Hey, there! Log in / Register
Police: Man involved with Boylston Street tussle with off-duty cop wasn't slammed to ground - he tripped and fell
By adamg on Tue, 09/20/2016 - 5:33pm
Mancini makes a point as video of incident plays.
Boston Police officials said today an internal-affairs investigation into a widely publicized May incident involving a man and an off-duty cop whose car he swatted with an umbrella showed the police officer did nothing wrong; in fact, he did everything he was trained to do after an apparent felony.
At a press conference today, BPD Commissioner William Evans and Internal Affairs Superintendent Frank Mancini said six civilian witnesses - and the man himself - agreed that Officer Edward Barrett did not pull the man's hair and did not "slam him to the ground" once, let alone the two times alleged by the narrator of a cell-phone video. Police said a second cell-phone video, as well as video from a surveillance camera, showed that as well.
"The civilian was not slammed to the ground; he tripped and fell," Evans said. Mancini said the man began to run as soon as he swung at the SUV window and that he told investigators he did not even realize Barrett was chasing him until after he fell and Barrett caught up with him and "contained" him.
Mancini said Barrett was in his SUV, second in line to go on Boylston Street at Arlington on May 24 when the light turned green. The car in front went and as he began to accelerate, the man darted into the crosswalk, against the light, hit Barrett's window and then ran to the Boylston sidewalk and down towards Berkeley. Thinking the window had cracked - which would be a felony - Barrett pulled over and began running after him. About a half block down, the man tripped and fell to the ground, they said. Barrett caught up to him and, as he was trained to do at the police academy, immobilized him with his knee on his back until he could help him up and walk him back to the SUV.
Mancini, playing a video of the incident, stopped it at this point to note that the man's hands were under him and that Barrett was right to immobilize him because he did not know whether the man had a weapon or was reaching for one. He said the only injury the man suffered was a scrape on his elbow from where he fell. His glasses even stayed on his face, which would not be the case if his head were slammed to the ground, he said.
Police said Barrett asked the man videoing the arrest, who was doing a running commentary about it, to call 911 and he refused, police said. Two other people did call 911, uniformed officers arrived and, once they realized the man had not cracked Barrett's window, they let him go, because no felony had been committed.
Mancini continued that as his department investigated the incident, two people who had seen accounts and the man's photo called police to report they had had run-ins with him as well - both on Dartmouth Street in front of Back Bay station. One of the two, a middle-aged woman, said she remembered him vividly because she was stopped at a light when a pedestrian came up to her car and began screaming at her and looking "like a lunatic."
Evans acknowledged that the scene with Barrett's knee on the man's back "doesn't look pretty," but he said the officer acted in good faith after what he felt was a felony and in dealing with a man who was running away. He said he doubted anybody else would have just driven on after they thought somebody had smashed their car window. He and Mancini added that they would hope an off-duty officer would have chased after the guy even if it were somebody else's car. "If someone commits a crime, I expect my officers to act," even if off duty, Evans said.
Evans added that Barrett, a patrol officer in West Roxbury, has an excellent record, but will undergo some re-training - Evans said that once a crowd began to gather, Barrett could have done a better job identifying himself as a Boston police officer.
Evans added the man in the incident faces no charges - but he and Mancini said he needs to reconsider getting into trouble with motorists.
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
Eye opening
This actually opened my eyes to the context of videos put out by bystanders. When I saw the original video, in my mind there was no way the pedestrian was at fault and concluded the officer was being insanely forceful just to flex his muscles. Seeing videos like this in the future will make me wonder about the context and accounts of other bystanders.
I really appreciate the follow up! It has taught me to not assume even though there may be video "evidence".
Nice comment and upvoting, anon cops!
Well played, BPD PR dept!
What's your full name?
What's your full name?
Going by the internet alias of "Jeff F" on some blog isn't exactly a noble crusade against anonymity.
- a Boston Cop
Wait - I was wrong
You know, I've realized that consistent and trackable identity over time *does* allow for the possibility of accountability within a public forum. And I'm ashamed I was so easily exposed as a troll.
- a Boston Cop
And why would you want someone's full name?
you're a good cop right?
the whole "anon" thing
Are you better because you hide behind a registered name versus the one the site gives you by default? Unless you use your real name, we are all anonymous.
Forget what I just said - I was wrong
Like "a Boston Cop" above, I just realized that the persistent nature of a uniquely assigned name makes it a really useful tool for assessing credibility-over-time.
The BPD does something very similar, as they assign unique badge numbers to each officer, and in this way maintain professional accountability while allowing personal privacy. Likewise, we all know Nicki Minaj, Bo Derek, Martin Sheen, etc - even though they weren't given those names at birth.
Full anonymity has an important role, of course, but it's a very different thing from the sort of stage name one sees here on UHub and other long-running forums.
HI!
All I'm saying is if you are going to bang on someone's car with your umbrella, fist, hand whatever....Don't be shocked if the person in the car turns out to be crazier than you.
Right or wrong, when you initiate an encounter like that you can't be COMPLETELY shocked when it turns violent.
"initiate an encounter"
Are you quite sure that the pedestrian was the one who "initiated the encounter"? Think about it.
WELL
If the man hadn't touched the passing car do you think he would have stopped, gotten out and chased him?
Even when they were tiny, my kids knew...
... that trying to play "who started it" was a fool's errand.
The driver wouldn't have chased the pedestrian if the pedestrian hadn't rapped on his car. The pedestrian wouldn't have rapped on the car if the driver hadn't dusted him. The driver wouldn't have dusted the pedestrian if the pedestrian hadn't been crossing against the light... maybe....
Eye Opening, Indeed
This actually opened my eyes as to the length the department will go through to protect a hot-head cop who might have technically not done anything illegal but clearly wasn't responding responsibility given the situation.
II'd consider a responsible action first checking to see if the window was damaged, and if it was, not confronting the guy like a lunatic.
.
.
Discuss
The commissioner is not being transparent about what the officer did wrong or how he'll be held accountable.
The argument the department put together to absolve him tells 'citizens' they can be subject to the same treatment when an officer with a short fuse doesn't establish facts before he reacts. That doesn't build trust, it destroys it.
What officer hot head did was humiliate the man who rightly or wrongly was crossing on the crosswalk. BPD doesn't speak to this at all.
I don't think this will be the last time the officer makes news.
You don't always have time to "establish facts"
Police work doesn't work like that, and there are probably millions of cases which speak to those issues (hunch, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc.)
The officer has basically a perfect record, and that's one of the reasons they probably gave him the benefit of the doubt. So no, you probably won't see this officer in the news if you haven't seen him the 20 years before this.
Unfortunate coincidence of names
Re: his perfect record...Justin Barrett was the (now ex-) Boston cop who penned the infamous "Jungle Monkey" letter about Henry Louis Gates Jr. and was eventually let go as a result of sustained public outrage.
Even if they don't remember it conciously, the similarity in names might account for some of the heightened skepticism in this case, especially since it took nearly a year for the BPD to act then, when the letter was actually published in the Globe for all to see.
maybe
I never connected this incident with that incident. I saw the video then read all the news articles that offered information about what happened because I wanted to know how the officer would be held accountable. It appears BPDs story is that what he did wrong was so inconsequential that the police dept. will not be disclosing it. That outcome will break trust not build it.
I was glad to see on last night's news a lawyer from ACLU, they defend constitutional rights, raise issues about the department's resolution. It was a short comment and I don't recall it verbatim so I can't share it but I was happy to see that people with training in the law have a problem with what happened originally and how the dept. handled it.
Barrett's a common enough of a name
But sure, deal in generalizations.
Hey Pete
Honest question: Do you agree with the way the officer handled the situation?
Loaded question.
I can second guess probably 90% of police actions saying that something should have been done differently or that I would have done something differently.
I probably wouldn't have wasted my time bringing the guy back to my car. If I thought a felony occured (and this still could legally be a felony/attempt to commit a crime).
But in the end it doesn't matter if I agree with how he handled it. When humans are thrown into situations that police officers are thrown into, they react in different ways.
Let's not forget the fact that a guy whacked some car glass and then had the mindset to start running away after making the whack.
What the does "basically a perfect record" mean?
According to an article in the Boston Globe (by-line Jan Ransom - May 27, 2016), Edward P. Barrett has twice before been investigated on allegations that he used excessive force, according to information obtained from Boston police department records.
In part, the article reported:
In 2005 and again in 2006, the police department investigated use of force complaints filed against Barrett. Details of those complaints were not provided by the department, but neither was found to be valid.
In 2011, a conviction against a man accused of assaulting Barrett and another officer was overturned because a judge did not allow testimony about statements made by officers at the scene that were allegedly profane and racially offensive. The court filing does not specify which officers made the alleged remarks.
According to court records, Barrett and other officers were arresting Scotty Santos and his brother when Barrett said he felt Santos’ hand on his weapon and warned other officers that Santos had his gun, even though he did not. Barrett struck Santos across the nose with his flashlight at least twice and another officer hit Santos on the back of his head with his flashlight. Barrett testified that he told other officers that Santos had his gun “just as a warning” even though Santos never took the gun and there was no struggle for it, according to court records.
Given your premise: "So no, you probably won't see this officer in the news if you haven't seen him the 20 years before this" - care to weight in on your assertion.
Thank you Dave-from-Boston
Pete Nice's spitballing about how's there's no time to assess situations, his repetitive assertion that citizens don't understand how it works, his invention of glowing reviews of the officer in question, and his faulty conclusions, they are tiresome.
Let's be honest. Barrett didn't chase the man because he was a felon, he chased him because he took it as a personal affront that the man hit his car and may have damaged it. (He didn't damage it.) That is why Barrett never looked to see if a "felony" was committed.
This argument was constructed after the fact and Bill Evans let it become the official story.
My trust in him has fallen because he has become party to the bullshit that flows out of the dept. when a cop makes a bad judgment or acts like an asshole.
Barrett took this action under color of the law. He humiliated a citizen under color of law. The dept. constructed a story to insulate him from consequences.
Our police show a great deal of restraint in one way, use of lethal force, and I applaud that.
This however is a spectacle for which the officer involved is being told, you can do it again.
(Scream) Can't avoid any longer
Please give us all breaks. The cop was totally wrong, the ped a tiny bit wrong, and Evans showing disdain for law and due process.
If the cops involved, the assaulting perp one and the commissioner, are really that ignorant of the law they need to be retrained, reassigned or removed. Yeah, yeah, the pedestrian should not have walked against the signal. That carries a $1 fine, which is nearly never cited nor written. On the other hand, the LEO was absolutely required by commonwealth law (Chapter 89, Section 11) to come to a complete stop for a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk.
It did not require the cop's grandmother or priest or Commissioner Evans to say be particularly nice to pedestrians today...and obey the law. It was common sense, courtesy, safety and the law. Plus, even if the ped has tapped the car as it brushed him (driving to endanger), that was not the slightest excuse for committing assault and battery.
The LEO is due for a mandatory $200 fine, plus the charge against license and insurance. I'm betting he has other offenses and may be due for a suspension or revocation.
Huge shame on Evans for not taking the legal road and the high road. Let's go for law enforcement from the law-enforcement officers.
Wait, huh?
So, in your view of things the pedestrian most likely didn't touch the car and he had a walk sign when crossing?
I mean, sure, live in your own universe, but these things happened. Whether Barrett acted appropriately is source of debate, but he didn't assault the guy, the guy did hit his window enough to leave some kind of a mark, and the guy was crossing on a "do not walk" sign.
They didn't need to defend themselves to me
This jerkoff ran a don't walk sign. (Expletive) him. This exchange is entirely his fault.
Corroboration?
>>This jerkoff ran a don't walk sign
Says who?
The police commissioner
At his press conference. Which is what the original post is about.
Sorry, but I use this
Sorry, but I use this crosswalk all the time. The commish is wrong. You have a walk sign here as the cars going straight have a green light. The cars are supposed to yield for pedestrians.
I dunno
The intersection in question, during a green light.
Maybe you're thinking of the crosswalk on the left hand side, which is green. The one on the right is red. The incident occurred in the one on the right.
That image proves nothing
Because walk signs turn to flashing don't walk signs, this image proves nothing. I'm not taking a stance on the facts, just pointing out that this image is useless to prove "don't walk."
Actually, the commissioner is
Actually, the commissioner is right. The crosswalk on that side only says WALK when traffic is stopped in all directions.
So Laws Don't Matter?
Last time I checked, you get a ticket for crossing against a don't walk sign, not a jackboot. Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Are you saying it would be justified for the cop to pull you out and pin you against the ground for speeding? After all, you initiated it by speeding.
So Laws Don't Matter?
Last time I checked, you get a ticket for crossing against a don't walk sign, not a jackboot. Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Are you saying it would be justified for the cop to pull you out and pin you against the ground for speeding? After all, you initiated it by speeding.
Red Sox Uniforms
Can anyone explain why cops on details and off duty wear red sox uniforms and not celtics, bruins or patriots shirts?
Good question
Baseball uniforms are good because they tend to be cooler than Pats or Bruins jerseys. They are also a good length where they can cover your firearm. They are also a neutral color (grey or white) and don't stand out as much as red or green.
Less restrictive and buttons too
You can button it up over your uniform. Like a suit coat of jacket.
Hockey and football jerseys are a whole different deal.
Also, harder to get it pulled over your head in a fight, like a Bruins jersey. :)
Front button? Also clearly
Front button? Also clearly the Sox are the best boston team
Color balance
Red matches the zits caused by steroid abuse; green makes them stand out.
jelly donut stain
A red Red Sox jersey wears red jelly donut jelly stains better than Bruins yellow, Patriots blue or Celtics green.
It is surprising that an officer who didn't notice a felony was not committed before he chased the alleged felon down the street would take such great care matching his shirt with inevitable red jelly stains but it's true.
The cop was a bully
There's plenty of video footage of the cop being a bully.
The cop didn't "have the right of way" (his words) because nobody has the right of way -- we yield the right of way. Pedestrian in a crosswalk may be crossing against the light, a ticketable offense, but that doesn't allow for cars to nudge their way toward peds.
Then, after the tap (not crack), the cop was all amped up, and acted like a bully and an ass to both the so-called perp and to the public.
I have no idea what's not in the video, but the actions of the cop in the video are why so many people -- white or black -- don't trust cops to be anything but bullies.
You're wrong on this one
This guy was never a "bully" at any time or in any way. He maintained safety and found out what happened. It sounds like you just hate cops. And the guy filming? Wouldn't call 911 when asked? Explain how that's a good thing. Or the dopes many run ins with other drivers? Hmm?
explanation - accountability
There were, by the officer's account, six other witnesses to this event - apparently close and engaged enough that their accounts are more credible (according to Evans) than the video and the one witness account that's actually in the public record.
Surely at least one of them could (did?) call 911. If there was that much of a crowd, I see no problem with the citizen continuing to record what he believed to be an ongoing assault by a self-proclaimed police officer.
"why so many people -- white
"why so many people -- white or black -- don't trust cops to be anything but bullies."
Amen to that. The cops have done a great job ruining their own reputations. The gloating here in the comments is par for the course.
The message of the cops is "you can't even get them to charge us with paid time off when we do something wrong". Snubbing the citizens repeatedly makes for a hostile public.
Where do we as the public draw the line? How much longer are people going to tolerate police abuse of the citizenry? Aggressive firings and prosecutions of police who abuse the public would go a very long way to reining them back in to the public servant role that they are intended to be... the police seem to have forgotten who they work for.
I appreciate that they investigated this situation
and seem to have resolved it correctly. While the umbrella guy was clearly at fault, it would be interesting to understand if Evans feels that ordinary citizens should similarly pull over their cars, exit their cars in downtown and pursue and detain people who hit, their cars with umbrellas, yet cause no damage.
Sorta came up
A reporter asked him if civilians and police should react differently when somebody cracks their windows (or they think that's what happened), and Evans said he doubts anybody would not have pulled over and tried to talk some sense into the perpetrator. However, he said this more descriptively than as a call for the public to start chasing after angry people bearing umbrellas.
Since when does the definition of "talking sense"
include frog marching someone?
I've done this before. Some
I've done this before. Some kids were crossing illegally in a crosswalk and knocked my sideview mirror off the car as I drove through. I got out and confronted them, but since there were multiple college kids, and I didn't have any type of weapon there was nothing I could do to detain them. Wish I knew then it was a felony.
Hmmmm, No
I am sadly disappointed in Comm.Evans in this situation. I don't believe that most people, in their right mind, would pull over and chase a guy down the street if their car window had been rapped by an umbrella.
Certainly, as a female, I would certainly not, as that person has already demonstrated their anger and willingness to express it, Why would I want to engage that? Things could get dangerous very quickly.
This P.O. over-reacted and appears to have the kind of short fuse that escalates minor infractions into bigger confrontations. Comm. Evan's defense of him and his behavior is unfortunate and disappointing. Even he looked uncomfortable doing it. It smacks of the blue wagons circling each other.
Sorry this must just bust
Sorry this must just bust your balls Adam. I am sure this is not what you had hoped to be the outcome.
I was watching this press
I was watching this press conference live on some local news stations and it seemed to me that they conveniently cut away from it when Superintenant Mancini was about to play video from the traffic camera, footage we have never seen.
Where you at headquarters Adam? Can you speak to what this, and the second cell phone video showed? I can't really fathom why the TV stations wouldn't want to show the incident from these angles.
Nonetheless, I think Adam did a good job of staying neutral in his reporting. It's clear that despite what the heroic, non-anon (apparently) "Jeff F" would've liked, Barrett acted in good faith and there is overwhelming evident to support that.
- a Boston Cop
Yep, actually left the cave for this one
They didn't show the second cell phone video. They did show the surveillance video, and I was going to record it, but I had the wrong lens with me (a zoom), given that I was so close to the screen. Mancini had it slowed down towards the end and described what we were looking at. Seemed to make sense, but to be honest, towards the end the action was so far away (like half a block down from the camera) and mostly blocked by parked cars that I'm not sure I would've figured out what was going on by myself during the brief period in which they said the guy tripped and fell.
Then they switched to the angry-bystander video (the one we all saw back in May). And the superintendent of the police academy and another superior-officer type who has something to do with training (didn't catch his name) went into how Barrett did everything by the book when it came to restraining the guy once he was on the ground.
video is on youtube
Does not show much.
Now now
Don't gloat. That's one of them...whatchacallit...microaggressions!
Not even that
Just the usual clueless tribalisms and pretending that some point has somehow been made or scored or something.
Banal morony.
Great tune!
Boney Maroney was a great song!
Huh?
I can't imagine Adam caring very much about the outcome of this either way.
You, on, the other hand, seem to care unduly about his feelings. FYI: He's married!
And with that, you blow any cred you had
Adam did, after all, submit the report you just read. A more timely, complete and accessible account of the BPD press event than any other I've seen in the local media.
I understand that no-one is completely unbiased, and there are times when Adam and I are on different sides of a topic and I push back against his viewpoint. But he's also clearly a reporter first, and a editorialist distant second (or third, after moderator/kindergarten teacher).
Do you see a subjective gloss to the above article that offends you? Because unless there's something specific, you're just being an ass.
***
(Also, I suspect this isn't 'the end' of this story. For one thing, I'd hope we actually get to see that other video and read the witness accounts.)
Hey, Republican
I say this with the utmost respect: Bite me.
OK, maybe I'm a bit punchy after covering this, getting too much sun while I wrote it up (sitting on a bench at the Northeastern campus) and then covering Yet Another Apartment Building Neighborhood Meeting in Roslindale, so maybe I'll regret what I wrote in the preceding paragraph in the morning.
But at this point, I doubt it.
I like and respect Evans a lot, but...
... when police use the word "civilian" to mean "anyone who's not one of us," it's generally a red flag that a cultural or attitude problem exists.
Police are civilians here, and in most modern western democracies. It's a key feature that differentiates us from banana republics.
It's just a word Bob.
Meaning someone who doesn't have a stake in the outcome of an investigation/event and is independent in their observations and opinions.
And look up in the dictionary what the word actually means. That's probably the most important reason they use the word.
Dictionary.com....
2nd entry
'"Informal. anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider:
We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world."
That;s kind of what I'm referring to, here.
Come on Bob.
Look at the first definition,
a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force.
The word civilian is the common word judges, lawyers, police etc use.
Words track culture
Yes, it's a common term. Also, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, there is a widespread mindset that police are somehow different from the rest of the general public, and not expected to play by the same rules. Maybe the use of the term and the mindset have nothing at all to do with each other. But I think it's worth noticing such things.
Please don't take any of this personally: I think Boston is a first-rate, professionally-staffed and professionally-run department, and I always appreciate the perspective you bring to UHub.
A civilian review board is needed
A civilian review board would provide greater credibility to this explanation.
There is one.
This guy could make a complaint, and he could appeal the findings of the complaint if he wanted to to the review board.
In fact, the board does reviews on their own sometimes.
Are these additional videos
Are these additional videos available to the public anywhere?
Somebody above mentioned something on YouTube
I'm too tired to look it up myself right now.
At the press conference, BPD also mentioned they would make the surveillance video available to reporters. I haven't seen anything in my inbox, but I'm not sure they much consider me a reporter, anyway, so not too surprising.
Good, thorough work Adam.
A lesson to all that it's helpful to have all the facts before you jump to a conclusion. In this case, people were calling for somebody's job out of ignorance. Of course that's not what the comment section does, but a girl can dream.
Thinking the window had
I don't understand this, why did he think the window cracked? Sounds like, on a whim, he chose to be a bully over nothing.
Step 1: See if the window is cracked
Since it wasn't cracked, it wasn't a felony. Since it wasn't a felony, he had no right to assault the gentleman with the umbrella. Oh, but he's an off-duty cop, so it's all okay.
If he hadn't been an off-duty cop, the police wouldn't have been so happy to come to his defense, hmm?
Double standard. This was a wild overreaction. What if, rather than tackling him from behind, he said "excuse me, sir" and used his words, not his fists? Do they teach you at Police Academy to beat someone up first and ask questions later? Apparently.
Or another way to look at it
There was a bang at the window. The guy looks and sees another guy with something in his hand running away from the scene. He catches up to him and detains him. The potential suspect was on the ground when the guy caught up to him, having fallen while fleeing. The "assault" was police training to get the potential suspect's hands visible to ensure there was no weapon.
Adam spent a lot of time in the hot and humid outdoors writing up a report of the press conference. If you read it again, my summary is closer to yours.
How about just calling the
How about just calling the guy an A-hole then moving along. All this felony talk is ridiculous. I have lost some faith and trust in BPD after reading this crap.
Ari.
Did you read the part where people saw the guy run and then trip? Stop lying and making up stuff.
No, but I read the part where that was *alleged*
As a police officer I'm sure you appreciate the distinction.
Has anyone outside BPD Hq actually seen the 'second video' or read the 'witness' testimony?
I highly doubt the commissioner is going to make it up.
If he did that, the suspect here would be looking at a lot of money. So no, I don't think it was "alleged". I trust the witness statements.
This is Terrifying
This officer should be gone. I am shocked that an otherwise reasonable commissioner like Evans would allow one of his officers to act like this, off-duty to boot. This is terrifying as a citizen. Most police officers are good people but when they refuse to root out the bad apples among them, they force the public to lose trust in them as a whole. I don't understand why they don't see this.
Did you read what Adam wrote?
He wrote a lot of words, but I'm fairly sure that if you read what he wrote, the narrative changes from what was on the video, right down to the coworker noting that he is basically a peaceful guy.
Except for the fact that he
Except for the fact that he has made a habit of screaming at people in the Back Bay as evidenced by several people who have made complaints about him in the past. (Please see Adams post where this is cited.)
There's nothing peaceful about striking a moving vehicle while you are jay-walking. Have you ever struck a vehicle while walking? Jay-walking or not? I haven't and wouldn't dream of it. First of all, it's unnecessary and pointless. Second of all, I wouldn't want to possibly get my ass kicked, shot, or run down by the driver in the vehicle. Every day I walk in the city some asshat driver fails to stop for a red light, yield us pedestrians legally crossing in the crosswalk, and you know what I do? I let it go,because otherwise I'd be perpetually pissed off. Life's too short and I've got bigger problems than this.
Um, check what Inwrote about this
I was commenting on the video, where someone defends the guy's character.
But since you asked, twice I have struck the side of a vehicle. The first time I was had started to cross the street with my then pregnant wife when a car that had a red light didn't stop until they were across the crosswalk. The second time I was a third of the way across a T junction when a car zoomed by the stop sign, stopping only to check for oncoming cars. In both instances, I didn't run away, harsh words were exchanged with guys who could probably kick my ass, then we all went on with our days, regaling folks of tales of "that asshole". I'd do it again, too.
Shout out to the videographers
Whether the outcome is as you wanted or whether the persons doing the filming were biased or correct in their observations (eyewitnesses are famously unreliable), at least we have the film and the opportunity to review it and analyze it and make a judgment from it. Keep it up.
What I thought was
What I thought was interesting was that even umbrella man's co-workers admitted that umbrella man tripped of his own accord which caused him to fall, wasn't tackled by the cop, and that his head was never slammed against the sidewalk by the cop as the videographaper falsely claimed. Falsely accusing someone of slamming another person's head against a sidewalk is a pretty nasty lie.
Not Umbrella Man's co-workers
They were the co-workers of the guy who posted the initial video, the one with all the running commentary. Umbrella Man was all by himself. Still interesting, though, especially given the claim that UM also acknowledged he fell all by himself. My apologies if I made that unclear.
Hmm
Didn't the news conference also say the "victim" confirmed he tripped and was not slammed (head to sidewalk) by the officer in his statement/report? Duh..
"Thinking the window had cracked"
Uniformed Cop: "Hey, Ed. What'd this guy do?"
Barrett: "This asshole started to walk in front of my car and then he hit it with his umbrella and started running. I had to chase him 3 blocks and when he fell I was able to grab him."
UniCop: "Ok, what do you want to bust him on? I don't see any damage to your car."
Barrett: "I don't feel like dealing with court over disorderly conduct, just let him go...he's scraped up enough to have learned his lesson...didn't you?"
The next day...
Barrett: "Shit, IA is involved? I just wanted to catch the guy because he hit my car."
Union Rep: "As long as you were acting in the apprehension of what you thought was a fleeing felon, you're in the clear. If he'd damaged the car enough, then he'd have committed a felony. So, just say you *thought* he had broken the windshield which makes him a possible felon."
Barett: "Done."
Thin blue line between the truth and sidstepping accountability
.
Why do you think Evans defended him here?
But not the other cops who got in trouble this year?
.
No I think Evans let Barrett sidestep accountability. Raising the specter of felony when there was nothing close to it is an obvious smoke screen. Evans is all about building trust, This finding breaks trust.
Barrett could've clean it up by saying I shouldn't have chased him and treated him like a felon for hitting my car with his umbrella. Done.
"nothing close to it" (felony)
And if Barrett apologized to the person who did this you would be ok with that?
That would be a start.
It appears that umbrella guy acted like a dick. It also appears that Barrett acted like a dick. The big difference between the two is that Barrett is given the power to arrest people, to shoot people. and to earn over $100,000 per year on my nickel; part of the deal is that he's supposed to be a consummate professional and not act like a dick; I think it's entirely reasonable to hold him to a higher standard than we hold umbrella guy.
Oh... when did you start
Oh... when did you start paying a cop's $100K salary? Maybe your paycheck contributes a penny toward this paticular officer's salary at most. Think about it. YOU don't OWN public servants.