Hey, there! Log in / Register
An incident on Boylston Street
By adamg on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:22pm
Classic Boston thing: Guy in car veers towards guy in crosswalk, who swings at car with his umbrella. Only the guy in the car is an off-duty cop. Stephen Arlowe videoed what happened next.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
see above
I keep looking for the elderly person. Don't see one.
But yes, react is over the top.
One person's elderly person is another person's 50 yo
It is all in the perspective of the viewer.
Thug
.
Massholes
All the way down.
Double Masshole: horrible driver with a badge
Quadruple Masshole
1. Bad Driver
2. Cop
3. Doesn't even live in Boston.
4. Red Non-Authentic Red Sox Jersey (a grown ass man wearing one..barf).
Being a cop automatically
Being a cop automatically makes you an asshole?
If you believe that then you should voluntarily revoke your own 911 privileges. You don't get to call. For anything. Ever.
not even for
fire or medical emergency? I mean, if you call 911 for cops its probably not gonna get you anywhere anyway until the deed is done. They only go to collect statements for the most part.
Why call 911 when you risk
Why call 911 when you risk this thing showing up to "help" you?
How do you know where he lives?
Don't call the cops when you're in trouble if they're so bad.
Calm down
Never said all cops were bad.
I know plenty of great officers...and I know plenty of bad ones. I just found another with this story!
Off duty
Should probably last a little longer.
Did they make the punk in the red shirt blow a breathalyzer?
Yeah
Why didn't all the good cops there arrest red sox jersey for assaulting the pedestrian?
They don't get it
They don't realize that sticking together when they act like idiots or commit crimes makes them all look bad in the end.
Having the respect and trust of the public is unfortunately secondary to the code of silence.
Of all the professions you
Of all the professions you need a license to practice, police is not one of them. There needs to be an independent, civilian review board that hears complains like this one. A panel that doesn't answer to state, local, or federal governments, or the police unions. If you're found to have committed an abuse of power, act of brutality, corruption, etc, you're fired and your license to work in law enforcement is revoked.
RE: Of all the professions you
That civilian review board does exist, and it's called the legal system. While the judiciary is technically part of the government, it does not answer to the legislative or executive branches of government, the latter of which includes police. Even if no criminal charges are brought, civil suits are still a viable course of action to take in these situations.
The real crime
...is filming this in portrait rather than landscape.
Keeping the camera from
Keeping the camera from falling off your hands is a bit more important than getting the aspect ratio right.
Keeping the camera from
Keeping the camera from falling off your hands is a bit more important than getting the aspect ratio right.
Overreacted like crazy
But we also all agree on how obnoxious the guy filming is... Jeeze
Don't care. If not for him,
Don't care. If not for him, this video wouldn't exist.
Agreed
Definitely an overreaction, hope the guy smashed to the ground is ok and although I'm glad this video exists (and I really am), the guy taking it is really annoying. If I were the cop,
FWIW, I wouldn't have answered the videographer with the God complex either...of course I also wouldn't have slammed this guy to the ground for jaywalking, so there's that.
Not jaywalking
Guy was in crosswalk. Car was making turn. Pedestrian had right of way. Car ran in to pedestrian.
There appears to be fault on
There appears to be fault on both sides here. A steady UPRAISED HAND (symbolizing DONT WALK) signal indication means that a pedestrian shall not enter the roadway in the direction of the signal indication.
how do you know that the sign said no walking?
When the light is green in the direction of the cars (in this case one way traffic facing the pedestrian but same concept), the cross light can be white, giving the pedestrian the right to cross. Even without, once he is in the crosswalk, the driver is beholden to yield to the pedestrian once they leave the curb (smaller streets) or if the pedestrian is within 10 feet of the lane of travel of the car.
The driver was turning right - either on a red or with the green light. Even with a green light, he is required to yield to the pedestrian in the crosswalk (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Sect...). If you consider the cop's car as being in lane 3, he could only turn right if the pedestrian was in lane 1 or not in the crosswalk. Unless the man has rubber stretchy arms, he would have to be at least in lane 2 to tap the cop's (unmarked) car with his short, teeny umbrella. The cop was in the wrong.
Since he also did not identify himself while on camera, despite multiple multiple requests, it can be inferred that he didn't identify himself nearly a block away when he tackled the pedestrian off camera. As far as the pedestrian knew, he was being attacked by a stranger, not "detained" by a cop (again, no badge, uniform, marked car, verbal information). I hope he sues.
Nice wannabe lawyer, however,
Nice wannabe lawyer, however, the pedestrian whether having the right away or not has clearly vandalized the property of the driver. Therefore, the driver had every right to apprehend the pedestrian. Was excessive force used? I don't know, it's not on tape.
Aside from not identifying himself, I see nothing wrong with what the off-duty officer did.
Really?
You want to pay good tax money for thugs to road rage and then play the cop card?
So nice to hear from from a representative of the Cops Union though.
Lol awesome point! I'm sure
Lol awesome point! I'm sure you just ruined the remainder of someone's detail shift.
Ok Mr Corrupt Police Officer
Ok Mr Corrupt Police Officer but the 57 year old man in the crosswalk didn't destroy or damage any property. He tapped the back window of the cops car with his 6" umbrella to let the cop know that he almost ran over a pedestrian in a cross walk. The alleged crack in the window was a blatant lie that was discreted right in the video when someone pointed out it was a smudge unrelated to the mans tap. He then chased, tackled, and pressed his knee in the mans back. Witnesses said he slammed the mans face in the ground twice. He should be charged with assault and fired. Hope this guys sues him for that 20 year pension since he was off duty.
Vandalized?
How was his car vandalized? A smudge-which might have already been there is not vandalism. Vandalism is actual damage. Did you watch the tape? It's clear that excessive force was used.
The law
Let's assume the cop is wrong garding the traffic rules, is there anything in the law that allows people to hit other people's cars with objects that violate the traffic rules?
How do we know the guy even
How do we know the guy even hit the car with his umbrella? Were you there or is that what you heard on the video?
Was the victim arrested? No,
Was the victim arrested? No, so obviously no law was broken-because those cops would surely have arrested him if they could have.
Well the union attorney will agrue.
That if he identified himself as a police officer to investigate any violation that is enforceable by a law enforcemnt officer (from jaywalking to murder), a person must stop and identify himself. If that person runs, he has committed an arrestable offense, and a specific level of force (compliance techinques vs. an active resistant subject) is required to effect that arrest.
Not buying it
How do you know the guy didn't start crossing when the light was white? The white cross signal is lit on most Boston streets for about 5s. Most crosswalk signals in Boston are way too short.
Anyway, the cop should have most written the guy a $1 fine for jaywalking. He posed no threat to the driver but the driver could have killed him. Pretty big imbalance there.
Ari O, I thought you were
Ari O, I thought you were transportation guru?
You dont know that a pedestrian doesnt have the right of way in a crosswalk with a Do Not Walk signal?
You are incorrect
See comments below.
It does not matter, anon...
The cop's actions were not appropriate for the situation. A eye-witness said that before he started videoing, the cop slammed the guy's head into the sidewalk twice.
Were you there?
Where you there or is that what you heard on the video?
What does the video show?
Definitely no abuse or brutality in the video. Cops are supposed to allow their cars to be vandalized and just move along? I'm sure this cop just decided to randomly abandon his car and chase this guy for no reason.
Great!
I'm glad we've set some sane boundaries. You're right, tackling someone, pinning them to the ground, slamming their head into the concrete, and then frog-marching them across the sidewalk is firmly in the "not abuse or brutality" category.
In a completely unrelated point, I'm having a barbecue this weekend, do you want to come? I promise you won't be abused or brutalized.
The car was not vandalized, #1
The cop totally overacted (and that is an understatement on my part) for the situation, #2.
You might want to go back to re-read the article. Your comments about no abuse or brutality are sorely out of order.
Here you go:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/05/25/video-shows-boston-police-of...
It was his personal car and
It was his personal car and he was in A RedSox shirt. So if someone taps my car with an object I get to chase them down and slam their head into the ground and pull them back to my car by choking them with their shirt??? No abuse?! Are you kidding me?!!! He never showed a badge!!!
Vandalized?
How is tapping the window on a car that nearly ran you over considered vandalism? If the glass was not scratched or cracked, which it wasn't, then there is no vandalism. Perhaps the cop should follow the laws he is supposed to be upholding and yield to a pedestrian.
Fair is fair
If this guy wins the huge lawsuit against the cop and the city that one would hope is in his future, it's only fair to deduct the cost of a paper towel and a spritz of Windex from his award.
Please don't include me in
Please don't include me in the "we also all agree" since I couldn't disagree more with your statement. If I was the man whose head gets slammed on the sidewalk by a cop who almost ran me over, this witness is exactly the guy I'd want by my side. I am not sure I would have the gut of doing what he did myself.
And
We all agree one should never make blanket, all inclusive statements.
maybe a little
His voice and "I'm gonna blog this" are definitely cringey, but he's still filming it and he's the reason we got to watch it.
I know the "old" guy
I know the man being assaulted. I can't imagine a situation where he ends up with his face on the sidewalk like this. I don't want to jump to any conclusions on what happened. I'm glad someone got a video of it though.
What?
You don't think a man should be chased and tackled for jaywalking? That's all they had to "arrest" him on. Destruction of property for a smudge on the window?
He wasn't jaywalking
The cop failed to yield.
Sources?
Sources?
Quote from "police office"/Red Sox fan
"I was making a turn." Which means you have to yield to pedestrians.
Rather than look up the law
I'll just ask this question: if the driver had a green light and the pedestrian had a don't walk sign, doesn't the driver have the ROW?
As far as I'm aware, it is
As far as I'm aware, it is illegal to run over a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
Alright lazy bones...
30 seconds on teh google:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Sect...
Specifically, paragraph 2 (emphasis added by me):
No driver of a vehicle shall pass any other vehicle which has stopped at a marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross, nor shall any such operator enter a marked crosswalk while a pedestrian is crossing or until there is a sufficient space beyond the crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating, notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed.
:)
I still think this is somewhat ambiguous. Does the first clause modify the entire sentence? In other words, is "any such operator" referring only to operators that come up behind a vehicle that has stopped to let someone cross? OR is the first clause narrow and the second clause all encompassing?
While I'm interested in the nitty gritty of the traffic law, the right-of-way situation should really be the least of anyone's concerns in this video.
any driver of any vehicle
"Any such operator" = "driver of a vehicle".
Bottom line, as I always say to myself while driving in Boston, is it's illegal to run over pedestrians.
There are really three cases
The first thing a driver can't do is pass another car stopped at a crosswalk. The not passing part doesn't just refer to cars you're behind. If a car in the right lane stops at a crosswalk, and you are in the left lane, you must also stop. You may not pass.
Second thing a driver can't do is enter a crosswalk if there are pedestrians crossing.
The third thing a driver can't do is enter a crosswalk unless they can move to the other side of it before they stop. This is about not blocking crosswalks.
The notwithstanding clause applies to all three cases. You can't do any of these things, even if you have the light to proceed.
Whether a pedestrian does or does not have the walk signal does not affect in any way your obligation to follow this law. A pedestrian may be breaking any number of laws - smoking a Cuban cigar, tearing tags off mattresses, publishing prohibited algorithms - without giving you the right to murder him.
And yeah, this whole thing isn't about right of way. This is about a jackass who should not be a cop.
I agree somewhat
Yes, there are three cases or situations that are addressed by this sentence. As a matter of linguistics, I still think that the first clause could limit the scope of the second two cases that you discuss. Your conclusion to the contrary seems to be an assumption (a reasonable one, I'll agree).
But that's the last I'll say on that. ROW is a side-show.
Not always true.
I had a situation about 10 years ago where a car stopped at a green light for a pedestrian (who may have been blind) who walked into a marked crosswalk against a red hand, and got struck by a vehicle who had passed the stopped car. The judge ruled a resonable driver Would not have known a pedestrian would be walking and did not charge the driver, and said it would have been the pedestrians fault if he was cited, which I don't think he was. The other driver who stopped took off and no one got their information. It wasn't a serious injury, but a broken leg I think.
Anyway, it isn't written in stone that you are automatically at fault if you strike a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
Caveat
If the pedestrian was blind AND had a cane with a red tip, all bets are off.
Whoa!!!
Where on earth does anybody get the idea that hitting a pedestrian on a crosswalk even if s/he does violate the "Don't Walk" sign? Pedestrians, as stupid as they can be and often enough are, must be protected from their own stupidity, since they're human beings, too.
No it's the same.....
A reasonable person walking should see a marked crosswalk or pedestrian light, barring special circumstances, which there obviously could be in pretty much every situation.
No, not ambiguous
The noun phrase being referenced in the clause "nor shall any such operator" is "No driver of a vehicle". As lawyer-speak goes, it's pretty straightforward, and there's plenty of MA case law on the point to boot.
But yeah - I agree that r-o-w is at best secondary to the behaviour of the PO.
The phasing at this
The phasing at this intersection of Arlington(assuming it happened here) is concurrent pedestrian crossing with Boylston Street's green signal. If the PO was taking the right onto Arlington any other time, he would be making a prohibited right on red. The pedestrian has ROW at all times the PO could make a legal right turn.
Also, something to note: Boston has it's own traffic laws that may supersede. They seem to contradict the state law under the signal indication part Section 15.1.a: " Drivers turning
right or left shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within
the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such indication is exhibited. "
That's actually not the case for that light...
It's an awkward crossing. and I walk/drive there quite a bit, when circling the area looking for parking. The drivers taking a right get a green light while the walkers get a "Don't Walk" sign, but a lot of pedestrians will cross anyway, when they get a chance. Hell, we all jaywalk in Boston - some do a better job of being courteous than others.
Not trying to excuse the cop's behavior, though. My feeling is that he got a bit hot-headed when the guy crossed against the light and tried to scare him by zooming past him. Then the guy (rightly, perhaps) tapped his car with the umbrella.
I've gotten annoyed with the occasional pedestrian at that turn, but would never dream of pulling anything like this, even if I did have a badge and a buzz cut. I mean, you're driving in Boston. Sometimes people will piss you off. Just mutter something uncouth and move on with your day.
The other thing that really
The other thing that really bugs me about this intersection:
https://goo.gl/maps/QY54VCqoHb12
How the heck are you supposed to know that the roadway to the left of the median is for turning left onto Charles Street at the next light, and the right side is for continuing on Boylston? https://goo.gl/maps/aPJpDMCntpr
For that matter, there aren't any One Way signs on the downstream (eastern) leg of Boylston. So how are you supposed to know that the median isn't creating a divided two-way street?
Unless he had a Don't Walk signal
If there was a Don't Walk sign, the pedestrian should stay on the curb. (** Massive Disclaimer: The driver should still be paying attention and not hit jay-walkers. And the cop took things to absurd levels, regardless of the letter-of-the-law).
But MGL 89 Sec 11 is for intersections with no signal:
When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be so to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk marked in accordance with standards established by the department of highways if the pedestrian is on that half of the traveled part of the way on which the vehicle is traveling or if the pedestrian approaches from the opposite half of the traveled part of the way to within 10 feet of that half of the traveled part of the way on which said vehicle is traveling.
Incorrect
Section 11 is for marked crosswalks, all of them.
The first paragraph has to do with crosswalks without traffic signals or with no functioning traffic signals.
The other paragraphs have to do with all crosswalks, including signalized and non-signalized.
If you would like to prove this to be incorrect, and that this section only applies to non-signalized crosswalks, please show us the corresponding section of MGL for signalized crosswalks.
You are correct.
However, what is missing from the provisions of Chapter 89, Section 11 concerning crosswalks at traffic signals is the phrase "pedestrians who are lawfully within the crosswalk when the traffic signal indication changes."
Because of this omission, as it stands, a jaywalker who is breaking the law still has the right of way over a driver obeying the law. Wonderful perverse logic at work here, and I don't think this is what people had in mind when the right of way law was written.
Of course, none of this changes the fact that the cop was totally out of line for what he did both before and after the pedestrian "swung" his umbrella at him.
what is your source that he
what is your source that he WAS jay walking?? stick to the facts. we do not know whether or not he was jay walking.
And/And world
Given the configuration of that intersection, either:
The driver/thug was taking a prohibited right on red AND the pedestrian was jaywalking;
or
The driver/thug failed to yield to a pedestrian crossing with the light.
In either case, the motor vehicle operator was wrong.
I know
Regardless, you can't get arrested for jaywalking.
Actually, however,
in some places one can get arrested for J-Walking. Some places have signs that specifically say "No Jay-Walking".
I'm not defending anyone
I wasn't a whiteness, I just know the guy. I wanted to find out more and to check to see if he needed help and that he was okay. My update is posted below.
This is how to handle jaywalking
the "old guy" in crosswalk vs. cop
You said you know this person-- we're trying to get in touch with him re: the crosswalk incident for Fox 25 News this evening. Can you call me at your earliest convenience? My cell is 781-375-7808, alternatively email is [email protected]. Hope to hear from you soon!!
Thank you....Please put this
Thank you....Please put this on TV...people need to know!
trying to get in contact
Hi there,
You mentioned you know the man who was detained in the video-- I'm a reporter with Fox 25 urgently trying to get in contact with him. Can you call me as soon as possible? Want to report this tonight at 10. Cell is 781-375-7808.
THANK YOU!!
-Jacqui Heinrich
Fox 25 has a big budget
Give the video guy some cash for his video, he can donate it to the pedestrian's defense fund if he wants, also kick some cash to Adam for running Uhub.
Cops and Peds Don't Understand Ped signals
If the Ped signals had a steady (non-flashing) Don't Walk at a traffic light - then the pedestrian was illegally in the corsswalk. You do not have the right of way in a crosswalk at a traffic signal unless you have a WALK or FLASHING Don't Walk. At an unsignalized crosswalk - a vehicle is supposed to yield to a ped. But I have also spoken with police who complain that pedestrians are still in the crosswalk when it is flashing - well that is legal as that is called the pedestrian clearance interval to allow the ped to clear the crosswalk before on-coming traffic turns green. Bad enough when normal people don't understand these signals and the law and even worse when a cop does not know.
Tough to say who entered the crosswalk legally in this case (the turning car with a green arrow with a steady Don't Walk ped signal, or the ped with the flashing don't walk)
If a pedestrian is in a crosswalk …
you can't cut the pedestrian off:
nor shall any such operator enter a marked crosswalk while a pedestrian is crossing or until there is a sufficient space beyond the crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating, notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed.
Yes, but there's this as well...
A steady UPRAISED HAND (symbolizing DONT WALK) signal indication means that a pedestrian shall not enter the roadway in the direction of the signal indication.
it doesn't justify the driver's actions, but pedestrians cause a lot of problems. Try this in Manhattan and get run down.
now youre just being
now youre just being disingenuous.
You provided the link. the section you quote is referring to a motorsist passing another motorist that has stopped at crosswalk. You conveniently left out the beginning of the sentence:
"No driver of a vehicle shall pass any other vehicle which has stopped at a marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross, nor shall any such operator..."
reads a little differently now doesnt it?
here's the 1st sentence of the section:
"When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way..."
If BTD would just stop with the exclusive pedestrian phases, and went with concurrent like every other place on earth, maybe pedestrians and drivers would understand the laws a little clearer.
Thank you
I am not defending this cop-without-a-badge (clearly an asshole) but I have yelled back at pedestrians before when they have a steady "DON'T WALK" signal and I have the green and start moving and then people start yelling at me. IF YOU HAVE A DON'T WALK SIGN THAT MEANS DON'T WALK. Should I just burn through red lights? walking through the crosswalk on those times is disturbing traffic. I can already smell all the driver -hate that's gonna come at me and I don't care. I do my best to obey the traffic laws, let people merge, let people turn, not blocking intersections, etc...and this really pisses me off. Those painted lines are not a Mario bros. star that makes you invincible. Some other asshole will run you down and the law just might side with them. 2+tons of metal vs. sack of bones= metal wins every, single, time.
Everyone be safe out there, and for the record, screw this cop. Roid rage from his scratched up Lincoln the taxpayers bought him....UGH
Way worse for cyclists
I have had numerous instances where I am proceeding straight ahead on my bike with a GREEN light, had pedestrasheep amble into an intersection against the light, then scream at me "don't run red lights" and mean it!
This is dangerous to the pedestrian when cars are coming, but it is dangerous to cyclists and the pedestrasheep when they step in front of cyclists.
It might help if they stopped asking google to text them a walk signal rather than look at the actual one in front of their faces.
Well... you may not bike
Well... you may not bike through Boston very often since cyclists routinely blow through stop signs and red lights and many text while riding. It's way more dangerous for pedestrians than cyclists.
And
So?
I bike through Boston all the time.
If I'm "running" a green light (aka "legally proceeding at exactly the time I should be"), oblivious jaywalking sheep straying into my path without lifting their faces from their phones and suddenly startled by my presence need to STFU.
Also, explain "way more dangerous for pedestrians"? I don't want to hit an idiot who can't look both ways because I will get hurt too. Or do you mean, yes, crossing against the light without bothering to look at the light OR oncoming traffic is very dangerous.
Pedestrians are not sheep. If
Pedestrians are not sheep. If you hit a pedestrian with your bike or your car then your are hittiing a HUMAN BEING. If you have such aggression toward people who jaywalk then please stay FAR AWAY from areas in Boston and Cambridge with high concentrations of college students: for example: MIT, Northeastern, BU because these students will run out in front of oncoming traffic all day long. Huntington Ave. is the worst -- just yesterday while walking by Northeastern, in the span of only about 3 blocks, I saw several separate incidents of students (with books and backpacks that's how I deduced they were students) darting and other times strolling out into oncoming traffic which had a green light. They were not in a crosswalk. Yes, they were jaywalking. Fortunately, cars AND cyclists stopped quickly for them and no one got hurt. As a pedestrian, of course I think that's asinine and dangerous. HOWEVER, I have compassion for people navigating Boston and Cambridge (which is a disaster for people on foot due to the clueless tourist drivers) because I would NEVER want someone to be injured or have their head slammed to the pavement by a driver just because they were jaywalking. You really seem to have it out for pedestrians... I've seen this in several of your comments. Try walking in the city as your primary mode of transportation and you might have a little bit more understanding of what we go through day after day and year after year. Remember, we live here. You are just a visitor from the 'burbs.
I apologise to the sheep then
Sheep don't have "smart" phones and are generally more aware of their surroundings than the pedestrian who decides to cross against the light without bothering to look for traffic and RECKLESSLY ENDANGERS THE LIFE OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING WHO IS RIDING A BIKE.
Walk signal vs. Don't Walk signal doesn't matter
Especially in this city. A walk signal should mean the pedestrian has a protected right of way. Of course, in Boston, a traffic signal can have a green ball for a driver to go straight or turn right, even if the walk signal is illuminated. I've even seen intersections with a green right arrow, while the walk signal is illuminated. This should never happen, but does.
If a traffic signal is green in the direction the pedestrian is headed, the pedestrian is allowed to cross, and a driver must legally yield to the pedestrian, even if the Don't Walk sign is illuminated or flashing.
As we all know, a number of walk signal buttons are malfunctioning. The pedestrian would be waiting forever, since the walk sign NEVER illuminates.
I walk and take the bus in the city, so I see this dozens of times every day. The 5,000 pound vehicle should yield to the pedestrian at all crosswalks, even unmarked crosswalks (basically every intersection).
Of course, I hate the people who dart out in the middle of the street without looking (or not caring) just like the next guy, but you still can't hit them.
That is outrageous.
That is outrageous. Cop belongs in jail.
What will it take?
We (rightfully) get so upset by this stuff, but then are told it's "being investigated" or some other such bullshit. Everyone calms down with the passage of time. The officer gets a mark in his file or has to undergo some training (if that). No jail. There's no outrage over the lack of criminal prosecution because we've forgotten about it.
Repeat.
I think it's time to set up a database where citizens can easily track the progress of these incidents. Maybe if there was more continuing attention, there would be more pressure to do something about the abuses.
For example
What ever became of our infamous Uber-stealing Michael Doherty? He was indicted over a year ago.
Found guilty? Sentence? What of his employment with the Boston Police?
Yeah, we'll never know
Unless someone pays into the Public Request fund for the responsible city agency.
Nothing will happen to this
Nothing will happen to this cop just like most of the other cops that supposely get into trouble. Slap on the wrist. What a joke!
NY
Must be related to the thugs at the NYPD who arrested a mailman after nearly running him over as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/nyregion/glen-grays-the-mailman-cuffed...
Welcome to walking in the
Welcome to walking in the city of Boston! I used to yell or flip off people who blew through stops/reds while I was in the crosswalk, but after seeing this video I don't dare do even that. Disturbing video.
On the bright side
the lawsuit against the roid raging asshole cop is going to let this guy retire early.
On the down side:
1. We all get to pay for it, and the cop will hang out on paid administrative leave while the department "investigates" and then determines that there was no wrongdoing.
2. If not for the guy with the camera, the pedestrian would currently be in jail on a bunch of trumped charges.
Let's all jump to conclusions
Let's all jump to conclusions on a video that starts halfway into an incident . That makes sense .. Who cares the incident started over someone maliciously damaging someone else's property over a traffic infraction we aren't sure even happened.
Well
I didn't see any damage in the video, did you?
The cop said the man hit his window while he was driving through the crosswalk. If the man was close enough to hit is window, the cop should have yielded to the pedestrian, even if he didn't have a walk sign.
From the victim
I talked to the poor guy who was roughed up. The police are basically sticking together on his one and refuting all whiteness testimony but have decided to "let him go" and everyone should just walk away quietly. I think that's the outcome but we may find out more because WBZ is getting involved. I'm just glad my friend is safe. I always wanted to believe in the police since I know so many officers and I trust them but after seeing this it sickens me to think that anyone I know could be put into this situation.
There are two sides to every story...
what the police say happened, and what actually happened. I've seen enough cops lie and cover each other's tracks to not believe a single word that they say or write in a police report unless it is on video.
Repressed racism
Autocorrect jumping to conclusions again?
No it's appropriating
the movement...of keys.
Autocorrect privilege...
I should check it.
"Let Him Go"????
What charges were they considering bringing against the pedestrian? Assault and battery with an umbrella smudge? Resisting head-banging on cement by refusing to bleed? Failure to lose consciousness while being dragged by the collar?
He did absolutely nothing illegal.
And we have to wonder what else the police did to him to make him "admit" to jaywalking.
I generally think the BPD is exemplary, but it's still important to weed out bad apples and we just saw one give a bravura performance on camera.
I commend the guy who filmed it and asked those questions.
serve and protect?
even if the man was crossing against the signal, the cop should have slowed and let him go. not to excuse the ped's irreverence (if he cross against the light) but seriously, that officer has anger issues and should not have a badge, certainly not a gun or a vehicle.
I mean Boston people are
I mean Boston people are pretty terrible about walk signals. It is one of the few ways NYC is better than Boston. In NYC nobody is going to stop for you.
(not excusing the cop just a tangent)
In NYC
In NYC you know you're reliably going to get a walk signal pretty quickly at every intersection, so you wait for it. In Boston there are too many intersections where you wait forever before you get the walk signal, and in some cases it never comes. Not excusing jaywalking, but if the lights worked better for pedestrians it would be less tempting.
Charles Circle
Outside the Liberty Hotel, while crossing from the Longfellow, is a perfect example: the walk light turns as just as the light for drivers going to Storrow westbound turns red. Of course there are usually at least five drivers who are still going through the intersection, and by the time it's clear for pedestrians to cross, the walk signal has already started flashing red.
Yes!
Walk signals are a joke in Boston. They are almost impossible to use as designed: Too short, not sync'd with other lights, and often blocked by drivers anyway.
I swear
When Motohead Mahhhty took office, every pedestrian signal in the central city was shortened by 15 seconds.
There is a really stupid one at West and Tremont that takes forever to trigger, even though the traffic stopped at Boylston is stacking up past that point, yet there is little traffic behind. Why they can't hold that traffic on Tremont and West, not pack it up at Boylston, and double the frequency of that light is beyond logic, considering there are far more pedestrians than motorists in that area at many hours of the day.
The absolute worst one by far
The absolute worst one by far is the left turn light when you turn northbound on Adams from eastbound Gallivan in Dorchester. It literally lasts all of five seconds.
Furthermore, if you actually
Furthermore, if you actually get a walk signal (ha!) after pushing the button, your time is cut in half thanks to all of the cars running the red. In Boston, you then SPRINT across the street since at this point you've only got about 3 seconds before the flashing orange hand appears. Meanwhile across the river, Cantabrigians are gifted with a leisurly 50 seconds or more affording them the option to walk, twirl or even cartwheel across the street.
"Right On Red" is a major problem also
Not only are pedestrian walk signals absurdly short, they are cut even shorter at intersections because all the cars waiting to turn right on red immediately do so, prohibiting the pedestrian who has the walk sign from crossing. The cars turning right on red are supposed to yield to pedestrians but they seldom do. By the time all the cars have turned right, the time for the pedestrian to cross has passed, the light for cars has turned green again and the whole vicious cycle starts again.
The other day, I tapped on a guy's window
I and others were crossing in a crosswalk, with a Walk signal, and this guy was still trying to go through a red, but slowly moving through the crosswalk. He was literally almost running over my toes, and wasn't stopping, so I tapped on his window and yelled "stop!". He smiled and was saying something I couldn't hear, in a very sheepish/apologetic fashion, and he kept rolling through the crosswalk.
Lucky for me he wasn't a psycho, or either I would've gotten my ass kicked by him, or I would've pinned him until the police arrived, and then risked getting my ass kicked by a whole gang of his friends.
I too have hit cars with
I too have hit cars with umbrellas that did not stop for me on the crosswalk and almost hit me. Mostly on West Broadway in Southie. I like to think that the noise will startle them as much as they startled me when I felt the breeze of their car flying by me.
Same thing last summer in Medford
Anyone remember the overreacting off-duty cop in Medford who did something similar last summer? He ended up resigning rather than face a disciplinary hearing. http://www.wcvb.com/news/medford-officer-stephen-lebert-resigns-discipli...
I hope the City of Boston investigates this one thoroughly.
law in simple language
Site outlines law for all 50 states. Pedestrian crossing is at a light (crosswalk with signal), uncontrolled crosswalk is without a signal.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-crossing-50-state...
"Massachusetts: Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a marked crosswalk that are upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when a pedestrian is approaching within ten feet of where the vehicle is traveling. Vehicles may not enter a marked crosswalk when a pedestrian is crossing until there is sufficient space to accommodate the vehicle beyond the crosswalk. Pedestrians must cross a roadway within a marked crosswalk when there is an officer directing traffic, a traffic control signal, or a marked crosswalk within 300 feet of the pedestrian. Pedestrians may not suddenly leave the curb and enter a crosswalk into the path of a moving vehicle that is so close the vehicle is unable to yield. Pedestrians crossing a roadway in an urban area outside of a marked crosswalk must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. It is unlawful for any person to actuate a pedestrian control signal or to enter a marked crosswalk unless a crossing of the roadway is intended."
The only way the pedestrian could be at fault once he was in the crosswalk would be if he didn't give the copy room to yield. Since he hit the driver side (left side) of the car, he was in lane 2 of that street, meaning he was already in the crosswalk when the cop decided to turn right. Pedestrian had the right of way.
That man is an example of
That man is an example of patience. He kept his emotions in check which will only make the cop look worse.
I wish I could say I would've remained as calm.
The guy filming is not annoying
We need more like him. When perps are cops, and other cops subscribe to the childish blue wall of silence philosophy, video is often the only way to get justice.
I look forward to reading about the results of a successful lawsuit.
It adds insult to injury
that he is being roughed up by an off duty cop that can't even dress like an adult. I apologize if he just came from batting practice.
How do you get close enough
How do you get close enough to someone walking in a crosswalk with your car for the pedestrian to hit your rear driver's window with a closed compact umbrella? It's too bad that supposed cop who throughout the video continues to fail to identify himself didn't think through his version of the story first. Interestingly his license plate is in the video so I'm guessing the powers that be will soon be able to identify him.
what are the odds that...
...the cop used his turn signal?
Thank goodness for the video taper
The very worst BPD has to offer.
So next time a big,
So next time a big, aggressive dude tries to attack me, I should ask if he's a cop before defending myself?
I'd wager anything that about
I'd wager anything that about a half dozen security and traffic cameras recorded the whole incident at the intersection. I hope the guy's lawyers get a copy before the cops get to them and suddenly "none of the cameras were working."
BPD investigating
WCVB reports.
only because it was taped
With so many cop cars and cops called to the scene, they could have taken witnesses info right then but didn't. Only after the news media saw it on UHub and reported it themselves was it investigated. They were hoping to intimidate the guy by magnanimously not charging him for jaywalking (no charges for the cop not yielding),hitting the car with the umbrella (no damage and not yielding - the impact could have been due to the car almost hitting the ped), or resisting arrest (can't be arrested by road rage assholes, just cops who have badges or ID themselves, and you have to ID yourself BEFORE you tackle someone and slam their head into the concrete twice). Unfortunately, I predict no charges for battery against the cop.
I am so
upset by this. What a fucking bully. I hope he loses his job. There is no reason for that sort of treatment.
Totally.
He really blew it, and from the get go he looks so sheepish, like he knows he's being a total dick. It's like watching Bluto rough up Ed Begley.
Lucky for the cop
The road rage cop is lucky an on-duty officer didn't see him slamming the victim's head into the ground. He could've very easily have been shot by the uniformed police.
Road Rage?
At no time in the video does the cop appear to be in a rage.
OMG Arthur. You have got to
OMG Arthur. You have got to be kidding. Hauling him by his collar like that shows plenty of rage.
OMG
He never punched him from what I can see in the video. Never slammed his head down as the videographer alleges. What would you do if somebody hit your car with an object and ran away?
wondering if the cop expects to be let through regardless
Pedestrians are supposed to yield to emergency vehicles, even in cross walks - this guy is probably expecting to always go through, even when no one knows he's a cop. He has that attitude - why did you run? (because I thought you were a crazy stranger trying to beat me up?).
I was pulled over once at 11 pm in Labor Day traffic for not getting out of the left lane for a state police car near Albany. It was dark, I had no idea it was a cop, and it was bumper to bumper in both lanes (in the 90's - they've added a lane since then) so moving into the right lane would involve cutting people off - dangerous in that traffic. I thought it was just an aggressive asshole riding my bumper until the bubble lights lit up - yeah, we all want to be moving faster douche! It wasn't as if I was moving slower than the rest of traffic in my lane. Moved immediately once the lights came up and people let me into the right lane. He pulled me over right after I yielded.
The cop was so mad he was spitting - I actually was afraid he'd hit me (a young woman at the time). I just kept repeating the I had no idea he was a cop until he flashed his bubble lights and then I yielded immediately. He yelled for a while but really couldn't charge me with anything because it was the truth. Yelled at me a LOT more then left - pulled someone else over before I could even get back into the stream of traffic so someone else "payed" for me not respecting his authoritay. REALLY obeyed the laws until I crossed back into MA after that.
He felt entitled for me to yield upon his mere presence, even though I didn't know it was a cop. Same thing with this guy - never mind he's in an unmarked car dressed like a bat boy. In this case, the guy actually was beat up.
Be careful!
I had a similar experience with a cop in NY - glad it ended quickly and you got out of there! You might consider downloading an app to grab any video in case you need it: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/users/2015/04/copwatch_mobile_j...
It is your legal right
To call 911 and give them your location and ask for a marked and uniformed cop before you speak or get out of the car.
It's important for women to know because cops have been known to pull women over and rape them. Or cop imposters.
Having watched the video
Yeah, the cop is probably in the wrong by chasing the guy down and shoving him onto the ground, but I didn't see what happened at the beginning. And, watching the video, neither did the guy who filmed it. He even says so, then he starts going on about what had happened after saying he didn't see it.
Probably in the wrong?
Good God. He banged the guy's head into the pavement, twice. What is wrong with you people...
More mainstream media coverage
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/05/25/boston-police-viral-arrest-video/
http://www.myfoxboston.com/news/bpd-investigating-off-duty-officer-after...
Irrelevant detail, but I'm skeptical that the umbrella even left a smudge. Seems plausible the smudge was there already. Unless the compacted umbrella was very dirty, how would it create a smudge?
I believe on the video the
I believe on the video the supposed cop claims the pedestrian cracked the window which turns out to be either a lie or a gross exaggeration.
This should be easy to resolve
Once we are able to replay the officer's lapel and dash cams, we'll know what happened at the beginning.
What? He was off-duty? Oh, well, then chasing someone down the street and slamming hem to the ground should be off limits. If you have a problem, get an on duty officer to handle your issue like the rest of us would have to do.
If you're going to do "police things" like effect an arrest, then you better be able to back it up with a dash/lapel cam.
So...
First off, I think this cop was an asshole and should face punishment. Now, you REALLY think an officer who is off-duty should never doing any "police things"? So, if the asshole cop was walking down Arlington instead of driving, and he saw someone sticking up the man in the video, he shouldn't intervene? What if he saw someone pull a gun?
law follows precedence...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-h...
off duty cops only care about themselves
I am literally shaking inside after reading this...
While I am often indulging in lengthy diatribes on social contract and other such matters, I am can't even muster the words to do so here.
After reading this, I feel scared and am literally shaking. I even feel scared to post this comment.
Am I really at that much risk at the hands of the BPD? The officer is more than twice the size of the person who was in the crosswalk. If this had happened between two citizens, the way it appears to have happened here and as reported by the video taper, the man who gave chase might be in jail charged with assault and battery and who knows what else. Are there other complaints against the as yet unidentified officer?
It is clear to me that the arrogant hubris demonstrated here shows absolutely NO RESTRAINT and NO PROFESSIONALISM by the officer which serves only to further erode any trust and confidence in our not so finest. It has always been my belief that officers of the law were held to a HIGHER STANDARD than us mere citizens. The lack of proportionate and appropriate force does not seem to be applied here at all. I wonder if any of our other officers see this as an assault on their best efforts and a betrayal by a fellow officer?
Lastly, has anyone seen the footage from any cameras in the area to see what actually happened prior to the video tapes beginning.
"After reading this, I feel
"After reading this, I feel scared and am literally shaking. I even feel scared to post this comment."
Bahahahahahaha.
Hahahahaha.
Hahahaha.
Yeah!
Police officers wantonly abusing their monopoly on the lawful use of force is HILARIOUS! There's nothing I enjoy more than watching corrupt law enforcement rough up randos just because they know they can get away with it! For this reason, I also enjoy watching footage of the Tienanmen Square massacre, or pictures of when those National Guard troops opened fire at the Kent State protesters. Talk about rib-tickling! It's even MORE HILARIOUS when it makes people fear for their own well-being, since it's now been shown that cops can brazenly assault people in broad daylight without fear of repercussions, because there's always a legion of bootlicking apologists who crawl out of the primordial sludge to remind us that Blue Lives Matter®! Teeheeheeheehee!
Cops abusing their power as
Cops abusing their power as usual in BOSTON!
Pages