Hey, there! Log in / Register
Police to lock down North Station, Fenway Park areas at halftime
By adamg on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 2:54pm
Boston Police say anybody not ensconced in a bar in those areas by the time Madonna starts to sing on Sunday will be turned away from the area. And people who are in a bar who leave after she starts belting it out will be escorted out of the area.
In its listing of Important Super Bowl Safety Tips for Patriots Fans Looking to Behave Like Champions, police say that in addition to massive presence around North Station and Kenmore Square, they will also "employ extensive use of video-cameras" to capture evidence of hooliganism.
The document warns that five or more people "tumultuously assembled" on the street can be ordered to disperse immediately.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Does anybody else really want
Does anybody else really want to schedule a polite, quiet march against violence and walk it right through these areas? This is insane.
Excellent use of tax money.
Excellent use of tax money.
Let me guess, this is how the meeting went:
"hey boss, me and the boys were wondering how much overtime we could make this here weekend"
"no problem cadet, how about all the overtime? Ill submit a ludicrous amount of personal requests, and we'll see if they all get approved"
*approved*
Pay now or pay later
We all eventually end up paying either way. Whether it's overtime to try and prevent an incident, or money spent repairing damaged public property.
Scare tactics
Let's test your theory that there will be rioting and property damage in excess of the extreme expense of this crackdown.
How about it?
Of course you sheep and the cops would never go for that because ... no overtime, no pushing people around, no bullying = no fun!
I carry a little rock that has prevented me from dying from pieces of satellites crashing from the skies - right?
We don't have to look back far
Are riots and property damage within the realm of the possible? Absolutely.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/anatomy_of_...
I'm someone who's political
I'm someone who's political views are way, way over on the left end of the spectrum. I usually laugh when I hear conservatives fret about how liberals take away freedom, etc. In a sense, to me what the conservatives claim doesn't fit. People on the left (to me) represent MORE freedom, more liberty. BUT THEN, stuff like this comes up. Everything ultra-liberal Boston and Massachusetts does reeks of exactly what the conservatives claim. There's a football game on, and I can't go to Kenmore Square or North Station? I can't have a beer after the 7th inning, bars have to black out their windows when the B's are in the playoffs? This is freedom? This is liberty? This is "liberal" Boston?
there's nothing remotely
there's nothing remotely "liberal" about it.
the beer after the 7th inning isn't just here though, it's everywhere.
You have the right
to go wherever you want on public property, provided you DO NOT IMPINGE on the rights of others.
The problem is that we, as a city, have proven that we cannot watch a Superbowl or World Series without getting drunk and wrecking things.
Yes, you have the right to get drunk and watch sports. NO, you DO NOT have the right to then go out and smash windows and hurt people.
How is that difficult to understand?
Not paid to be thought police
The problem is that we, as a nation, have decided that you have to first wreck things to have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of a crime. Treating the public as if it has already committed a crime beforehand and acting as if everyone is criminally negligent just for existing is unconstitutional. Allowing that mindset to fester as "operational planning" among our police forces and elected officials leads to further militarization and overt control of our society instead of leaving control in the hands of the citizens.
Do you lock all of your children in a closet every time they come home from school because one of them made a mess of your house?
I agree with you on the constitutional level
and I haven't locked my son in a closet (yet), but he also hasn't done more than leave Lego all over the living room. He is also required to pick up his own mess.
Initially, I guess I would just like to see those responsible for damage and injury be held responsible. That's just not happening.
Read the announcement more carefully.
They're shutting down the Fenway and TD North areas, not the stations or the areas around them.
Shutting down one of the city's busiest bus stations and a station that has two subway lines and a commuter rail...would be idiotic. They're also major thoroughfares road-wise.
Yep, that's why I put "areas" in the headline
However, I did change "Kenmore Square" to "Fenway Park," since they're obviously talking about the bars right around the baseball park rather than the bar in the Hotel Commonwealth. As for TD Garden vs. North Station, um, what's the difference?
Probably includes Kenmore too
They usually keep BU people up Comm Ave and funnel the Landsdowne bar crowds away from the Green Monster and Brookline Ave bridge to prevent congregation in the Square itself where people came together in 2004. From the Longwood side, they stop you around around Landmark on Brookline Ave. as a pinch point.
And...
Not only do you first say they are shutting down the areas, but not the areas (huh?)...but where are you supposed to go once you come up from the station? Hover in space and fly past the shutdown area to get where you wanted to go?
They are effectively making those stops useless because if you come up from the subway you're going to be in the middle of Overpolicing Grounds Zero and immediately told to get the hell out of there. You won't be allowed down Atlantic or up Brookline Ave towards Longwood, citizen. It's for our own protection!
Basically, they're thought policing at this point.
"Win or lose, we *know* what you want to do...you want to riot in these particular sports-associated locations. We *know* what would happen if we didn't turn these areas into mini-police states, so we are warning you now that we are ahead of you on this. We *know* how you will act on Sunday if we don't take control of you, so we are planning on taking control earlier than you would likely choose to act as we *know* you are going to act. This gives us the upper-hand and stops you from doing what we *know* you would otherwise do."
That is both creepy, derogatory, and NOT acceptable within the frameworks of our Constitution. Last I checked, we pay the police to enforce the laws when they're broken. We do NOT pay them to prevent the public from being the public just in case a law might be broken. I don't care how much easier this makes their job. This has basically crossed a line and we need to know how to put them back on the right side of it again.
If you don't like an
If you don't like an occasional urban riot... well then move to Newton.
Clearly they are responding
Clearly public safety officials are responding to the danger to the public posed by the prospect Madonna performing at half-time.
I'll be watching the game at a house party and will go hang in the kitchen in the unlikely event that the channel is not changed.
Police state.
The militarization of our police departments is getting more pronounced every year and it's only going to get worse. The freedoms that we once enjoyed as American citizens is slipping away day by day and nobody is bothering to notice. This country is headed for the crapper.
How is this constitutional?
And why does it stink of:
"disperse in the name of the crown"
Hyperbole: Speaking of Patriots
Me thinks that comparing measures meant to minimize the worst aspects of a post superbowl celebration with the Boston Massacre might be a bit hyperbolic.
One is protesting onerous taxation without representation along with the forced garrisoning of troops in citizens homes and the other is a crowd of people, mostly young who are excited and a bit liquor fueled.
In one instance everyone will get up the next morning and go about their business. In the other instance, the protests marked the beginning of 8 years of war on American soil.
To make the comparison is to cheapen the memory of those who participated in those protests.
Methinks (one word), you're
Methinks (one word), you're no genius. The meaning was that both enforcement measures are huge overreactions.
The Boston Massacre is a bad example
The Boston Massacre had little to nothing to do with taxation without representation, and everything to do with a mob getting out of hand. Furthermore, six of the eight British soldiers (represented by future President of the United States and author of our state Constitution, John Adams) were acquitted of any crime, and those who were convicted, were convicted of a lesser manslaughter charge. Their commander was acquitted of any wrongdoing, as the Court found that he did not order them to fire.
Yup
And it all could have been prevented from deescalation, on both sides.
This sort of police "strong" showing fuels riots, it doesn't abate them.
Not police showing during massacre.
Boston had s police force. This was an action by a garrisoned military force.
And, while I have many objections to the BPD plan I don't think fear of riot escalation is an issue at all.
Their heavy-handed tactics will allow them to effectively manage the crowd. There really won't be a crowd.
Look at laissez faire Vancouver approach and the results there.
This isn't the end of democracy, folks..
This is the police trying to keep a bunch of morons from causing damage to the city over a fucking football game, not the sequel to "V for Vendetta" ferchrissakes!
Take it from me, who was one of those morons jumping on a paddy wagon after the 86 Celtics win. A billy bat to the head restored my civility real quick.
I was thinking more "Fort Apache - The Bronx"
You are correct, sir.
The police, for the most part, want to make sure that the people who want to celebrate do so feeling safe that they can, without having to dodge some drunken moron's beer muscles, thrown rocks and furniture, and the worry of a celebration degenerating into anarchy.
Really?
So why is it, then, that the police are telling me that I can't walk to and from my office (a block from North Station) without fear of arrest?
What?
Everyday? From now on?
At all?
But you welcome our new overlords, certainly.
To paraphrase a beauty queen: "have faith in your freedoms". (yep. worship them, don't even try to exercise them).
It's a patrol wagon
Or prisoner transport vehicle. The term you used is derogatory and anti-Irish.
Hey, I'm only half
anti-Irish. On my mother's side and I have the celtic knot tattoo to prove it.
So what happens to the 14 commuter trains
that depart from or arrive at North Station after 8 pm on Sunday? Not to mention the Amtrak Downeaster, which also has an arrival and a departure then.
last time...
The last time that we went through this, when the Bruins won the Stanley Cup While playing in Vancouver, the police shut down the North Station subway station while the Commuter Rail station stayed open, albeit behind a fenced blockage at least a block away.
It seems crazy to me to shut down on of the bigger subway stations in the system. But then a few days later, they closed Park Street station during the Bruins victory parade, confirming their crazy thinking. Nothing like shutting down the biggest subway stations in the middle of the day.
Good ol' "Liberal" Boston
1) Deny gun owner's their 2nd amendment rights. CHECK
2) Limit freedom of movement and expression - 1st amendment. CHECK
3) ???
4) Profit!
This lib-con meme is so played
I mean, really, "liberal" and "conservative" are just internet darts at this point, aren't they? Are restrictive police on the left or right politically? We've got a "liberal" president who assassinates mouthy US citizens and a "conservative" candidate who seems to believe in free love ... so c'mon already, let's find meaningful labels to stick on each other. (I suggest Flemings and Walloons, ya goofy Flem...)
To your specific points: My left buttock is even now resting atop a Class A Large Capacity License to Carry Firearms; you're welcome for that image. I'm sure my Second Amendment rights have never been denied (except maybe by that pesky metal detector at City Hall), but perhaps mileage may vary for those with felony records ... I just re-read the First Amendment to find "freedom of movement" - maybe I have the expurgated version? it's the one with "suckers" crossed out - and while freedom of speech is in there, it has always been subject to reasonable rules (such as not being allowed to disturb other people's peace because you're feeling daffy about the results of a TV reality program).
I can't believe that keeping a mob of kneewalking yobs from shrieking in the street and destroying property, to mark the victory or defeat of a pack of strangers in a kids' game hundreds of miles away, will spur a constitutional crisis. Nor do I see how the city of Boston, liberal, conservative or anarchist, is profiting from that (though individual cops might pick up some extra scratch). But I'm neither a football fan nor a loud drunk, so maybe my perspective is screwy.
No
You have a profound misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights.
Actually, Lanny..
It would seem you both have a misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights, since the "freedom of movement" is not part of the Bill of Rights and actually stems from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, and actually has to do with travel more than, you know, just being outside.
I think (maybe?) what "ijustworkhere" is referring to is the "freedom of assembly," which is in the 1st Amendment. Although, again, that has more to do with protesting than just being outside.
Either way, I don't think Boston is acting that crazy or impeding on anyone's right in such an egregious manner. I think making an effort to prevent massive property damage and unnescesary "rioting" is kind of a good thing.
Gosh, I hope not
Because that'd mean the Supreme Court does as well. The right to travel "finds no explicit mention in the Constitution," being seen as a fundamental human right (US v Guest, 1966) - not one embedded in the First Amendment.
If by "movement" you mean "peaceably assemble," even that isn't unrestricted. See Cox v. Louisiana, 1965, about how "patrolling, marching and picketing on streets and highways" isn't "pure speech" and doesn't always have First Amendment protections. But add "lawyer" to "fan" and "loud drunk" on the list of things I'm not.