Hey, there! Log in / Register
Connecticut couple put up for the night at the expense of Boston taxpayers
By adamg on Thu, 11/13/2008 - 1:10pm
Police officers called to the Omni Parker House early this morning to help roust a pair of allegedly obnoxious guests wound up charging the two with a variety of offenses - including "unlawful recording," when the male member whipped out a camera and turned it on.
Boston Police report the incident began around 12:11 a.m., when Jessica Mathis, 22, of Willington, CT refused to leave the hotel at the request of hotel security. She wound up being charged with five counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, five counts of assault and battery on a police officer, trespassing, resisting arrest, disturbing the peace and threats.
Police say officers arrested Stephen P. Ellington, 21, of Uncasville, CT not long after:
Officers while attempting to place the unruly Mathis in custody were then confronted by suspect Ellington who hampered their efforts by standing in the middle of the sidewalk and created a situation that caused a crowd to gather. It should be noted that the same suspect had earlier been asked to leave the hotel; also due to unruly, loud and obnoxious behavior. The suspect started to record the officers in their lawful arrest of suspect Mathis and in so doing blocked the sidewalk and refused to leave after too many requests.
Innocent, etc.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
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
STOP, Grammar Police
You forgot an "up" (or away?) in "put for" :)
Alternative headline: "Boston PD make up imaginary charges". There's no such thing as "unlawful recording", and if anyone from Boston PD or the City would like to contest that, I'd challenge them to provide the MGL section that is relevant. The bit about blocking the sidewalk is also bullshit- that's intended to prevent construction and vendors from camping out, not to keep you from standing around.
I'm getting really goddamn tired of reading about Boston PD trumping up charges and arresting people for using videorecorders and cameras. It's COMPLETELY legal, and believe it or not, some police departments, like Seattle, expect it.
I wish I could find the quote from the Seattle PD spokesperson- it was so refreshing to hear someone admit that arrests are where supervision is most needed, and that public curiosity is natural.
Getting in the way isn't legal though.
There are laws on the books from being a hindrance. They'd probably have done better to charge him with something related to being in the way than laws against recording since he wasn't doing anything in secret.
Officers of the Court, abusing their power
There are laws on the books from being a hindrance. They'd probably have done better to charge him with something related to being in the way than laws against recording since he wasn't doing anything in secret.
Except that officers routinely claim something happened, there's no evidence and they don't bother to secure witnesses, but the court has to take the officer's word. As Swirly said: it'll be interesting to see whether the video is entered into evidence, and what it shows. They can't really erase the video, because then they wouldn't have any proof of him videotaping. $50 says it shows the guy 5-6 feet away, and then an angry cop running up to him and taking him down.
Seattle PD, while good about their new photographer policy, have twice run afoul of the courts when videotapes (in one case, from the cruiser, delivered 5 days after the trial started) showed events wildly different from what cops described in their reports and in court. Yet, nobody was investigated or charged with perjury or color of law.
NYPD got their ass handed to them when that bicyclist ran into an officer and the cop beat the stuffing out of him and claimed the guy "resisted arrest"...and a video showed up on youtube showing something rather different. The officer was not charged with perjury, filing a false report, assault, or color of law.
Then there was the kid who got tired of being hassled by the cops, and put a camera in his car and left it running any time he was driving. He pulled into an all-night lot at a train station to pick up a friend, and a cop came over and started harassing him, said he was trespassing. The kid stood his ground, and told the officer he was videotaping. The cop acknowledges him, and despite that, states clear as day, "I will make up charges against you and there's nothing you can do about it." He was fired- again, not investigated for color of law.
His ass got fired- but only because there was audio proof. If there hadn't been any, then it would have been the word of a teenager versus the word of an officer, and the courts would have happily slapped the kid with the charges the officer filed, and at best, the Chief of the department would issue some bullshit about "investigating the claim", followed shortly by a press release with "thoroughly investigated" and "no evidence found."
Ever notice that Boston PD doesn't use video recording in most if not all of their cruisers? Ever wonder why?
cops
"Except that officers routinely claim something happened, there's no evidence and they don't bother to secure witnesses, but the court has to take the officer's word."
You use the word "routinely" why? Hell, you and I both know there are a lot of bad cops out there, but I would say that abuse of power by police is "uncommon" not "routine".
And how do you know the police don't bother to secure witnesses? Because they don't put them in the blog?
And the court does not have to take the officer's word. That is why you will see most serious criminals records with 100+ entries on their criminal record have the majority of the cases dismissed or thrown out. A lot of that is bad police work and funny enough, not having witnesses come forward on the other side.
Brett you are going to find that most bad officers (like the ones you use examples of above) have long history of citizen complaints, bad arrests, mistakes etc. Many of these cops do get fired believe it or not.
You are right about the cameras. There are three main reasons why large cities do not have them.
First off, more cops will do less work because they are scared of the Bretts of the world will always be after them for false arrests. Its widely known in the police world that the less work you do (fighting crime), the less mistakes you can make, the longer you keep your job and stay out of trouble.
Secondly, it is a liablity issue for the cops and cities and you are right on this one. It is sad. Towns know they will be sued for mistakes by officers on tape. Maybe it should be done in all cruisers. But why not put them on public streets then too in high crime areas? I also have this gut feeling that police departments in this state are still scared as to who they have to hire. You cant just apply for a job to be a cop. You take a civil service test and if you were in the military you pretty much get a job no matter what. These laws have to be changed so towns and cities have more of a choice as to who they can and cant hire. Nothing against Vets, but all you need to score is a 70 on that test (most 8th graders should get an 80) and you have a job.
Third these things always break and it would cost a lot of money for large towns.
sorry about the runons I dont have time to proofread!
Pushing Wiretapping
Alas, Boston and other Mass. police have abused General Laws 272:99 more than once. One recap is here.
In the Glik case, the lawyer using his cellphone to capture police abusing a kid got saw his case dismissed, but on a technicality. The statute is to prevent wiretapping, but the trial judge noted that Glik was very open about what he did, was 10 feet or more away from the cops and didn't interfere with them verbally or physically.
It would be far better if a higher court would order the police to stop trying to twist a law just to cover their butts. There are laws against hindering police and with good reason. But, really, wiretapping? Get real.
Really interesting article, thanks
That article is a very interesting discussion. How can they possibly justify this kind of thing, or get away with it?
Interesting in the discussion as well is the approach of loading on all kinds of ancillary charges to terrorize citizzens.
Starchy and Husk?
Sounds like she was disturbing the peas.
It will be interesting if that video is entered into evidence ... one would think it would show whether the guy doing the taping was really blocking the sidewalk or not, or interfering beyond the cops massively reacting to citizen recording efforts.
It might also show if it was his videotaping or other actions that drew the crowd, and not the cops screaming at him or the succulent spectacle of an enraged young woman being cuffed and stuffed into a squad car.
Cop haters at it again
Here's Brett and Swirlygrrl bashing the cops as usual. Swirly, you've said over and over that the problem is that cops need to enforce all the laws (remember your comments on the Jaywalking headline?). Well here they are enforcing a law but now you don't want them to do anything. Make up your mind.
WTF is your problem?
What I said:
What you said:
Explain how "consulting evidence recorded at the scene that might demonstrate guilt or innocence" = "cop hating"??? Some would call that "wanting to see the evidence to see if it supports either allegation".
It is also what the judge and jury will need to do. Like it or not, an arrest is not a conviction or even evidence that a crime has occurred. Why do you hate the Bill of Rights so much?
BTW, what "law" were they enforcing again? If he was in the way or interfering with the arrest, his video will show that. Or do you mean the wiretapping law that recent case law says absolutely does not apply here (see Glik case, above)?
Oh, sorry, I forgot: for bostnkid, "reality" and "truth" are not related somehow when there is some sort of authority involved. Authority is truth! Pointing out that there may be some obvious way to determine where the truth lies means "questioning authority and disrespect and hating" in his twisted lexicon!
Swirly = cop hater
On any headline that involves cops you question something they did. In this one, even though an arrest was made (which means the cops saw a violation so they did their job), you seem to question if there really was a violation. You never seem to believe the cops, they're not making it up you know. In that Jaywalking article you show that you don't think the cops are doing their job, you say; "Lack of enforcement of all traffic laws on all citizens" is part of the problem. If anyone had enough time to check all your comments (And "girl" you should get a life, you have a comment on almost every article written on this blog. Who has that much time?) they would find that in every single one you either question the cops somehow and/or try to say that they are not doing their job. Oh, and the wiretapping law does apply here because an audio recording was made. I know it is a stretch to use such a law but if the shoe fits.....
Not seekret, not interception according to 272:99
So from my layman's interpretation, that if it wasn't done it seekret, it wasn't illegal. Unless I missed something.
Bostonist = Russian Mobster
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
The cops don't get to decide that.
dear swirlygrll please STFU
what i said:
Nothing
what you said
"Oh, sorry, I forgot: for bostnkid, "reality" and "truth" are not related somehow when there is some sort of authority involved. Authority is truth!"
swirlygrrl wtf is YOUR problem?
Cool beans
Fixed.
ha ha!
You said "male member" and also "whipped it out". Sorry, my mind is in the gutter today.
"Excuse me while I whip this out"
I love that line....
videotaping
Ive been around many arrests on the street where people watching have cameras, cell phone cameras etc and the Boston police do nothing, because 99% of the time, they choose not to arrest. No if this was Wellesley, they would be going out of their way to look for a reason to arrest someone.
Anytime someone is arrested, and someone blocks the path (sidewalk) it is resisting arrest. Im sure no one on this thread was there to see the whole thing, and I would hope witnesses that were there would report any wrongdoing by the police.
And if you thing people are scared to report the cops just call IAD and see the backlog of complaints against officers for a wide variety of stuff.
Im sure the guy wasnt arrested for the videotaping, he was arrested for the disorderly and then the videotaping was added on for the judge to decide. Again, everyone thinks the cops are going out of their way to arrest people from using cameras. Its not happening
ugh
Anytime someone is arrested, and someone blocks the path (sidewalk) it is resisting arrest. Im sure no one on this thread was there to see the whole thing, and I would hope witnesses that were there would report any wrongdoing by the police.
We're supposed to take you seriously when you can't even use the proper terminology? It's not *resisting* arrest, it's *interfering* with an arrest or the "duties of a police officer."
Again, everyone thinks the cops are going out of their way to arrest people from using cameras. Its not happening
Really? Tell that to the lawyer who was arrested on Boston Common for videotaping a couple of cops beating the snot out of a drug suspect. The DA took it all the way to court (and I don't think we ever did see the video, did we?)
wrong and wrong
1
Well he was charged with disorderly anyway I think, but the crime is resisting arrest, not "interfering" or what ever you think it is from your EMO bulliten you must get.
Chapter 268: Section 32B. Resisting arrest
Section 32B. (a) A person commits the crime of resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by:
(1) using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the police officer or another; or
(2) using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to such police officer or another.
(b) It shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this section that the police officer was attempting to make an arrest which was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A police officer acts under the color of his official authority when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him.
(c) The term “police officer” as used in this section shall mean a police officer in uniform or, if out of uniform, one who has identified himself by exhibiting his credentials as such police officer while attempting such arrest.
(d) Whoever violates this section shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or both.
2
So the cops got up that day looking for a guy with a camera? Thats what Im talking about. It happens, but it's not rampant like you make it seem to be.
It is "resisting arrest."
Brett, another cop-hater, forgot to check out the law before opening his mouth. MGL c268 s32B which says; "A person commits the crime of resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor..." So, blocking the path of a police officer who is attempting to arrest another is "resisting arrest." So, Brett, you should take Pete seriously because he obviously knows what he is talking about.
learn to read
"A person commits the crime of resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor...
Ie, you're resisting arrest if you prevent or attempt to prevent a police officer from effecting an arrest OF YOURSELF.
http://www.gottrouble.com/legal/criminal/criminal_...
...and many others.
are you kidding me?
Section 32B. (a) A person commits the crime of resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by:
you decided to cut off the law after the word "actor" and add three dots and thats it? Read the whole thing Brett. Right after the word actor comes the two words...
"or another"
So who needs to learn how to read? Thank god people like you aren't in charge of anything.
why don't you go to the real
why don't you go to the real laws and not gottrouble.com
Some Reading for Both of You
The Bill of Rights contains such limitations on police and state power as the presumption of innocence, the right to a trial, the protection against cruel and unusual punishment,etc.
That's because our nation's founders were cop haters, naturally. They knew that there would be people growing up in places like Boston who would be so poorly educated as to put presumed authority ahead of impartial justice and fact finding, and love them some of that police state action if they didn't preempt it with some written limitations on state authority.
Turns out they were right. Cop haters! They should have just assumed that the fact that most cops are well-intentioned and well-trained and well-lead means that proper lawful behavior is always the case. We could have done without all that expense and trouble of actual trials where cops get questioned by cop-hating lawyers and judges. So much easier that way.
there she is, the cop hater again.
Always there with Brett to say cops are bad/corrupt/wrong/shouldn't be able to make a decent living, etc, etc.... I did not even read what she wrote above but I bet it went something like; "Blah, blah, cops are bad, blah, blah, cops are bad, blah, blah, blah."
There he is, illiterate townie again
What part of that is cop hate? None of it, of course. Unless you count the inherent questioning of authority that comes with the presumption of innocence.
Why do you hate our Bill of Rights so much? Because you can't read above a fourth grade level? Maybe you would be happier living somewhere where they don't make such inherent presumptions about the fallibility of police? Like, say, China?
baited
you decided to cut off the law after the word "actor" and add three dots and thats it? Read the whole thing Brett. Right after the word actor comes the two words...
I didn't; Bostonian did, complete with the three dots. I quoted him/her. I can't help it if he/she cut it off (intentionally, to mislead me.) Next time, I'll go and look up the chapter in MGL myself, or next time, I'll find something better to do than get baited.
As for my choices of citations, I picked the first in the group that came up from a quick google search and seemed roughly relevant, and I said "and others". Believe it or not, I've got other, better things to do than sit around and blow hot air around with an anonymous cop who doesn't like a critical eye towards fellow LEO's (your language/vernacular is also a dead giveaway- it's like I'm reading masscops.com every time you post.)
Also, I find it fascinating that you and bostonist joined UHub virtually the same day...
"baited" so its someone elses fault.
Sound like something a criminal cop (like the ones you mention) would say when they commit a crime so they don't have to admit they are at fault.
You tell me to "learn to read" and you can't even read my post where I quoted the law word for word?
I don't mind anyone being critical of cops. There are a lot of bad ones out there and they should be caught, punished, fired, whatever. But every one of your posts seem to point out that most cops are bad instead of somecops.
swirlygirl I have no problem with the bill of rights or anything you have said on here. But don't you think there might be some people in a Chinese prison right now that would puke when reading Bretts summary of police injustice in the world?
I just hate when someone reads a police blog (probably written by some NU CJ major) and comes off with the assumption that cops "routinely claim" false crimes. Everyone gets their day in court and bad cops usually get taken care of. We all hope it happens before someone gets hurt.
As far as bostonian and I being the same person, Im sure adamg can tell by ip adresses that we are not the same
assumptions make an ass out of u and me
You tell me to "learn to read" and you can't even read my post where I quoted the law word for word?
Despite the fact that you posted a minute before Bostonist, I didn't see your post, since I read his/her post first. How? I clicked on the title from the "Recent posts" column off the front page, which scrolls the browser down to that post.
Occam's razor, chief. Look it up.
Brett, you're wrong, you need reading lessons
The law means that if you "resist" while YOU (the "actor") are being arrested for whatever, OR, if you interfere with cops while they try to arrest someone else ("another") then YOU, "YOURSELF," have committed "resisting arrest." Read it slow and maybe you'll finally understand it.
never mind bostonian
Brett likes to get his legal info from "gottrouble.com" and not the actual law.
enough said, Pete.
Brett and Swirly have been proven wrong again...I'm out of here. See ya bro.
Have Fun in China
No presumption of innocence to trouble your world there guys.
and you guys are fighting the wrong fight
forget about the videotaping charge, it is the disorderly charge that is abused by cops. That is the arrestable offense here.
So instead of thinking that sidewalk vendor laws (did you get that from introuble.com too?) the crime was disorderly conduct. Thats what you should question.
ya bro
Yo bro, I got a question and maybe you could answer it.
Which ones of the nine cops put David Woodman face down in the pavement and left him there to suffer brain damage when he stopped breathing?
Why will not one of them come forward and say what happened? Since when is it righteous to stay silent instead of speaking the truth?
Why did the cops threaten to arrest David Woodman's friends if they stayed to witness the arrest and custody of their friend David Woodman, despite the fact Kenmore Square is a public place which they have every right to walk through and to stop in?
good question
it seems like the police officers failed to give medical attention to the kid when he obviously needed it. Although it would be interesting to see how many people under the age of 25 have died as a result of being arrested for similar crimes. I dont know I wasnt there.
But as far as those cops not comming foward, I would be shocked if every single one of them did not have to write a report on what happened. Its probably public record you should go get it.
Although Kenmore Square is a public place, during a time such as these (mass celebrations etc) the police have a duty to keep the streets clear of vehicles, people and whomever else so riots don't start. The same reason we are not allowed to bring a bagle onto an airplane, sometimes our rights as citizens have to be suspended for the safety as a whole.
Not the best time or place to start showing the governemnt that you know your 4th ammendment rights for public assembly.
And the kid didnt die of brain damage did he? I thought it was a preexisting heart condition or something. In the end, the kid died for being an asshole. No one deserves to die for being an asshole, and if he didnt act like an asshole, (and question authority) he would still be alive today.
wrongful death
If anyone dies from being arrested, then whoever did the arresting is violating the rights of the
suspectdeceased. It is called wrongful death.“I am shocked, simply shocked.” Apparently all nine officers on the scene who observed and/or participated in the arrest, suffered event some traumatic psychological, and immediately left the scene to get psychological treatment. An officer who was not at the scene wrote the official incident report. If the officers at the scene wrote reports, the BPD is not sharing them.
It’s one thing to stand vigilant to deter illegal behavior or to disburse an unruly mob. Kenmore Square had neither the night the Celtics won the Championship. The mob was at North Station. The victim, who suffered brain damage at the hands of the BPD, was walking home with his friends. He made a smart comment about crime on the corner where nine BPD officers stood – He was not a threat to order or part of a mob. It’s one thing to arrest a kid for possession of an open container. It’s another to take him down so hard that he sustains gashes on his face and stops breathing. David Woodman was never a threat. He was going home.
You think he died because he made a smart a comment.
First of all, questioning authority does not make you an asshole. Secondly, if the cops got pissed, it doesn’t give them license to violate his rights. A good cop is trained to control their temper and not let it interfere with their judgment – when and how they exercise their authority.
David Woodman died because BPD officers overreacted, used excessive force and were negligent in the care of victim who stopped breathing as a result of how he was arrested. His death later in the hospital was a result of the injury he received that night.
If he had been arrested without force, without respiratory arrest, without brain damage, he would be alive today. No more excuses from BPD.
Im not saying the cops did do the right thing
but you werent there so you cant say they did the wrong thing either.
If the cops (who were there for a reason to break up mobs) told him to leave, it seems like he pulled the old "this is a public street" game, and he lost. It doesnt matter if there was no riot there, you cant have people running up and taunting the police becasue they want to prove they know something about their rights.
And maybe they told woodman he was under arrest and woodman refused to put his hands behind his back?
And you are right that if the cops didnt use force, he would probably be alive. But he would also be alive if he didnt resist, didnt have a prexisiting condition, and if he didnt mouth off to the riot police in the first place.
well then
sounds like you are in complete agreement with the positions you think you are rebutting. Well done, Pete Nice!
Cops don't administer punishment. They don't have that right. The courts do that.
Any statement you make about someone "getting what they deserved" at the hands of police, UNLESS the police were obviously required to act to protect other people's lives, is therefore without merit.
Read that again if you are having trouble processing it. Even in (our) courts, the punishment for standing up to authority is not death.
I do agree
Im just saying you cant say the person is at fault or the police are at fault if you dont have the facts in front of you. This whole thing could have been an accident, you and I dont know because we dont have the facts.
I don't think I ever said someone "got what they deserved", but logic will tell you that this kid would not have been handcuffed, arrested, or died if he didnt taunt the cops and allegedly resist arrest. Ever been to a bar or somewhere where a fight breaks out? Sometimes its just better to leave and get the hell out of there before something bad happens.
Do you know if he resisted arrest? Do you know if he assaulted the cops? Do you know if the cops used excessive force while handcuffing him? Did they smash his head against the sidewalk on purpose? Did the kid fall down while resisting? Was he drunk? How drunk? Were the cops going against their use of force policy set by the criminal justice training council and BPD policy?
I dont know the answer to those questions but they are important. Lets hope the FBI does get the right answers and administer punishment accordingly.
I don't see where your argument is headed
I could likewise say that the kid would not have been handcuffed, arrested, or died if the cops weren't acting like power hungry wack jobs, and had let his stupid, drunken self continue walking home.
I don't think yelling insults at cops should be illegal. If it is, please cite chapter and verse, then go back and check the reports of the story, and try to show us where the cops taking time away from some actually important (?) crime in progress helped the public good in any way.
I see the phrase "punk with a badge" sometimes and I'm reluctant to repeat or apply it, but in so many cases of this nature, that's approximately what you're dealing with - some thin-skinned failure who takes out his aggressions on those who are weaker than him, because he can. I remain unimpressed with the performance of the police officers, and particularly of any department that thinks this sort of policy is of any use to the community.
Guys: step away from the details, and leave the drunken college kids alone, particularly when they are "walking home". Go chase some bad guys. We pay you to chase bad guys... you know, the really bad ones, with the guns and knives. No, I don't want to chase people like that. That's why I never wanted to be a cop. You did, so how about living up to the name instead of going for the easy targets?
again....
Well lets start with your last statement
"Go chase some bad guys. We pay you to chase bad guys... "
These cops that night were there on a special assignement. They were on the street in case something happened. Imagine if someone was getting assaulted and those 5 cops were busy arguing with some kid about the 4th amendment?
you are making the premise that they were acting like "power hungry wack jobs". Even the Woodmans friends admitted that Woodman made comments to the police, so although I can't assume he did anything criminal, you and I can both agree that the kid was not serving a legimate purpose at that time while he spoke to those officers. This "legitimate purpose" will probably be the main factor as to whether the initial arrest by police would be legal or not. And this would fall under the disordery conduct statue. And although the wording of this statute (MGL ch. 272 s.53) will not have specifics on what people can or cannot do on public streets, case law will dictate that there are 4 distinct acts that are forbidden by causing a public convenience. One of these is "conduct that creates a hazard to public safety or a physically offensive condition by an act that serves no legitimate purpose of the suspect" This is from a Malden case that eventually made it to the MA supreme court (Comm vs Alegra).
Now these police officers were specifcally there (Im assuming, if it was a group of 5-10 on a corner) as part as a special assignement to make sure the streets were clear of people and vehicles. It was a time for heightned security, and they were there specifically to quell potential breaches of the peace and move people along. So a private citizen who comes by and harrasses police with no purpose can be charge under this statute.
Now, if the kid says one thing and the cops chase him down and beat him you could call all of them "punks with badges". Hell they are out there. But you have no idea if these cops were some of them.
Bottom line is that you and I have no clue whether these cops did anything wrong because we DONT KNOW THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
We also don't know if the kid did anything wrong because we DONT KNOW THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
Im not making a point either way, except EVERYONE gets due process of the law. Now if you want to say the cops have an easier time lying if there are no witnesses, you are 100% right. But it sounds like there were plenty of witnesses here where the FBI can get both sides and hopefully justice can be done.
Dont you want the right thing done here?
The right thing
I would like to see the right thing done. Unfortunately they stopped performing miracles 2,008 years ago and the kid's not going to be raised from the dead no matter how much paperwork is now generated and then filed away.
Go ahead and cite the laws, that's great. I asked for some shred of evidence that police intervention was necessary or useful to the public good. There's nothing in any of the stories I've seen to suggest that there was any reason other that some cop's hurt feelings to even go after the kid.
All laws are not enforced all the time. In fact, most are not, most of the time because they deal with petty matters that aren't worth the time of the police or courts and have no bearing on the public's well being. If you don't believe this just hang out on Mass Ave between Comm and Christian Science Center and see how many police officers observe how many minor illegal acts, and then notice after a while that you've seen zero effort on the part of the cops to enforce the law against any of them.
Discretion is the better part of valor, as they say. Drunk kids aren't representative of any kind of valor. Cops, on the other hand, tend to want us all to think that valor and allegiance to duty are the big reasons they get up in the morning
The police apparently exercised poor judgment because their feelings were hurt by a drunk kid, and now the kid is dead. that's really all I need to know. Honestly, you write as if this has never happened before. For my part, I've read way too damn many stories like this from all over the country... and now that cops have tasers, the problem is getting worse. I'm damned sick of hearing of out of control cops with personal issues who act out when above all else, they should be showing restraint and maturity.
Prejudging? Maybe. But as I said I've read too many credible reports of Police Gone Wild to have much patience for this parade of mischief by self-professed professionals who contribute nothing of value to their communities and who are, frankly, putting good, smart officers at risk.
ok
"The police apparently exercised poor judgment because their feelings were hurt by a drunk kid"
Again, you don't know what happened! How many times did they tell him to disperse? Once? Five times? Ten? Did the kid taunt him with his beer thinking they probably wouldnt arrest him?
You are right about laws not being enforced some or all of the time. Vagrancy statues haven't been enforced in almost 100 years, thats why you see the druggies hangning out all the time.
For my part, I've read way too damn many stories like this from all over the country..
I see 50X as many storied of gangbangers and punks committing crimes on this very blog to look at the other side.
and now that cops have tasers, the problem is getting worse.
If the Boston Police had tazers, this kid would be alive today.
Go ahead and cite the laws, that's great. I asked for some shred of evidence that police intervention was necessary or useful to the public good
No, you asked this:
"I don't think yelling insults at cops should be illegal. If it is, please cite chapter and verse, then go back and check the reports of the story, and try to show us where the cops taking time away from some actually important (?) crime in progress helped the public good in any way."
It doesnt matter what you think, it matters what the court thinks. These cops werent on patrol here. They were there to make sure the streets were moving and people werent drinking beer and taunting them. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Again, what if you were getting your ass kicked and these cops that were in charge of your area were tied up with some punk kid?
Once again you're making my point
I'd think they're absolute idiots unworthy of the job... just as they seem to have been when they diverted resources to revenge and proving-the-point as it seems happened in the matter presently under discussion.
I am glad you have remained civil in this discussion, but raising a make-believe straw man like the above isn't doing much to further your argument about something that really did happen.
Dying is really, really final, and such outcomes must never be tolerated as a possible penalty for yelling at a police officer, even if the police don't like it, even if it hurts their feelings.
I don't want police officers spending ten seconds on issues like that. Ever. Can I be more clear about this?
If a police officer turns his attention away from important matters to make believe matters just to assert authority, I consider that officer negligent, whether it's staring into a hole in the street on "detail" or beating up a drunk wiseass with a big mouth. I don't want to pay them to perform those functions - there are more important things for them to worry about. Likewise, I do not want a surgeon preoccupied changing light bulbs in the hospital. Nor do I want the guy who's fixing my car to be tied up cutting the grass in front of his shop when I really need my car to get to work.
I still want to know what really happened.
At some point a line has to be drawn. Do you let the kid start drinking right in front of you? Do you let him pour the beer out? Maybe the cops told him to leave multiple times?
Many times during these events, certain groups of police will either be more or less stringent when it comes to these minor crimes (drinking in public, walking in the street, blowing horns at 3am, partying after the superbowl.)
I just find it hard to belive that this kid says something like "hey, there must be a lot of crime on this corner", and then 10 cops chase him down, beat him up, and then let him die. I simply dont think it happend that way.
And again, you have 3 really different events here.
1) the crime
2) the arrest
3) the medical treatment
I've seen comparable events
I've seen and read about comparable events to the scenario you propose.
I find the reports credible, particularly when they're backed up by the videos i've seen to go with them.
Such gang-like behaviour on the part of police officers is documented, and should NEVER occur.
Why we don't have zero tolerance policies for Cops Gone Wild is still beyond my comprehension, given the body of evidence that it's an ongoing problem in many communities, Boston included.
Ive seen comparable events too
But its not as common where you automatically fire cops because someone dies.
A body of evidence would be if you had 10 people or so dying every year. You dont have that. the number is in single digits over a ten year period. So no, its not an "ongoing problem."
Hey, this was a public street during a time where hundreds of people were around and probably had cell phone cameras.
No one else came forward?
Of course there should be a zero tolerance policy. No one is saying otherwise.
Taser deaths
start there to get your "10 per year" requirement, then add in the deaths by conventional means... a month ago cops killed a wacked out guy who was standing on a roof - and of no immediate harm to anyone. they blasted him with a taser, causing him to fall to his death. open your eyes, Pete. You want ten? Here's 184 since 2000, or 160 in the past 5 years, depending on whose numbers you want to listen to... and these are ONLY those deaths due to tasers in the hands of cops gone wild...
http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11882
Im talking about boston police and wrongfull deaths
show me those stats.
Boston Police dont use tazers for that very reason.
And Im not arguing about tazers here. I also think they should be illegal for police to use. In theory, the tazer is supposed to be used in situations where the police dont have to throw a guys face into the sidewalk to handcuff him or even worse, shoot a person when they dont need to shoot him.
Again, Im against tazers, but Woodman would be alive if the police had them that day. It should save police time from wrestling with a guy and possible hurting him further.
hitting a guy on a roof with a tazer is probably against the use of force policy and the officer who did that should be fired.
you can't predict alternate pasts
so... statements like "would have been alive if they..." don't carry much weight
i do know one thing: if the police officers hadn't freaked out and killed the kid, he'd almost certainly be alive.
zbert here is the whole problem
You do not know that the police officers freaked out. It could have happened, but you and I dont know. Marks on the kids face doesnt mean excessive force was used.
Maybe, just maybe, the kid fled after being told he was being placed under arrest, a cop ran and tackled him, forcing the kids head to smash into the sidewalk. That would cause a death in this case, and it would be an accidental death at that.
And the phrase "they would still be alive" can be added to.
-He would be alive if he didnt mouth off to the cops (if he did mouth off to them)
-He would be alive if he didnt mouth off to the cops after he already was told to leave. (if that is what happened)
-He would be alive if he didnt run from the cops (if he did run)
-He would be alive if he wasnt drinking in public (if he was drinking in public)
-He would be alive if he didnt resist arrest (if he did resist arrest)
you forgot some possibilities
(about those marks on him, and his friends' statements)...
- laser-blasted by space aliens
- tackled by the Green Bay Packers defensive line, 2nd string (also drunk)
- run over by taxi
- run over by a taxi and then a pedicab
- suicide
- slipped on a banana peel and hit his head on a passing one-man-band
- the butler, in the pantry, with a candlestick
fuck you pete nice - does that give you authority to beat me?
You are not seriously making that argument. I can't testify to what I saw but I can read and I can tell when cops are ducking the truth. When there is conflicting testimony, you listen to both sides, observe how they behaved and draw you own conclusion. Plenty of people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence. Why not cops who broke the law and whose use of force and negligence caused brain damage and later death of of young man?
The one thing I think you're right about is that the cops decided they'd give the smart mouth kid a good beating becuase they thought he deserved it.
Who says Woodman resisted arrest? Just the cops. His freinds said he did not.
Also, even if David Woodman did resist arrest by fleeing, he was never a threat and therefore the cops use of force was unwarranted. They can't beat him becuase he resists arrest. They can disarm and neutralize with necessary and sufficient force but no more force that necessary. The force Woodman endured cut his face and cause respiratory arrest. The BPD needs to own up to the fact their policework caused the death of a man whose only crime was drinking beer from an open container.
Woodman dies as a result of injuries he endured from BPD the night the Celtics won the 2008 championship. The new season has started. When is the DA going to file a criminal complaint against the cops who beat him and against the cops who covered it up?
read and tell
people dont get convicted of crimes from what the can read and tell from newspaper articles my friend.
And its the FBI not the DA that is doing the investigation. Im also pretty sure Woodmans friend have no idea what constitutes "resisting arrest".
Where did I say they gave him a beating? I said "if" they gave him a beating that would be wrong.
Trust me, cops know all the people out there that have cameras in a public area. No moron is going to beat someone for something so stupid as drinking a beer.
And can you tell me where you read the cops "beat him"? Was he punched in the head? By a fist? by a baton? Kicked? thrown to the ground?
You can't tell me because you are basing your information on 4th party information (people said they were there tell a reporter who tells an editor).
evidence - whether under oath or in the newspaper
You seem to have trouble grasping the concept.
Witnesses make statements in court under oath as well as to reporters. And there is physical evidence. All of it counts.
The only statement the police made was made by the commissioner. He stated there was no use of excessive force. I always thought that was a weird thing to assert. First, who asked? And second, how does he know, he wasn't there? There report was not written by the police who were there. It was written by a supervisor who was not at the scene. Smells like a cover up Pete.
Unfortunately for the police, the physical evidence demonstrates otherwise. The perpetrator - you know the one carrying an open containter - had cuts on his face and respiratory failure. That's known as physical evidence Pete. No one disputes it.
Follow the chronology. Young man, mid-20's walking through Kenmore with cup of alleged beer no cuts on face, heart and respiration in working order. Observes nine policeman on corner, makes a comment about crime. Minutes later, after young man has been subdued and arrested, he has cuts on his face and he has stopped breathing. It's evidence Pete. It's circumstantial because he COULD have been hit by a truck. BY even the police are not saying that's what happened. Instead, they're saying he fled and the had to use force, but not excessive force, and that's how he ended up with facial abrasions and respiratory failure. Um, it doesn't look good Pete. Rather damning I'd say. Spin all you want. No one is buying it. One things for sure. That kid will never mouth off again.
Then what happened, all nine policemen (with something to hide?) go off duty immediate to end to their mental health, a mental health break if you will. Not one of them files a report about the "incident". Not one.
When we hear about duty and honor and protecting and serving, I would expect that to come with a degree of forthright honesty. But not one of them will speak. Not one.
Pete, you seem the think you are a defense attorney, trying to caste reasonable doubt. Tough case isn't it? I'd go for the plea deal.
evidence
"The only statement the police made was made by the commissioner"
There is an FBI investigation here, so this statement will be 100% false. And you still have never seen the reports! This is the whole problem here! Anytime there is a use of force by officers, every single officer has to do a report! This is not public record since there is a Federal investigation at this time so you will not see the reports at this time! Why dont people understand that?!
Unfortunately for the police, the physical evidence demonstrates otherwise. The perpetrator - you know the one carrying an open containter - had cuts on his face and respiratory failure. That's known as physical evidence Pete. No one disputes it.
This same physical evidence would be there if the kid took out a knife, charged the group of officers and attempted to stab one of them. Im not disputing that evidence. The cops charged him with resisting arrest, anyone who would resist arrest might have scratches on his face. That is not the question here. The question is whether he resisted arrest in the first place. His freinds said he didnt, but I doubt they know the legal term for resisting arrest. If the police tell him to stop (a seizure) and he runs, he is resiting arrest under the law. It doesnt matter what anyone things about that, it is the law.
"heart and respiration in working order"
He had a prexisting heart condition.
"Instead, they're saying he fled and the had to use force, but not excessive force, and that's how he ended up with facial abrasions and respiratory failure. Um, it doesn't look good Pete. Rather damning I'd say."
Of course it doesnt look good. But if you are under arrest, and run, I am going to assume that the police tackled him to place him under arrest. This "fleeing", is an "active resistance" towards a legal arrest on any force contininum chart (the legal framework for "excessive force"). The police are then allowed to use specific tactics to subdue the force of the subject. An active resistance would warrant the police to "tackle" the suspect probably forcing him to go face first into the sidewalk and leaving him with scratches on his face. So just because he has scratches on his face doesnt mean the police used "excessive force". And that has held up in a court of law thousands of times.
"Then what happened, all nine policemen (with something to hide?) go off duty immediate to end to their mental health, a mental health break if you will. Not one of them files a report about the "incident". Not one."
Again, you have no idea about this. The case is under federal investigation, so there will obvioulsy be testimony from officers in that aspect, and the policy (I believe) requires each officer involved in use of force to submit a report and I guarentee when someone dies, everyone would file a report. The public would not have access to these reports untill the investigation is over. This helps both the victim (Woodaman) and suspects (the police) in this case.
"Pete, you seem the think you are a defense attorney, trying to caste reasonable doubt. Tough case isn't it? I'd go for the plea deal"
Im not saying its tough or not tough. But when you have a bunch of people writing things when they have no clue what the legal definition of excessive force is, or think the officers didnt write reports becuase they cant google them, then there is a problem of public perception.
What the public should be looking at is wheter or not cops did that extra kick or strike while this kid was on the ground or in handcuffs. That's excessive force, not just showing that the kid had scratches on his face. That is not excessive force.
And sadly, this kids prexisting heart condition will probably be enough reasonable doubt to get these officers off, whether or not they used excessive force.
Eggshell skull
He had a prexisting heart condition.
"Criminals must take their victims as they find them."
Look up "eggshell skull"; it's not a proper criminal defense to say that your victim's pre-existing condition is what killed him. It's still your fucking fault he suffocated to death faced-down on the pavement in cuffs...because if he hadn't been, he'd be alive.
I can't wait to hear your defense of the Victoria Snelgrove shooting. What, her face had a pre-existing condition making it susceptible to pepperballs entering her brain via her eyesockets?
brett the dumbass selective reader
Did I say he died because of it? No. The quote was in response to
"his heart and respiration in working order"
His heart was not in working order.
Snelgrove died because Boston Police did not follow policy when using the pepperball gun which should not have been aimed at the face or head.
Unless you want to make up some law you found on the internet and just charge the cops with it? Your good at making things up Brett.
shameful police cover-up
Reggie Lewis had a heart condition and died as a result when he had heart failure at basketball practice one day.
David Woodman also played basketball and had done so frequently and within days of when he ran into BPD in riot gear in Kenmore Square.
David Woodman did not endure respiratory failure as a result of playing vigorous games of basketball, he endured respiratory failure as a consequence of a violent encounter with the BPD in riot gear.
In fact, David Woodman's cardiovascular fitness was quite good. The heart condition Pete Nice likes to identify as the reason for David Woodman's death was corrected with surgery when he was a few weeks old. He had no heart illness in the 22 years that followed.
The police, eager to avoid responsibility for David's death, accessed his personal health files and have attempted to use this information to defend against their own negligence and the manslaughter of David Woodman. It's shameful.
cradle of liberty
David Woodman was killed because the BPD officers lost their tempers when David said something smart about crime on a corner in Kenmore Square, one night after an evening with friends in a bar.
It's ironic that this happened in the cradle of liberty where in the 1700's American patriots rejected the tyranny of King George, whose soldiers entered people's houses and took what they wanted.
another assumption
you know what that makes.
"lost their tempers"
assumption
"Im sure" = assumption
"every single one of them did not have to write a report" = incorrect assumption
"if he didnt resist" = assumption
"if he didnt mouth off to the riot police in the first place" = assumption
100% right
Theres my whole point. I even put the word "assume" in quotes half the time because its the only fair way to look at the whole thing. When have I ever said any of these thing are "facts". From start to finish all my points are based on assumptions on both sides.
Maybe you live in a world
Maybe you live in a world where facts are illusive. I don't.
Closing the discussion
E-mail me if you think I'm wrong, but I think we've gotten to the "you suck/no you suck more" point in the discussion.