Hey, there! Log in / Register
An incident on Boylston Street
By adamg on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:22pm
Classic Boston thing: Guy in car veers towards guy in crosswalk, who swings at car with his umbrella. Only the guy in the car is an off-duty cop. Stephen Arlowe videoed what happened next.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Red Sox Uniform
Blue pants and a red sox shirt is the uniform of the day for cops doing details. What was the final outcome did they shake hands and apologize like men or are we going to have a media frenzy and lawsuits along with marches proclaiming 'geek lives matter'?
Malicious Damage to a Motor Vehicle, always a felony
Shame on the police for not arresting the pedestrian who committed a felony by wacking the car with his umbrella. Malicious damage to a motor vehicle, or the attempt to commit same, is always a felony if the vehicle is worth over $250, regardless of the amount of damage. One doesn't even need to be a police officer to make that arrest, any citizen can make a felony arrest if they know the suspect "in fact committed" the felony. There is also no obligation for a motorist to yield on a green light when the pedestrian has a don't walk light yet still jumps out. I've handled several fatal pedestrian accidents where the motorist was cleared when the pedestrian entered the crosswalk without benefit of signal. It's sad that the officers were intimidated by the camera. Anyone who bashes a car with an umbrella should be in jail.
Self defense
Shame on the cop who tried to kill someone by irresponsibly and illegally piloting a motor vehicle.
Oh, wait ... that's okay because he is COP (get out of murder free) with a CAR (get out of murder free).
Cop should be in jail - and you should probably too for all the illegal things you likely did as a cop.
as usual, you are way off.
as usual, you are way off. the suspect/victim (lets just call him the civilian) admitted he was jaywalking (according to the police report).
Regardless of what some of these pretend traffic engineers post on here, legally (and by engineering design standards) a motorist does not yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk when that crosswalk is controlled by a pedestrian signal.
Period. Its the first fucking sentence of the MGL (which posters on here conveniently didnt paste when they were selectively using later sentences for their false argument).
The motorist does not have to (and should not) stop for a pedestrian who is jaywalking. Stopping at a green light for a jaywalker, not only screws up traffic, its an easy way to get rear ended.
Jaywalking should be punishable by attempted murder?
n/t
Damage?
Mal D requires damage. I can't seem to get any info on whether there was damage to the windshield. If so your analysis is otherwise correct.
Wrong! The Damage to the
Wrong! The Damage to the vehicle has to be greater not how much the vehicles is worth!
Just fire the cop
I am so sick of this crap. The police have a wide range of powers over ordinary citizens. It is only the ubiquity of cell phone cameras that this stuff moves beyond "he said, she said" with actual proof.
The facts are clear. The person in the Lincoln got out, assaulted and battered another person. He should have been arrested on the spot. If you or I did that, it would be a car ride to the station.
The fact that it was an off-duty cop shows blatant disregard for the law. It also shows an abusive personality and a violent temper. After serving time for assault and battery, he should be under review for fitness for duty as a "peace officer."
The police should be treated MORE HARSHLY, not LESS, than ordinary citizens because of their position in society.
You're sick of it?
What are you sick of? Cops who don't allow themselves to be assaulted and have their property damaged? You weren't there and neither was I, but from what I saw, the cop didn't brutalize anyone. I'm sick of dumping all over the same people we look for anytime we need help.
Discussing ROW, Jaywalking ? This is about abusive LE
For those who study organizational dynamics, it is well known that there is some percentage of people who simply do not believe that they necessarrily have to abide by society’s rules of conduct or decorum. In fact, one of the more important stiudies of how policing should occur in modern society (released by the National Institutde of Health in 1970) identified that there are some (a small percentage to be sure) of law enforcement professionals who use excessive force simply they believe that it is appropriate for police officers to use physical force against citizens as they see fit.
Such officers may be motivated by a belief that they and their fellow officers hold the power to mete out justice on the street. They may have sought out a career in law enforcement because it affords the opportunity to use physical force against others, they may have learned to enjoy the use of force through their time on the job, or they may believe that it is okay to use force beyond what is necessary to accomplish legitimate police objectives for some other reason.
In short, such officers fit the bill of what is sometimes referred to as the “brutal cop.” These are the people who intentionally uses more force than is needed with some regularity. Tthese officers regularly hit, punch, bludgeon, or otherwise brutalize citizens with whom they come into contact. Whether this particular police officer falls into this category is a matter for review and analysis in a process that is fair and objective.
I think the public understands the extraordinary challenges law enforcement professionals face everyday, recognize the enormous contributions and sacrifices police officers make to keeping society from unraveling, and the toll that police work takes on not only the indivdual officer but also their familes.
Where the public loses confidence, however, is when we never hear about the outcome of when a rouge officer violates the fundamental terms and conditions of the great authority and power they are given. There is a perception that even in the most egregious cases, meaningful penalties and sanctions are never taken.
When bad behavior or illegal action is not punished, it is a signal that it is tollerated. One of the fundamental components of addressing police misconduct is for officers to know that if they break the rules or violate the law, they will suffer negative consequences just like any other member of society. .
However, the threat of punishment cannot deter unless those who are liable to misbehave believe that such punishment will actually be forthcoming. This has to come from the top of the organization. A marker has to be put down that excessive force can cost you your job as well as those who participate in covering up incidents. I believe good cops, which is the vast majority of the BPD, will welcome such clarity and resolve to deal with the bad apples.
Excellent post, Davd-From-Boston.
The last paragraph of your post especially cuts to the quick, because it points out the fact that mere threats, if they're not followed up with actual punishment, such as the loss of a job by cops who either constantly use excessive force, and habitually abuse civilians, in general, be it verbally or physically, or by cops who act as silent by-standers when fellow cops perpetrate such incidents. There should also be a three-strikes-and-they're-out policy if such punishment is actually meted out to rogue cops, as a means of giving a rogue cop a bit of a chance to redeem him/herself and change their actions/behaviors.
Nobody's excusing the cop's abusive behavior toward the J-Walker
Jaywalking, however, is colossally stupid behavior, which can endanger both the pedestrian and the driver(s), because not only can pedestrians get hit by cars, but they can cause accidents, as well, such as a driver being rear-ended, and possibly being seriously injured, not to mention costly damage to property. One doesn't have to approve of the behavior of the cop in question to realize that, and to say that pedestrians themselves are not without blame if they J-Walk, or cross anywhere else other than a crosswalk.
Clearly spoken by somewhere
Clearly spoken by somewhere who never actually walks on Boston's sidewalks.
Pedestrians will start obeying walk signs when they don't have to wait a minute for a 10-second walk cycle and when drivers stop blowing through lights that have turned red, as the walk signal counts down to zero.
Saul, are you talking to me? If so, hold on a minute!
As a resident of this area, I, too, have walked on plenty of Boston's sidewalks and crossed plenty of Boston's streets, so I can speak about this.
It's agreed that the WALK lights should be on a little bit longer, and should come on faster, but that doesn't mean that a pedestrian shouldn't wait until the WALK light turns on in their favor. I'd rather be safe than either sorry or dead, then to risk crossing a street despite a DONT WALK sign.
You're Right
Police leadership needs to end the Blue Wall of Silence. Cops who speak up when they see wrongdoing need to be protected instead of hounded out of the force. Their management, colleagues, and unions need to stand by them.
Practices like you describe above could have prevented the recent situation in Medford where the off duty cop chased down and threatened to murder a citizen who made a mistake driving through a rotary.
No Rights for Cops
So some guy who thinks he's entitled to cross against the lights, takes a hissy-fit when somebody doesn't give him his way and attempts to damage property over it. Then, when the guy gets out of the car and chases him down and doesn't hit him from what I can see, and brings him back to the scene to await police, some other guy who shows up halfway through the incident and begins filming. Are we to the point where a cop is in trouble just because he appears on film? This cop did nothing wrong in the footage taken by the "do-gooder". I guess because he's a cop, he supposed to just allow himself to be abused and have his property vandalized and move along. No values in this country anymore. Don't let the cops wear leather jackets anymore, they frighten people. It's funny.l-- when the TPF were bashing in the heads of Hyde Park and Southie busing protesters, these same liberal do-holders were on their feet cheering them on.
You're not completely correct here, Arthur.
Here's why:
First of all, while it's true that the people down in Southie, Hyde Park, Charlestown and other parts of Boston during busing did act rather disgustingly, the TPF did overreact. Being a white liberal myself, however, I myself was never a huge fan of mandatory school busing, because I, too, felt that it was very divisive and failed to get to the root of the problem, but that's another issue for another day. I was not cheering the TPF on, but, they did understandably retaliate when they'd had enough of civilians down in Southie, Hyde Park and other parts of Boston, assaulting them, throwing rocks and bottles, or whatever, cussing them out, shoving them, and calling the TPF rather disgusting names, as well. There's only so much abuse that people who maintain order under such circumstances will take. It's agreed, however, that roughing up people indiscriminately, even those who weren't taking part in the rock-and bottle throwing, however, is also unacceptable.
I'll also add, however, that bringing the TPF (Tactical Patrol Force) into Southie and other sections of Boston to maintain and keep order during the heyday of mandatory school busing was a colossally stupid move. Had Judge W. Arthur Garrity brought in Federal Marshalls to enforce his policy and maintain order, instead of making the city deal with it alone, things might not have turned out the way they did, either.
Yo, officer, what kind of
Yo, officer, what kind of morons do you take us for?
The timing of the lights at the intersection means if the guy was jaywalking, then the driver was running a red.
Seems to me that there was a
Seems to me that there was a bit of rage with the cop. I think he overreacted. Bet that cop is working on a nice, deep scratch on his window to support his actions. lol
As I've pointed out on another post, (but it bears repeating),
While the cop's abusive behavior towards the J-Walker was totally inexcusable, and unacceptable, and wrong, the fact that the cop almost hit the J-Walker also underscores the dangers of J-walking. That's why it's better not to J-Walk, but to wait for the WALK light to go on. Many places have pedestrian lights, where a button can be pushed, so that one will be able to safely cross the street.
ha
I thought we were talking about Boston?
Have you ever walked in Boston?
Traffic lights are timed for vehicles. Period. Walk buttons, if they even work, give you five seconds before the "flashing" begins. Pedestrians are an afterthought.
If one was to wait for a walk signal at every crossing, it would take hours to walk across the city.
Rage?
I never saw the cop yell. Never swore. Never punched, slapped, or kicked. Never slammed the head on ground as is alleged. No visible bleeding or injuries to the alleged vandal. An off duty cop had his car vandalized by somebody and he chased the guy, caught him, and brought him back to the scene to await on-duty officers. What would you do if somebody hit the car you were in with an unknown object and ran? Good for the cop.
If it were me, and I was
If it were me, and I was crossing when the don't walk sign was on, I would not hit the car's window. HOWEVER, if I felt the driver saw me and was purposefully trying to scare me by taking the corner fast, I might very well be tempted to hit his window.
What a disgrace!
Manhandling someone and telling him he is under arrest is an Abuse of Power! I wonder what really happened to David Woodman and how he really died in Boston Police Custody.
Scoop
I so enjoy reading the Globe, where I can relive many of the news posts I found on UHub a day or two before.
143 comments and counting
Imagine if a bike had been involved!
Another way to approach this might be...
to start with the question (in a light most favorable to the PO): assuming that the pedestrian was jay walking, is that an arrest-able offense?
If not, why did the officer pursue him?
Secondly, once the officer placed him into custody, why didn't cite the Miranda warning?
If the pedestrian was physically resisting arrest, why didn't the officer place him in handcuffs?
If the pedestrian had committed a crime, why didn't the officer immediately identify himself as a police officer?
What are the SOPs when an off duty PO observes a crime that necessitates the arrest of the suspect...that is, did he call into the dispatcher and request backup?
Incidentally, if the pedestrian is alleged to have cracked the officer window (or not) why weren't pictures taken of that window by the responding officers?
If the pedestrian was able to use his umbrella with sufficient force to crack a window, why didn't the arresting officer relieve the suspect of the umbrella and/or why wasn't the umbrella confiscated by the on duty arriving police officers?
Back to the window, since it seems that a cracked window is an inherent part of this matter, why was the window wiped clean thus "destroying" evidence?
One last question: 2 state trooper & 3 or more Bpd officers to response to a jaywalking incident?
Been out of town so I'm a
Been out of town so I'm a little late to this party, but the story appears to be gaining national traction.
This case is pretty cut-and-dry...
A terrible off-duty cop in a bad mood driving through the Back Bay, runs into someone who irks him at just the wrong time, and the cops feels as though he has authority over another civilian.
Definite power trip gone WAY too far, and he should absolutely be fired, no questions asked. Any other outcome would only be further embarrassment to the BPD.
Officers of the law, whether on duty or off, simply should never behave in this manner.
This soon-to-be former officer is an embarrassment to himself, his family, and his city.
What will
the Patrol Officers' Union do to protect this guy from discipline or firing?
concurrent walk signal
There's definitely inconsistency within the span of a few blocks (who'd have guessed).
At Boylston and Clarendon, pedestrians have a walk signal to cross Clarendon as drivers from Boylston turn onto it.
https://goo.gl/maps/6Dp8CpjVkzz
Street View shows that at Arlington, where the incident occurred, pedestrians have a "don't walk" signal when drivers have the green.
https://goo.gl/maps/1WEfKH9RQUF2
Quibble all you want about jaywalking and semantics, but when pedestrians clearly have the right away at one intersection and then don't at an identical intersection two blocks away, are we really faulting the pedestrian for not following the signal?
And don't get me started on the countless intersections where pedestrians have "don't walk" signal when there is absolutely no conflicting auto traffic, and have to wait a minute to get a few-second walk signal, if you're lucky, after pressing a button.
What you're seeing on
What you're seeing on Streetsview is that the walk signal turns red before the driver's signal does.
However, it;s our city's charming custom to turn the signal red early to goad the pedestrians into hurrying across. At that point there will still be pedestrians crossing, and it remains the driver's duty to yield.
Not a charming custom
but an established national standard. from the 2009 MUTCD:
Good point. The next time I'm
Good point. The next time I'm by the Public Garden I'll have to check out that intersection.
Though maybe I should first look for any thugs wearing Sox attire?
Just went by there and this
Just went by there and this intersection is a walk-sign-both-directions one. When Boylston traffic has the green, pedestrians across Arlington have a red. But few drivers make the turn and pedestrians ignore it. And why shouldn't they, when two blocks away they do have a walk signal in the same situation?
And funny isn't it how Officer Sox was in law enforcement mode when his precious car was allegedly marred but not when he saw someone committing a traffic offense (crossing against the light).
This is the comment that gets it right
Amen, Saul. There is absolutely no consistency in Boston traffic lights and light cycles.
Some intersections have four-way walk signals, which is by far the safest and best solution. One example: Clarendon and Columbus Streets. For those familiar, you know you are going to get the four-way walk signal. That allows you to cross the street diagonally(!) which is actually the norm in many international cities. Hey, you don't have to wait for two light cycles to get to the other side. Don't block the box!
Other intersections ONLY give you a walk signal if you hit the button. Miss the light by two seconds, you have to wait several minutes for the next cycle.
Other intersections don't have walk signs at all. Or have a green ball or even a green right turn arrow at the same time as a walk signal. Or the walk button is broken, or cars will plow through a No Right on Red without looking, or the lights are so poorly timed that the best way to cross is against the signal because the traffic pattern is screwed up. Or my personal favorite, the simultaneous red and yellow light in all directions (do they still have that on Beacon Street in Somerville near the old Foodmaster/Whole Foods?)
Unless there is consistency, or you just happen to be familiar with a particular intersection, there is no way of knowing what you're going to encounter.
And it is still never advisable to hit a pedestrian if you think that person doesn't have the right of way.
If there's a 4-way walk, you
If there's a 4-way walk, you have to wait through two phases just to cross one street, as most people are. (Or you cross with the parallel green despite the don't walk light, since there's no reason not to do so at most intersections.)
If there's concurrent walks, you have to wait through at most one phase to cross one street. If you happen to be crossing diagonally, you cross whichever way is green when you get there, and then you cross the other way.
Hey, Mr. Red Sox police guy,
Hey, Mr. Red Sox police guy,
Thanks for roughing up the umbrella smudger!
Wow. How'd you get him to walk so funny?
And how's that testosterone prescription working for you?
Boylston Street incident
Every time I see that cop frog marching that guy who's about half his size and stumbling to stay on his feet, all I can thing of is a camp guard at one of the Nazi concentration camps handling a prisoner. Granted nothing else about this incident is comparable to anything that happened in such camps, but the bullying overuse of force conjures up that image every time. (And, no, you don't have to accept everything cops do, regardless of how unlawful it may be, in order to feel free to call them when you need them to do their job.)
Pages