanks adamg
Officer on an emergency call - officer in trouble - with lights and sirens on hit car in intersection and kills driver.
South Boston Car Crash With Speeding Cruiser
She died when a cruiser went through a congested area at high speed and rammed her vehicle last November.
Thanks Swirlygrrl - Do you
Thanks Swirlygrrl - Do you have an opinion about the finding or the policies in place?
Can you name the other two?
Can you name the other two?
Snelgrove and that guy who
Snelgrove and that guy who got ran over near Northeastern.
James Grabowski
was the young man who died in the Patriots postgame celebrations.
from the article
The destructive mob atmosphere and Grabowski's death during post championship celebration on the streets of Boston prompted the Mayor and new Commissioner to come up with new strategy but their focus seems to be on crowd control and protecting property, more that crowd control and protect lives. There may be an attitude by a small number of officers that punks who destroy property deserve what they get instead of a less impassioned approach where arrests for substantive law-breaking are made civilly when they can be and with minimal sufficient force when they cannot.
Drinking a beer in public may not rise to the level of a forceful arrest that is if the policemen's claim that Woodmen fled to avoid accountability is not true.
Snelgrove's death is attributable to using the wrong tool in the wrong way, like so many taserings. And Woodman's death seems like it was an overreaction in terms of the need to arrest forcefully and the failure to observe the arrested person while in their care. People shouldn't suffer brain damage in police custody.
Boston.com multimedia
Boston.com has NECN video coverage of the story.
I am sadden by the loss of
I am sadden by the loss of David. No one should die by the cause of rage and anger. I see both sides, I believe the officers had no intent to cause death. They are human just like the rest of us. Who have chosen a profession for the intent of protecting and serving only to have exposure to unhealthy situation which causes fear, anger and pain in them as well. which causes them to react just like everyone. Who really is to blame. I wish all parties could come together to make things better. I know the officers involved in their hearts are grieving along with friends and family who loved him dearly but how can the Officers apologize when they are fighting for there lives in this case as well. Its human nature but so wrong in my eyes. We need change..