Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley said today there is no reason to bring criminal charges against Boston police officers for the death of David Woodman, who collapsed while being arrested on June 18 and then died on June 29:
... As a result of a thorough, objective and independent review of the facts, I have concluded that no criminal charges are warranted in this case. The facts are clear and the medical evidence overwhelming that Mr. Woodman's death was the result of natural causes - specifically a serious, pre-existing heart condition. The evidence is also clear that officers of the Boston Police Department did not use excessive force in effectuating the lawful arrest of Mr. Woodman for public drinking, but only degree of force necessary to handcuff him. ...
The statements of police officers and civilian witnesses, most of whom are friends or acquaintances of Mr. Woodman, are in agreement. No officer used a weapon of any sort in arresting Mr. Woodman. No officer used a baton or chemical spray. No officer struck, punched, slapped, kicked, or used a chokehold on Mr. Woodman. ...
His complete statement is in the comments below.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Well that's not
By NotAllLEO'sAreBad
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 2:41pm
Well that's not surprising.....
The technique that was used
By anon
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 7:14pm
The technique that was used by the BPD to arrest David Woodman caused his heart to stop beating. To claim it was a coincidence or the fault of David's heart and not the force used, is illogical, counter-intuitive, irresponsible and in error. Just becuase slamming a non-dangerous suspect to the ground, chest and face-first, is commonplace in BPD procedure does not make it reasonable force. Procedure is developed to protect the rights and well-being of suspects, bystanders and the police. in this case, procedure failed and DA Conley's decision regarding excessive force is a miscarriage of justice.
ok your right and the doctor is wrong.
By Pete Nice
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 8:56pm
And why would someone with a heart problem die of a heart problem?
according to you
By anon
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 9:32pm
according to you if the police force a person with a normal heart to the ground while restraining their arms so they can't protect themselves from the force of the fall, onto their face and chest with enough force to stop their heart, it is excessive force
...but if they do that to someone with a heart condition it's not excessive force, because the person has a heart condition.
not according to me, its according to the law, and the doctors
By Pete Nice
Tue, 02/03/2009 - 9:43am
when you resist, officers can use force to counter that resistance. When you choose to grab onto a fence by resisting arrest, you shouldnt expect your hands to be free when get pulled from it, and guess what? There is going to be a chance that you might fall to the ground when you do get pulled from that fence. You had the chance to put your hands behind your back and get handcuffed normally. If you want to resist by grabbing onto something, expect the police to counter by using force.
And when the DA reviews the facts and talks to witnesses, he comes to a conclusion whether or not the cops acted within this poicy.
There is going to be a
By Anonymous
Tue, 02/03/2009 - 9:44am
There is going to be a chance that you might fall to the ground when you do get pulled from that fence.
you're an idiot.
yea your right.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 02/03/2009 - 10:58am
the cops should have brought over a soft cushy chair or mattress for him in case he fell.
Im also sure youve handuffed lots of people and know handcuffing techniques and policies.
cardiac concussion
By anon
Fri, 02/06/2009 - 7:47pm
blow to the chest can cause cardiac arrest
clear EXCESSIVE FORCE likely due to COMMOTIO CORDIS
By Dr Shawna Murray MD
Fri, 02/06/2009 - 3:13am
this syndrome is not that well known, even by doctors, but it describes the condition that most likely killed DAVID WOODMAN... it can be seen mostly in young, white men who sustain a blow to the chest wall, causing different kinds of cardiac arrhythmias...it is usually fatal...it is unnecessary AND dangerous to slam anyone to the ground, especially given the minor nature of the offense...other mechanisms might also apply..."VOODOO DEATH" due to overwhelming fear and CAROTID SINUS RECEPTOR DAMAGE due to head and neck injury ...
Commisioner, Donald Stern, Esq., PBD investigation, civil suit
By Anonymous
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 2:42pm
I don't think we'll see the DA's research in writing. A verbal announcement and limited Q&A will do the trick for him.
The Commissioner however hired the former US attorney, now in private law practice to review police procedure and report on whether procedure might have contributed to the damages, and therefore would need to be reviewed and modified. We should see that, we paid for it. FOIA.
The commissioner also considered hiring civil rights attorneys to become part of any large crowd control operation, from organizational meetings in police quarters, to the street, followed by an action report critiquing police action as violating or not violating civil rights, and how so. This would be a big step forward for protecting crowds. The commissioner has had plenty of time to research and move this forward. He better or David Woodman died in vain.
If I'm in the Woodman family, I want to see all of the reports an all of the interviews produced by Boston Police Detectives, which I can have access to in discovery if I file a wrongful death lawsuit. (Did they already?)
Just because the DA thinks there was no crime, or thinks he can't get a conviction (two reasons why he wouldn't charge) doesn't mean the family can't get a wrongful death finding in civil action, although it surely will be a hard case to prove unless someone perjured themselves in a cover up (if any.)
Death Investigation Protocols
By JakeWark
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 3:52pm
This determination is absolutely not limited to a verbal announcement and limited Q&A. The evidentiary foundation upon which the decision was based will be released as they are for all Suffolk County death investigations.
Following the investigation into Victoria Snelgrove's death, reporters were granted access to the entire investigative file here at the DA's office; it took a while, but every interested party was able to view it. In this case, reporters will be granted similar access, but to electronic versions of the file, which should make it faster and more efficient to distribute.
Conley's statement
By adamg
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 3:06pm
On June 18, 2008 officers from the Boston Police Department arrested David Woodman for public drinking following the celebration of the Celtics' final game victory. The arrest occurred near the intersection of Brookline Avenue and the Fenway. Mr. Woodman suffered a cardiac arrhythmia during the arrest and he was taken to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for treatment. Mr. Woodman died in the hospital 11 days later on June 29, 2008. Under Massachusetts law, it is my duty to direct an investigation of Mr. Woodman's death and determine whether criminal charges should be pursued against any police officer for conduct related to the arrest and subsequent death of Mr. Woodman.
Detectives from the Boston Police Homicide Unit were directed in this investigation by senior prosecutors from my office, while the Chief Medical Examiner, representing his independent agency, provided the medical documentation, opinions, and conclusions that were pivotal in this case. This death investigation was diligent, thorough, and fully documented. It is undertaken objectively and my final determination is made independently. Earlier today, I met with Mr. Woodman's parents and their attorney to inform them of our findings.
As a result of a thorough, objective and independent review of the facts, I have concluded that no criminal charges are warranted in this case. The facts are clear and the medical evidence overwhelming that Mr. Woodman's death was the result of natural causes - specifically a serious, pre-existing heart condition. The evidence is also clear that officers of the Boston Police Department did not use excessive force in effectuating the lawful arrest of Mr. Woodman for public drinking, but only degree of force necessary to handcuff him.
A death of a person in police custody deserves the closest independent scrutiny, and I am confident that my office and the Chief Medical Examiner provided that independent scrutiny in order to determine the facts of this incident. The Chief Medical Examiner conducted a thorough autopsy, consulted with outside medical experts in cardiology and neuropathology, and closely reviewed the medical records of Mr. Woodman's treatment on the night of June 18 and during his hospital stay. After collecting and considering all of the relevant medical facts, the Chief Medical Examiner determined that Mr. Woodman's death was a result of natural causes. The medical facts are clear: no person caused the death of Mr. Woodman.
The Chief Medical Examiner determined that Mr. Woodman during his arrest suffered a cardiac arrhythmia - a disruption of the electrical activity in the human heart. Mr. Woodman was born with a heart condition that required nearly immediate corrective surgery. The successful surgery allowed Mr. Woodman to live a relatively normal life, but his heart was not normal. It was twice the size of a normal heart. As a result of his heart condition and resulting enlarged heart, Mr. Woodman was at constant risk of cardiac arrhythmia and was advised to avoid certain physical activities. The medical evidence is clear and is not contradicted: on June 18, Mr. Woodman suffered a cardiac arrhythmia as a natural result of his pre-existing heart condition.
The cardiac arrhythmia led to a predictable and serious chain of medical events: Mr. Woodman's heart stopped functioning properly, blood did not flow to his brain, the brain was therefore deprived of sufficient oxygen, and serious brain damage resulted. Hospital treatment revived Mr. Woodman. A second cardiac arrhythmia occurred on June 29 while Mr. Woodman was still at the hospital. Hospital medical personnel provided immediate treatment that was unable to revive Mr. Woodman's heart.
Our inquiry also considered the possibility that the officers used excessive force that did not cause Mr. Woodman's death. The evidence on this point is also clear: no officer used excessive force in arresting Mr. Woodman. For this conclusion I have relied on the medical evidence, the conclusions and opinions of the Chief Medical Examiner, the tape recorded statements of the civilian witnesses, the tape recorded interviews of the police officers present at the scene, and the tape recorded interviews of firefighters and ambulance personnel who arrived on the scene.
The statements of police officers and civilian witnesses, most of whom are friends or acquaintances of Mr. Woodman, are in agreement. No officer used a weapon of any sort in arresting Mr. Woodman. No officer used a baton or chemical spray. No officer struck, punched, slapped, kicked, or used a chokehold on Mr. Woodman.
The medical evidence corroborates the statements of the police officers and the civilians. The autopsy documents that Mr. Woodman suffered no fractures, no injury to an internal organ, no penetrating injury, no neck injury, no chest injury, and no brain injury associated with blunt force trauma. The medical evidence produces no finding that suggests excessive force.
In summary, the Chief Medical Examiner determined that Mr. Woodman died of natural causes associated with cardiac arrhythmia that resulted from a pre-existing heart condition. No police officer caused Mr. Woodman's death and no police officer used excessive force in arresting Mr. Woodman. There will, therefore, be no criminal charges in this case.
Because the investigation is now complete, I can describe the events that led to Mr. Woodman's arrest and the specific actions of Mr. Woodman and the police officers as the arrest occurred.
On the night of June 17, Mr. Woodman and some friends gathered at his Boylston Street apartment to watch Game Six of the NBA finals. Mr. Woodman's friends report that he drank several beers. At halftime, Mr. Woodman walked with his friends to Boston Billiards on Brookline Avenue and continued drinking at that bar. The group left Boston Billiards after the Celtics' victory, and walked with the intent to return to Mr. Woodman's apartment.
As he walked with his friends, Mr. Woodman carried a clear plastic cup of beer taken out of Boston Billiards. The Boston Police Department's operation plan for crowd control and public safety included several squads of officers deployed in the Fenway and Kenmore Square. Mr. Woodman walked near a squad of nine uniformed officers at the intersection of Brookline Avenue and the Fenway.
Mr. Woodman made one or more statements to the officers as he walked past. Officers noticed Mr. Woodman's clear plastic cup of beer. One officer told Mr. Woodman to stop; Mr. Woodman ignored the order and kept walking away. Officers repeated the command and Mr. Woodman again did not comply. Additional commands went unheeded until one officer approached Mr. Woodman, took hold of his arm, and spoke directly to him. Mr. Woodman took a sip from his cup and threw it to the ground.
The officer attempted to place Mr. Woodman under arrest for drinking in public. As he reached for Mr. Woodman's hand to handcuff him, Mr. Woodman grabbed a nearby wrought iron fence. The fence is located on Brookline Avenue and encircles the property of Emmanuel College. Mr. Woodman used both hands to grip the fence and prevent handcuffing. Two officers attempted to pull Mr. Woodman away from the fence; one officer grabbed Mr. Woodman's left hand and the other officer grabbed the right hand. He resisted those efforts and refused to let go of the fence.
Several officers working together finally loosened Mr. Woodman's grasp on the fence. They brought him to the ground and handcuffed him in a prone position. They used a level and type of force appropriate to the resistance they encountered, and they complied with the Boston Police Department's rules and procedures in doing so. While he was face down, resisting arrest, being handcuffed he suffered what the Chief Medical Examiner described as superficial abrasions to his face. Those abrasions resulted from Mr. Woodman's face scraping against the pavement.
Mr. Woodman's friends, who had also been drinking, were in close proximity to the officers' efforts to restrain an intoxicated suspect who was resisting arrest. To be sure that the situation did not escalate further and in accordance with arrest procedures, the officers ordered those individuals to move away from the scene.
Once Mr. Woodman was handcuffed, the officers attempted to get him to his feet and realized he could not stand under his own power. They returned Mr. Woodman to the ground and the officers, who knew he had been drinking but did not know of his medical condition, believed him to be intoxicated. They positioned him on his side in the event that he vomited. Within one or two minutes, they noticed that he was not breathing and had no pulse, and they immediately took action.
The officers removed his handcuffs. One officer, who had been trained and certified as an emergency medical technician, began to administer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Another performed chest compressions. A third called for an ambulance over his radio while three additional officers ran on foot in the direction of an ambulance they had seen a short time earlier. Prompted by the sight of the running officers, two off-duty firefighters responded and offered assistance in rendering first aid. Finally, officers on-scene flagged down another ambulance as it drove by.
Paramedics on board took over life support efforts and transported Mr. Woodman to Beth Israel. It was during this ambulance ride that paramedics administered an EKG and realized Mr. Woodman had suffered a cardiac arrhythmia. Mr. Woodman remained at Beth Israel until June 29, when he suffered a second cardiac arrhythmia. He died as a result of this second medical event.
I am fully aware of the importance of this investigation to the Woodman family. I am fully aware of its importance to the officers involved. I am familiar with the extensive coverage this case received in the media and I know that many will look to our investigation for answers. For this reason, I will provide a copy of the entire investigative file to the Woodman family and I will also make that file available to the media to ensure the transparency of this process.
While we as human beings understand the powerful emotions that surround any tragic death, we as prosecutors must make our charging decisions solely on the basis of the facts and the law. The cause of David Woodman's death and the circumstances of his arrest have been clearly established - factually, medically, and legally - and do not support criminal charges.
sorry to say it, but this
By anon
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 3:36pm
sorry to say it, but this kid brought this upon himself. The sooner people realize that instead of trying to point fingers and blame everyone else, the better.
How so?
By Ron Newman
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 4:12pm
Since when do we have a death penalty for public drinking? Police should just be able to ticket people for that, rather than arresting them.
Sorry but I agree with the
By joe c
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 4:31pm
Sorry but I agree with the other guy. I'm sick of all these idiots who think they can go out, get incredibly drunk, then become everyone else's problem. Or worse yet are the ones that trash everything. Getting THAT drunk means you're willing to impair yourself and take your chances walking around, crossing the street ... Nope, no sympathy from me.
True, but this kid wasn't
By anon
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 9:00pm
True, but this kid wasn't that drunk, nor trashing anyone. He made a not too snarky remark to a cop with a night stick up his ass and got the death penalty for a civil infraction.
These situations can be dealt with better. Cops escalate the problems just as much as the hooligans, which are a small percentage of the celebrating public.
nice
By Brett
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 4:31pm
Did you read the report? He "resisted arrest" by grabbing onto a fence. He didn't fight them, he just tried to avoid being handcuffed.
The question remains: why did the cops feel it necessary to leave him face-down on the ground? Why wasn't he handcuffed and brought up to stand, or sat down on the curb? And, as the parents pointed out, why did he show up at the hospital with evidence of extended oxygen deprivation?
The fact that a DA can stand up there and say with a straight face that a DA's office investigation is "independent" is the fucking funniest thing I've ever heard, especially in light of the recent evidence of collusion between the DA and Boston cops.
Was anyone able to find out if the DA found any independent witnesses or videotape footage? I'd be shocked if the arrest and detention didn't get caught on tape by someone's security camera or a traffic am. Also, where is the radio call log?
PS:In before Pete Nice defends the death of a civilian in police custody
Refusing to be handcuffed by
By JakeWark
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 4:49pm
Refusing to be handcuffed by its very nature constitutes resisting arrest.
Mr. Woodman was handcuffed in the prone position because it is the safest position for the suspect and officer in the overwhlemingly vast majority of arrests. Officers did attempt to bring him to his feet and realized he could not stand. At that time, they began measures to provide first aid, including mouth-to-mouth, chest compressions, calling for an ambulance, and running to find one.
The cessation of oxygenated blood flow to the brain leaves the brain without oxygen.
I think you might have the wrong agency in mind with regard to your statement about collusion: boston.com...judge_chastises_federal_attorney/
Independent witnesses were interviewed -- as were witnesses referred to investigators by the Woodman family attorney. No videotape footage was recovered, but the radio transmissions that night were scrutinized and will be provided to the family and the media.
No videotape footage was
By Anonymous
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 5:12pm
You have some good information which I did not find here. Do you work for the DA's office or the BPD? How did you come by this?
Jake Wark
By adamg
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 5:29pm
Is the spokesman for the DA's office.
Thank you Jake.
By Anonymous
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 5:38pm
Thank you Adam.
Brett: The question remains:
By Anonymous
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 4:56pm
Brett:
Conley:
He couldn't stand under his own power because he was already experiencing the cardiac arrhythmia but they just thought he was too drunk to stand. Somehow they forgot they were having trouble pealing him off the fence moments before and getting him off his feet face down, prone. They missed it. He wasn't too drunk to stand, he was having a cardiac event. I think it is disingenuous to say the physical and emotional stress did not contribute to his cardiac event but probable cause to arrest is exculpatory.
The family would have to prove excessive force (contributory negligence) or negligence after the arrest to prove damages.
Im not going to defend the death
By Pete Nice
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 5:00pm
but like I said before, if this kid did not have a pre-existing heart condition, he probably wouldn't have died, and that is why charges weren't filed.
And I would say the same thing if a cop died during the struggle and it came out that the cop had some sort of heart problem. I would not to see the kid charged with murder because there would have been doubt about what actually caused the death of the cop.
And grabbing a fence would be "resisting arrest" under MA law. He would have resisted arrest if he had simply ran away and then submitted peacefully.
Although I would admit I was suprised that the department of justice or FBI didnt do the report just so the Bretts of the world could be convinced. Then again, the Bretts of the world already know the the police are 100% at fault here.
the suspect attempted to flee
By Anonymous
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 5:08pm
What ever happened to "the suspect attempted to flee." I don't see it in Conley's report. Did Woodman attempt to flee and Conley failed to mention it, or did it not happen even though the police originally asserted it did?
That latter - it did not happen even though the police originally asserted it did - would be far more troublesome because it would imply that the official police report testimony cannot be trusted.
ordered to leave or face arrest
By Anonymous
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 6:43pm
You have to wonder if the friend returning is what prompted the police to take another look at David Woodman and ascertain his critical medical condition.
If so, Stern should consider recommending that the BPD end the policy of threatening to arrest bystanders (for whom there is no probable cause of a crime.)
They should be allowed to watch if they keep a safe distance. This is not a police state is it? Why should the police not be subject to visual scrutiny by citizens in the course of executing their duty? There were no firearms involved, simply a young man with a .147 blood alcohol level.
If they had not threatened to arrest his friends, you have to wonder if his condition would have been recognized almost immediately
eggshell skull defense
By Brett
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 5:27pm
And I would say the same thing if a cop died during the struggle and it came out that the cop had some sort of heart problem. I would not to see the kid charged with murder because there would have been doubt about what actually caused the death of the cop.
The kid would have been undoubtedly charged with murder. It's called the eggshell skull defense, and you're full of shit if you think the death of a cop would be treated the same as the death of a civilian. The kid would undoubtedly show up for his court hearing severely beaten and lucky to have survived the night.
If the shoe fits civilians, it's gotta fit the cops, and that's the problem here: somewhere along the line, it became "deserved" for SUSPECTS to be injured or killed whilst being detained or arrested, as evidenced by the numerous deaths from tasers (and of course, this is the department that managed to kill someone with a pepperball gun. Do we really need any further evidence of how low respect is for civilian life at BPD?) Somewhere along the line, it became acceptable for police to overreact in the interests of being paranoid about saving their own skins, instead of accepting the dangers of the job.
Im not saying what would happen
By Pete Nice
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 5:46pm
Im saying what I think is right. There is a difference. And the eggshell defense isn't going to work in all police cases. If a cop is responding to a shoplifting call and gets in a car crash on the way there, the shoplifter does not get charged with murder.
And again, there are so many issues about this story to pick out.
What percentage of people that get handcuffed get injured or killed? If you resist the police from handcuffing you, then you are going to feel pain. Do you think the cops should give out candy or something to entice you to put your hands behind yoru back?
Now if you think the cops threw this kid to the ground for no reason, then thats a whole different story. Of course if that happend then the cops did the wrong thing. But you and I dont know that this happened.
google, use it.
By Brett
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 6:20pm
Im saying what I think is right. There is a difference. And the eggshell defense isn't going to work in all police cases. If a cop is responding to a shoplifting call and gets in a car crash on the way there, the shoplifter does not get charged with murder.
Of course not, because the actions of the shoplifter did not cause the cop to crash. The eggshell skull rule refers to the amount of damage/injury versus intention. Go read it- the classic example is the guy who punches another in the face, and kills him.
The defense would be "well, a punch wouldn't injure a normal person"; however, the case history is that if you commit a criminal act, you must "take your victims as you find them." It comes down to this: if you he hadn't been punched, he wouldn't have died. Did you punch him? Yes? Then you're guilty. There is direct causation between the punch and the death, unlike your example.
Do you think the cops should give out candy or something to entice you to put your hands behind your back?
No. I think the death of a SUSPECT should be treated as what it is: manslaughter (if it was not intentional) and murder if it was. There is no question he suffered injuries that ultimately killed him. There is no question who caused those injuries. The only question remaining is intent, and which officers were directly guilty, and which either helped cover it up, or were at the least negligent in their supervision.
I hope the officers involved and the city get the shit sued out of them, as they no doubt will. The city will spend millions defending itself, pulling money from the budget and hurting them as a result. It won't bring the kid back, but maybe when BPD officers find their union and cozy relationship with the DA won't protect them from spending the rest of their lives working off a court settlement, they'll think twice about roughing up a suspect.
Plenty of cities have officers who show remarkable professionalism (including when someone shows up with a camera/video camera.) There's no reason we have to tolerate a bunch of bullies who are so hot-tempered they kill someone because he cracks a joke about them earning overtime and supposedly had an open container.
I agree but there is... proximate cause
By Anonymous
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 6:42pm
I agree but there is the question of the proximate cause of his death, which occurred days later after a second cardiac arrhythmia... unless it could be argued that he was treated with excessive force AND the excessive force treatment caused the first cardiac arrhythmia AND he would not have had the second cardiac arrhythmia otherwise.
I know what it is.
By Pete Nice
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 7:15pm
And ok, I used a bad example. But Ive seen it used in court on several occasions with different results. "google" shouldn't be your bible.
Did you punch him? Yes? Then you're guilty. There is direct causation between the punch and the death, unlike your example.
No, that doesn't mean your guilty. Maybe the other guy punched you first? Maybe you were defending yourself? That what happend in this case and all these things you are making up about what you don't even know happened.
There is no question he suffered injuries that ultimately killed him.
No question? No question at all? The kid had a heart condition and thats a fact. The kid was drunk and thats a fact. The kid committed a crime and thats a fact. The kid resisted arrest and according to witnesses that were mentioned in Conley's letter to Davis. Seems like a fact too. So your wrong or stupid because there is a HUGE QUESTION as to how he died.
Let me ask you this Brett. Lets say there was a videotape of the kid going up to the back of an officer and then punching him in the head. Then the kid kicks and punches while officers arrest him and then dies in the same way he did die in this case. Is that manslaughter? Again, you are the one spewing out "facts" that are only your assumptions when even witnesses said the police did not throw him to the ground or do anything else except make a lawful arrest.
Again, you dont know about arresting someone or a use of force chart that officers use in arresting someone and you certainly dont know what happened that night.
There is no question who caused those injuries. The only question remaining is intent, and which officers were directly guilty, and which either helped cover it up, or were at the least negligent in their supervision
What injuries? Do you not believe the witnesses that said the cops did not use exessive force? Do you know for a fact officers covered it up?
Why am I asking these questions? You are wrong and that is a fact.
There's no reason we have to tolerate a bunch of bullies who are so hot-tempered they kill someone because he cracks a joke about them earning overtime and supposedly had an open container.
Supposedly? I mean, are you serious? Do hear voices in your head about how the US probably caused 9-11?
Injuries
By JakeWark
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 7:58pm
His injuries did not kill him. His congenital heart condition, which put him at an acute and lifelong risk of a fatal cardiac arrhythmia, killed him. His injuries were described by the independent Office of the Chief Medical Examiner as "superficial abrasions."
Many people today seem to have taken the position that one must blame either the police or David Woodman for Mr. Woodman's death. I would submit -- and the opinions of medical experts suggest -- that this is a false dichotomy.
lots and lots of questions
By Anonymous
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:01pm
His ...heart condition, which put him at an acute and lifelong risk of a [fatal] cardiac arrhythmia, killed him.
True with one exception, whether it is fatal or not is subject to other factors that occur after the onset of the cardiac arrhythmia, such as medical care or the absence of. He didn't die from his heart condition. He died (in the hospital) because the treatment he got didn't correct the rhythm after living with it for over two decades.
We know that cardiac arrhythmia can be triggered by physical and emotional stress that produces a surge in adrenaline. It's been reported that he played basketball with his friends earlier that day. What triggered cardiac arrhythmia at the time of the incident that didn't trigger cardiac arrhythmia in the afternoon on the basketball court. Did he have a history of cardiac arrhythmia or was this the first time in his life?
What's the average life span of a person born with the congenital heart defect like David's who lived 24 years already?
I'm curious about accounting for the Commissioner's first statement shortly after the incident that said Woodman fled. I did not notice it in AG Conley's report. Did I miss it or was that statement retracted by officers on the scene. Can you provide details about that original testimony and the course of events in which it was retracted? This is important because it goes to the credibility and integrity of the officers who participated or observed the arrest.
Why are police given such wide latitude to threaten arrest in order to disburse passerbys, such as David Woodman's friends in this case. Let's assume the police had no probable cause to detain or search David's friends. Why are police given such wide latitude to threaten arrest? It makes people wonder whether the police are trying to hide something. They were in a public place - public sidewalks - and they were not interfering with police duties.
When David's friend came back, he noticed David was not breathing and that the police had not noticed. Did David's friend bring it to their attention? Do the police have an affirmative obligation to protect the health and well-being of a person under arrest? Was that obligation met?
AG Conley's report said it was one to two minutes between when the officers left David on his side and when they noticed he was not breathing. Was the AG able to corroborate that estimate? Do we know it was no longer than 120 seconds? Is that estimate consistent with the brain damage finding by David's neurologist in Beth Israel hospital? Did he have a normal cardiac rhythm when he was loaded in the bus?
Were the police asked if it occurred to them that this strong determined inebriated man (David) with whom they had to struggle moments before to arrest, could have suddenly become so drunk that he could no longer stand on his own two feet? I don't think it would have occurred to me. For how long did they leave him unobserved after that strange and rapid deterioration in his ability to stand on his feet?
Is it department policy for all (nine) police officers in a detail to bang off early and leave their post in order to get stress counseling after an arrest of a drunken person and Cardiac Pulmonary Resuscitation of the same? Why does the department not require the nine officers who witnessed the arrest to file their own reports? How can it be considered reasonable to have a supervisor, who was not present, file the report? Does the BPD understand that these actions would make any reasonable citizen wonder why the nine policemen are not expected to document the event and stand by it.
Is Stern's report available?
Will the Commissioner make an announcement of policy changes as a result of Stern's review of procedure, and the facts in this case, such as not leaving a hand-cuffed suspect, who is unable to stand on his own two feet, alone without supervision unless there are specific delineated circumstance that take priority, such as making an arrest?
people without any cardiac
By anon
Fri, 02/06/2009 - 8:02pm
people without any cardiac conditions can die from this amount of force to the chest wall...especially young, white males
More details on the investigation
By adamg
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 4:03pm
Letter from Conley to Police Commissioner Ed Davis (PDF file).
BAC
By fenwayguy
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 6:18pm
Mr Woodman's blood alcohol concentration was .137, which means he was very probably not in control -- slurring, staggering, emotionally volatile. Good reason for the officers to treat him as if he were drunk, because he was.
Blame him for his own death? Certainly not. And nothing will erase the tragedy of the event. But Conley's investigation and report strike me as serious, thorough and believable. We can't ask for more.
excerpts - DA Conley's ltr to Commisioner Davis
By Anonymous
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 11:44pm
[IMG]http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk143/nfsagan/W...
[sub][please note that I referred to DA Conley as AG Conley in comments above and although DA Conley might aspire to the office, it was my mistake.][/sub]
slammed/not slammed, exsessive/not excessive, causal/coincidence
By Anonymous
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 12:37am
Five officers forced Woodmen to the ground. Five (5).
Woodman resisted, apparently with great strength and probably great exertion. This is of interest becuase exertion can play a role in triggering cardiac arrhythmia.
DA Conley describes this as "officers were forced to wrestle Mr Woodman to the ground." Unstated here but stated elsewhere is procedure when the police cannot handcuff a resisting suspect, they force the suspect to the ground face down to subdue and then cuff.
"Wrestling" with Woodman is probably an apt phrase for when five officers are grabbing him and holding him but "wrestling him to the ground" implies a softer landing than may have occurred, given some of the eyewitnesses testimony, and the cuts on his face and forehead (...if we can assume the cuts happened when he landed face down.)
One eyewitness said he was "thrown".
One eyewitness said he was "slammed".
Two eyewitnesses contradicted that he was "thrown" or "slammed"
One eyewitness said officers were trying to "bring him down."
One eyewitness denied officer threw Woodman to the ground.
By my count, we have an equal number of eyewitnesses who believe and testified he was "thrown","slammed","brought down" as those who believe he was not. That's remarkable maybe incredible symmetry in the eyewitness testimony if you think about it. That one witness would use the word "thrown" and another say "not thrown." That one witness would say "slammed" and yet another say "not slammed".
Either way the sum of the eyewitness testimony is curiously self-eliminating. The facial cuts however are objective physical evidence if they can be directly attributed to the moment the five police officers were successful in their effort to "force[d to wrestle] Mr. Woodman to the ground face down."
Then we might conclude that he hit with great force, force that the five policemen found necessary but a great force nonetheless: Force that could have been the proximate cause in his cardiac event.
The sheer coincidence of being tackled or wrestled to the ground by five policemen and landing face down and having a cardiac arrhythmia then or moments later as a sheer coincidence without a cause and effect relationship is too cosmically freakish for a thinking person to imagine.
In other words landing face down, slammed or otherwise, with five policeman moving you in that direction and causing you to collide with the ground set in motion David Woodman's cardiac arrhythmia.
Yes, he could have had one at anytime but he did have one when he was being subdued by five policemen and met the ground, face down and chest down, with great force.
DA Conley's account makes little of the time between when the officers put Woodman on his side and when they realize he's got a life-threatening health issue. I think DA Conley describes this time as one or two minutes. Early newspaper accounts have time stamp when the officers call in for a wagon to pick up a drunk. In the original account this was after he was arrested but before they knew he was in distress. A second call is made for a rush emergency ambulance after they recognize his problem and start CPR. I think the time between these two calls is eight minutes but I'd have to look back. How does that mesh with the one to two minutes DA Conley refers to in this documents?
Slamming
By anon
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 5:39am
It's gonna be hard to unpick this knot. I'll contribute to your argument two things: if David Woodman, a strong young man, was holding on to that wrought iron fence with both hands, it would have been a mighty struggle to get him to let go. Probably a greater exertion than basketball.
Also, slamming someone hard to the ground can knock them right out, without leaving any bruises, just from compression of the chest. I know because I have done this to someone. (Hey, he took a swing at me!) I think it does that by messing up your heart and stopping it momentarily (commotio cordis). If you had a double-size heart like Woodman, I guess it'd be easier. Apparently, you don't tend to come back from commotio cordis if you've got hypertrophic myopathy. (Now that I look back on it, I'm awful glad I didn't kill that guy accidentally...)
In any case, it sucks. If I were his parent, I'd be suing, no doubt. The DA refuses to share the autopsy? There's no goddamn reason for that. No reason at all. Maybe he's not trying to hide something, but it sure gives that impression. I wouldn't be satisfied if I were his parent.
I'm not sure where this
By JakeWark
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 8:33am
I'm not sure where this allegation about refusal to share information comes from. The DA specifically states that he will release the entire, unredacted contents of the investigative file to the Woodman family and their attorney.
Throughout the investigation, prosecutors provided regular updates to the Woodman family through their attorney. From their statements yesterday, it doesn't appear that the updates were shared with them. Why not?
Be sure
By anon
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 9:29am
It comes from the parents.
So now you know where it comes from! Yay!
reports and autopsy
By Pete Nice
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 12:45pm
I belive from day one any information including the autopsy would not be given to anyone. Now that the investigation is done, all reports including the autopsy will be released to anyone that has a legal right to them including the parents.
Releasing autopsy reports during death investigations can effect the actual investigation and information needed in the court.
request
By Anonymous
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 2:41pm
Pete, thanks for responding about how these things work generally. Jake works for the DA's office. Please let him respond to these questions specifically, or say "usually..." Thanks.
No problem
By Pete Nice
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 3:59pm
But I did use the word "believe" in that last post. And I know for a fact that information involving criminal investigations don't get released untill the report is complete.
Yes, you did. Interesting
By Anonymous
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 4:11pm
Yes, you did. Interesting that Jake is contributing here... The DAs office is committed to provided information to the public on this sensitive issue.
witnesses
By Pete Nice
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 6:18am
"Althought two civilians stated that Mr. Woodman was "thrown" and "slammed" to the ground, other civilians contradicted this characterization. At least one other civilian specifically denied that the officers threw Mr. Woodman to the ground, and another civilian stated that officers were trying to "bring him down."
This here is the key statement that puts doubt in my mind that these cops were in the wrong.
This post of yours, took me
By Anonymous
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 4:11pm
This post of yours, took me by surprise. Do you want to explain further?
It was more in a response
By Pete Nice
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 4:16pm
to some people here who think it is a fact that the cops murdered this kid. I think its unfair for anyone who wasn't there or doesn't know the facts to say for a fact what happend here.
And I did not know there were any other witnesses before I saw the letter. I thought it was just the cops, Woodman, and Woodman's friends. But if people saw what happened and did not think the cops were out of line, it at least should put a question in your mind that Woodman may not have been murdered.
What does "Approximately 5
By Anonymous
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 3:07pm
What does
"Approximately 5 officers were involved in subduing Mr Woodman"
mean?
It means the DA does not have a clear picture of each officer's involvement in the critical action of unhanding Woodman from the fence and forcing him to the ground, face first, with his hands restrained by police officers with enough force to cause facial and forehead abrasions.
One eyewitness says Woodman was "slammed" and another says he was "thrown".
It is not hard to imagine the force with which he could be forced to the ground, face down, arms restrained, by five officers, especially if he had been successfully resisting their efforts to unhand him from the fence. (I don't imagine five officers went over immediately. I imagine one or two started and more joined in to help when the need for their help became obvious to them)
How is it that these two eyewitnesses' testimony is dismissed simply becuase other eyewitnesses contradict their assertions.
If being slammed is the difference between accidental death and contributory negligence and manslaughter, then how can DA Conley not put these facts to a grand jury?
The number of officers
By JakeWark
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 3:28pm
The number of officers involved in the arrest varied over a period of time. It did not take place in an instant.
No one's statement was dismissed -- not for the reasons suggested here and not for any other.
One verb is not the difference between the two outcomes suggested here, both of which were ruled out by the person whose job it is to determine the cause of a person's death.
The chief medical examiner and two outside pathologists representing the fields of cardiology and neurology determined that Mr. Woodman died of a natural cause. Specifically, that cause was a cardiac arrhythmia on June 29 that was not related to the cardiac arrhythmia or any injury he suffered on June 18.
failed
By Anonymous
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 10:39am
No one's statement was dismissed -- not for the reasons suggested here and not for any other.
Obviously, the statements of two witnesses who saw David "slammed" and "thrown" to the ground were dismissed. Otherwise, the police would have been charged with using excessive force.
What the DA is allowing to stand is procedure - forcing suspects to the ground face-first with force - that risks the health and well-being of the suspect, whether or not the citizen is perceived as dangerous. In this case, he was merely resisting arrest and not a danger, which I think the police at the scene would agree was the case too.
In other words, the police have a one-size fits all technique for subduing suspects that puts the well-being of the suspect at risk. Isn't that irrefutable given the facts? Use violent submission as a proportional response but not when apprehending citizen for public drinking who is not a danger.
An intoxicated citizen who ended up with brain damage and later dead after a medical crisis precisely coincidental with the act of BPD taking them into custody, is not an occasion to declare exoneration.
Here, force was a factor. I reasonably argue it was excessive becuase of the damage caused to the suspect.
David Woodman is not Charlie Manson, which is to say David Woodman is not dangerous. And yet the force used to subdue him was that same force police would use to subdue a dangerous suspect... becuase he resisted not becuase he was dangerous.
If the DA is finding no responsibility for the BPD without comment on leaving the suspect cuffed alone for a period long enough to cause brain damage and without comment on the amount of force used when multiple officers force a suspect to fall face down, chest and face first, to the ground; then he should at least call upon the Commissioner to come forward with new procedure that will protect the lives of all citizens not just those without cardiac pathology. The DAs assumes that the PBD has no such responsibility to safeguard the health of suspects with cardiac pathology. Why not?
This is what the DA and the BPD fail to recognize. Also, not reviewed by the DA was the fact that all nine officers left the scene and did not file reports. Instead the report was filed by a supervisor who was not at the scene. We cannot trust our police force if they will not take responsibility and be accountable for their actions. Accountability is necessary for public trust. David Woodman and his family was failed by Boston government including the BPD, now the DA. It could have been any one of us.
Consequences
By anon
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 11:06am
So if the police decide they must arrest somebody, and that person decides he doesn't want to be arrested, they should just say sorry and let him walk off? I think that might end up having some unfortunate consequences, like encouraging people to resist the police.
On the other hand, why exactly they had to take him in is unclear to me. If they could figure out who he was and could see that he wasn't actively posing a danger to anybody, then just citing him and letting him walk should have been enough.
And they could always have cuffed him to that fence he was holding onto. It's not like he could get away.
Maybe, like you say, they need something like the rules about car chases - at a certain point, they have to break off when it appears they're posing a public danger more than they are assisting with public safety.
to anon "consequences"
By Pete Nice
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 11:20am
On the other hand, why exactly they had to take him in is unclear to me. If they could figure out who he was and could see that he wasn't actively posing a danger to anybody, then just citing him and letting him walk should have been enough.
Im going to be they were trying to figure out who he was when they asked him to stop. He refused to stop so the police took it to the next step.
Refused to stop?
By anon
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 11:24am
Was that before he was holding onto a stationary iron fence with both hands, or afterwards?
before
By Pete Nice
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 11:30am
He was told to stop before he was brought to the ground.
Told to stop?
By anon
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 11:34am
To stop doing what? Walking or holding onto the fence?
Don't get me wrong, Pete, I for one appreciate the contribution you make here, and I'm not trying to be argumentative. But the report says clearly that Woodman was holding onto a wrought iron fence with both hands when the five cops brought him down.
What part of that is not stopping?
I didn't read the whole report but this is what I gather.
By Pete Nice
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 11:54am
-cops are standing around corner as part of a special assignment
-group of people walk by and make a comment that the police dont like.
-police see that one of them has an open container that contains alcohol.
-police have probable cause to "sieze" this person.
-Police ask person to stop "they sieze him"
-Person ignores the police and doesn't stop "passivly resists", or actually "activly resists" by continuing to walk.
-Police go after him and use complaince techniques in accordance to the resistance of the person in question. Im not sure what tecnique the police used here. (escort technique?, armbar takedown?)
-Person grabs onto fence and resists arrest in doing so.
-Police use other teqniques to release his grasp from fence.
I was talking about him stopping at the initial part.
Okay
By anon
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 12:35pm
So at the point where the kid is grabbing onto the fence, he's stopped, right? He's holding onto the fence, either from sheer stubbornness or from fear for his safety from the police.
At the point where the kid is hanging onto the fence, he's not going anywhere. Can't they ID him where he's standing, give him a ticket, and let him go? Woudn't that be a better thing to to than to wrestle him to the ground?
I think the line was crossed at that point.
By Pete Nice
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 12:57pm
At the point where the kid is grabbing the fence he was already wrestled to the ground wasn't he? I mean, this isn't a case of "say uncle" and you get a ticket instead of being arrested.
Once police tell you to stop after you commit an arrestable offense, you are legally seized and under arrest. So just by ignoring officers commands you are legally "resisting arrest" and are committing further crimes.
This what I meant about drawing the line. You simply can't ignore police, make them chase you and then play the old "I give up game"
No
By anon
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 1:14pm
No, he wasn't on the ground. It took so many cops to wrestle him down because he was holding tight to the fence.
There's one point of fact, and here's another: a cop can tell you to stop without having to put you under arrest. A cop can just say "hey, stop there!" and talk to you for a minute. So you are not under arrest the minute any cop tells you to stop. If that were true, there'd be no such thing as traffic tickets.
No, of course you can't just ignore police. You really do have to stop when they tell you to. Yes, Mr. Woodman didn't heed the first order to stop, and he did walk on until a cop went after him and put his hands on him. And he shouldn't have.
But what is the reason, even at that point, that there was any need to place Mr. Woodman under arrest? Was he a danger to himself? To others? Nobody has so much as suggested that. What is the penalty for the open-container law? A fine? Why couldn't they just write him a ticket?
Was Mr. Woodman arrested at that point to protect public safety? Or was this a punitive arrest, part of an interpersonal power trip, and disassociated from any protection of public safety?
Ok
By Pete Nice
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 1:33pm
so he resisted resist by holding onto the fence which is another crime.
Drinking alchoho in public is arrestable. Cops asked him to stop, he didn't, so why should they give him a ticket at this point?
My whole point here with this is that these cops aren't going to play games at this point and follow this kid across the city begging him for his name.
Imagine that?
"Hey, just pretend to ignore the cops when they tell you to stop and maybe they will stop following you since smoking weed isn't really a crime any more"
Why should they give him a ticket?
By anon
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 2:33pm
They should give him a ticket because he acted like a jerk. If he wasn't acting like a jerk, they would never even have noticed him or his suspicious container. If he wasn't determined to act like a jerk, he would have just dumped his beer and kept his mouth shut when he saw them. But that's still not a good reason to arrest him.
My whole point here is that the cops were playing games at this point. They weren't protecting his safety, or the safety of anybody else. They were playing some ego trip game about I'm the cop so you have to kiss my ass now. And he was playing tough guy who wises off to the cops.
They didn't have to follow the kid anywhere. He was holding on to an iron fence for dear life when they decided breaking his grip was their best play.
they couldn't have done anything
By Pete Nice
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 3:07pm
if he wasnt breaking the law. ....
True and not true
By anon
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 3:15pm
They could have done anything they wanted to even if he wasn't breaking the law. The only difference is that the charges wouldn't stick in court.
In this case, evidence indicates he was breaking the law. But the law can be enforced without beating the crap out of every suspect. "The law" is not an excuse for brutality.
The escalation of force, as you put it, went to a degree entirely unnecessary and inappropriate given the original law that was being broken. Public safety was not enhanced but harmed by the actions of the police.
circles and circles
By Pete Nice
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 4:58pm
They could have done anything they wanted to even if he wasn't breaking the law. The only difference is that the charges wouldn't stick in court.
Sure, they could have lied and charged him with murder or rape or terrorism. That didn't happen here. And you still can't resist if you are being arrested for something you didn't do.
In this case, evidence indicates he was breaking the law. But the law can be enforced without beating the crap out of every suspect. "The law" is not an excuse for brutality
Well the witnesses in this case did not think officers "beat the crap" out of him. Sure, if an officer grabbed him by the hair and smashed his head off the sidewalk for the sake of smashing his head, then yea, that would be excessive force. But from witness accounts, that did not happen here.
The escalation of force, as you put it, went to a degree entirely unnecessary and inappropriate given the original law that was being broken.
the escalation of force has nothing to do with what law you break. It has to do with how much you resist arrest. People get arrested for small crimes all the time like driving with a suspended licence, traffic warrants, making a fake ID to buy beer. etc. When you get arrested you get handcuffed. If you want to resist, cops will use a level of force no matter if you robbed a bank or pissed on a baroom floor.
So in theory
By anon
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 5:24pm
If the "escalation of force" kept going, cops would be justified for shooting someone in the head for the initial crime of spitting on the sidewalk?
Imagining
By anon
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 3:00pm
Imagining a city where cops don't chase after and beat down people who are smoking a joint and otherwise minding their business...
Imagining...
Ok. Done. Sounds great. Where do I sign up?
You should read the report
By Anonymous
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 2:11pm
You should read the report Pete. It doesn't take long and then you would know what facts they allege so you could opine on them.
I don't think I can
By Pete Nice
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 3:06pm
Im not sure if any average joe can see this entire report yet can they?
Is it out anywhere?
It will be available to the
By JakeWark
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 3:14pm
It will be available to the media. We're currently working on the most practicable way to make it so. I think Anonymous is referring here to the DA's letter to the PC, which Adam has graciously posted here on UH.
You are correct Jake, DA
By Anonymous
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 5:16pm
You are correct Jake, DA Conley's statement which Adam posted and DAs letter to the Commissioner.
Pages