At least when it comes to internal-affairs investigations, Commissioner Ed Davis tells the Globe. Relates to investigations into disgraced cop Kiko Pulido.
"Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis will fire any officer convicted of perjury or shown to have lied during internal department investigations"
So in other words, it's OK to (continue to) lie on police reports, to their superior officer, to the public, etc.
Davis was also going to institute a zero tolerance policy for "testi-lying", filing a police incident report with intentionally misrepresented accounts of the facts. Did this happen, will it happen or what?
and for testi-lying. And of course people have been fired for filing false police reports too. It just doesn't happen as much as you might think. Police Officers don't benefit by lying on Police reports. They make enough money in this state as it is than to jeaporidize their job over small lies.
The problem with testi-lying in court is that many times it appears an officer is lying, but more often than not, he is just answering specific detailed questions from an incident that may have happened months or years earlier. Most officers are a part of thousands of crimes, arrests and trials, and are unable to answer specific questions on the stand. This makes report writing an essential and important part of police work.
My god they are sworn to uphold the law. It is only the ones who are not doing so that you defend over and over. Stop defending bad cops.
If it doesn't happen ("as much as you may think") why did "Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis (announce he) will fire any officer convicted of perjury or shown to have lied during internal department investigations." If it doesn't happen Davis is wasting his time no?
This issue came up with regard to incident (arrest) reports. Davis' move is to cut back on addressnig that issue. Maybe he's taking baby steos. We'll see.
Sgt. James Crowley testi-lied on his incident report last year when he claimed the 911 caller and he had a conversation about a black man with a backpack before he knocked on Louis Gates front door. She had to hold a press conference to clear her name. Crowley on the other hand, had his report amended without further comment. Outrageous, really. Every police man in Cambridge learned a lesson, if you falsify your incident report, there will be no consequences.
Policemen file fraudulent incident reports when their fourth amendment procedure was faulty and would get the evidence thrown own. They don't want to lose the arrest so they lie and then they're stuck with their lies when they testify under oath.
i don't think he's defending bad cops as much as he is defending good cops who often get a bum rap because of the few very high profile cases that get massive amounts of press. cops who lie should be held accountable for that. but we shouldn't assume that all cops are lying just to make their cases. you seem to be implying that large numbers of officers are routinely falsifying their records. i don't think that's true.
go after the bad cops. they make everybody look bad and make people lose faith in the various police departments. but not every cop is making a bad case by trampling people's fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. most cops i know would rather lose the arrest than risk their jobs by blatantly making stuff up.
is creating a new regulation to announce consequences for cops who testi-lie. I am commenting on that, not the police who do not testi-lie.
The new regulation does not cover police who testi-lie on their incident report. My comment raises issue.
Pete Nice feels it is necessary to comment on all of the police who would not be terminated becuase they would not test-lie. I think that's another topic.
Davis said he would fire people for lying to Internal Investators. I said that already happens and has happened. He isn't going to create anything new. He might enforce the policy more, but he didn't say he was going to change the rules and regulations.
I only commented on your general comment that I defend bad cops.
Are you not reading those parts on purpose?
You are mistaken Pete. An Globe report from 8/7/9 says "Currently, officers caught lying on the job can receive as little as a short suspension."
You said, "Davis said he would fire people for lying to Internal Investators. I said that already happens and has happened. He isn't going to create anything new. He might enforce the policy more, but he didn't say he was going to change the rules and regulations.
Im just saying that people could have been fired all along, and the people have been fired before.
And while it's not firing, at least four cops were suspended for lying about their presence at Pulido's after-hours club in Hyde Park.
I say "un-paid vay-kay-shun".
I bet they spent all day every day working construction or security details, and didn't miss a dime (or made more.) Or, given how much they make a year, they just took off for the Bahamas.
Seriously, if you're suspended by the department, are you still allowed to work details? If not, does anyone actually enforce that ban?
and yes, that is actually enforced.
And you need permission from the Dept to work anywhere else outside the department. You usually agree to terms when you get suspended and working outside your job is usually one of them.
No one is dumb enough to try to work a detail on suspension. Im sure IA takes your name off the list just in case though.
But the Bahamas is an option.
Well not exactly. But that was kind of my point.
Cops could always be fired for lying to anyone. Davis just didn't go through all the scenerios where someone could be fired at the press conference.
... that he is not creating a new regulation. davis is talking about increased enforcement for a regulation that already exists.
and davis is not saying it's only about cops who perjure themselves on the stand, it is also about those who lie during an internal investigation. that would include questioning whether or not somebody lied on an incident report.
In fact, show me anywhere would I defended a bad cop, illegal practices, or criminal action. You can't. You continue to read and post whatever you want because it is you that is 100% one sided.
Sometimes I will post to explain things to people that have never been in court, never written an arrest report, never testified, never arrested someone, never been intefered with while arresting someone etc etc. If you haven't done any of these things, then you may not know why certain things happen. And I think thats important to point out.
You tell me why Davis came out and said it? How many officers have been fired over the last ten years? You can bet there have been hundreds. Hundreds of dirty cops fired for doing illegal things and I would never defend them. You act like nothing gets done or that cops get away with things over and over. It simply doesn't happen.
Crowley's "lie" had nothing to do with anything. He didn't benefit by this "lie" and had nothing to gain by it. Its also possible that he thought he heard someone say the person was back, and didn't the persons name, and its still not that important. And you still don't know what that woman said to him on the porch. YOU WERENT THERE. I do have to admit it was a short report with not that much detail. But that detail did not have any effect on anything. Would you call him a liar if he put the wrong street down on the report too?
Policemen file fraudulent incident reports when their fourth amendment procedure was faulty and would get the evidence thrown own
Again, simply does not happen as much as you would like to think.
Can I ask you this though? Why don't you just make up a screen name? Call your self something besides anonymous. No one will know.
And thanks Bandit, I wonder if its just me sometimes.
"Again, simply does not happen as much as you would like to think."
I think it happens a little less often than when its reported in the newspaper. In Sgt Crowley case, it was not reported.
Here's the thing. This is a post about a new regulation. You response to the new regulation is to minimize whether it important, addresses a real issue, whether it happens as often as every reader might think. What is that? Some readers think it never happens. Other readers think it happens frequently. You're defense is both unsubstantiated and minimizing.
Mostly, you don't say why the new regulation was proposed and whether it goes far enough. Your interest is in defending the reputations of good and bad cops both. I say stop defending bad cops.
Don;t you think its insane that none of the nine police officers on the scene at David Woodman's arrest were required to file an incident report? Instead, an officer who was at the station at the time wrote the report. That's some F'ed up shit.
The article is about Davis firing people for lying. Thats already in the regulations! Thats all I said! Why don't you get that!?
It's kind of like the DA having a press conference saying he is now going to go after child molesters and charge them with molesting children. The chapter and section of child molestion is already there.
Holy Crap. You miss the whole point about this Woodman thing. Per Department Policy, serious reports that involve death are written by the supervisor on scene. And every officer did end up writing a report. You can say they faked some sort of mental breakdown to avoid writing a report and going to the hospital right there, but they did write a report. And do I have to say it again.............these incidents happen all the time and everyone involved writes reports all the time about them.
And don't forget the kid died because he had a heart condition.
The supervisor who wrote the report was not on the scene.
Ive seen it.
Who was the supervisor on the scene? Who wrote the report?
But there you go. You think just because something isn't ready for you on the internet that it didn't happen. I'm not doing the dirty work for you.
But you've seen it. So, who was the supervisor on the scene? Who wrote the report?
Go find them.
about the one you claimed you say written by the supervisor on the scene.
Here's an example of why people do not trust the police to tell the truth:
A Boston police report given to the family's lawyer says that Woodman "began struggling with the officers as they attempted to handcuff him. Officers immediately realized that David Woodman was not breathing and they began to give CPR and summoned EMS to that location."
To be clear, the Boston police report claimed something that was not true and I quote "Officers immediately realized that David Woodman was not breathing and they began to give CPR and summoned EMS to that location."
Whether or not the officer who wrote the report "benefited" or another officer "benefited," you would agree that a fraudulent report undermines the trustworthiness of the BPD, and is a serious impediment to justice.
Initially, [Elaine] Driscoll [spokeswoman for the BPD] said Boston police called for an ambulance at 12:47 a.m., reporting an extremely drunken man on the ground, and immediately began CPR. Later she corrected that information, saying that officers didn't begin CPR at that time and initially just put out a low-priority call for an ambulance to tend to a drunken man. Then sometime in the next six minutes, she said, officers discovered Woodman wasn't breathing, began CPR, and at 12:53 a.m. put out a second call for an ambulance, warning "please push."
The police report says one of the officers flagged down a private Cataldo Ambulance, before a Boston Emergency Medical Services ambulance arrived.
Cataldo Ambulance workers arrived at 12:58 a.m., treated Woodman at the scene, and delivered him to the hospital at 1:11 a.m, said Ron Quaranto, chief operating officer of Cataldo Ambulance.
Thomas Drechsler, a Boston lawyer who represents the officers, said, "They responded as quickly as they could; there was no time that he was neglected. . . . Nobody is trying to hide anything."
Who believes Thomas Drechsler, a Boston lawyer who represents the officers?
Who believes the officer who wrote the report?
Who believes "Woodman was grabbed by some cops and put on the ground and later he was dead. Now, you can dress this up any way you want: that Woodman had a preexisting heart condition, that it was an unfortunate accident, that it was any number of things. But the bottom line is David Woodman is dead and he died as a result of being taken into custody by some cops who didn't like some kid mouthing off to them," and later had a hard time getting the official report right.
the report didnt matter. The kid died for being a wise ass and resisting arrest.
resisting arrest is one of the charges cops thrown in when then kill a suspect and need some cover.
even if being a wise ass were a crime, the police are not authorized under the law to find guilt and assess a sentence.
The cops are bad, you are good.
What judge are you talking about?
Which also investigated and which found Woodman died of a pre-existing heart condition.
there was also an independent investigation completed by U. S. Attorney Daniel Stern, called The Stern Report, which also found that officers were not to blame.
Stern was commissioned to assess police procedure not culpability, such as were the procedures by the book and do procedures in the book safeguard citizens well-being.
The decision that no criminal charges would be brought was made by DA Conley based on the coroner's report that the death was not a result of injuries sustained during arrest.
None of the above makes the reports, the statements made by police spokesmen, the statements made by council for the officers at the scene more truthful. That is the main issue. The Boston Police lose their credibility when they make claims about incidents that are not true, that they later have to correct, especially when the original false claim makes them look better in the conduct of their duty than the facts support.
i was worried maybe i misunderstood you and didn't get your point.
it's just as bad as all caps. kind of screamy-ish.
fwiw, you seem to be spoiling for a fight here rather than trying to have any kind of discourse. i was just trying to offer up some information, since you seem really big fan of links and facts. but, i have no interest in a fight. so enjoy the day, i'm off to get some sunshine while it lasts :)
no one has been held accountable for the lying. If the BPD report of the arrest given to Woodman's parents had to be amended becuase it made claims that were not true, you have to wonder about other information in the police report.
The determination by DA Conley of the policemen being not guilty of manslaughter was based on the autopsy. The standard is probable cause.
The death of David J. Woodman raised questions as to
how the Boston Police Department had acted and
whether there were any changes in policy or training that should be considered.
Commissioner Edward Davis asked me to independently examine those issues.
The death of David J. Woodman raised questions as to
Commissioner Edward Davis asked me to independently examine those issues.
It was largely a review of policy, training and procedure and the officers' adherence to that in this case.
"Crowley's "lie" had nothing to do with anything. He didn't benefit by this "lie" and had nothing to gain by it."
If you could only hear yourself. You are actually arguing testi-lying is ok when it has "nothing to do with anything" or the liar "didn't benefit" and had "nothing to gain by it".
Truth is the engine of the justice system. If it is de rigueur to embellish on incident reports then what we have here is systemic corruption of the truth.
Picture this: If Gates home was 300 North St, and Crowley wrote in his report 310 North St, would you fire him for lying? No, because Crowley would have no reason to make up or lie about an address. Or maybe he asked dispatch what address the house was and they told him 310 by mistake. Would it be a lie if the report ended up saying 310 North St? I mean, Crowley wrote the report, signed it, and was actually at 300 North St and not 310 North St right? Therefore he is a liar, and should be fired.
Think about that. Maybe it wasn't a lie. People lie to cover up something. Crowley had nothing to cover up by lying about the race of the suspect, nor did he have a reason to lie about the address.
Crowley did not make a clerical error transposing numbers or writing down the wrong address.
He invented a conversation which never happened and which the other party felt the necessity to hold a press conference and rebut.
Crowley put in the race of the suspect for several possible reasons (I say possible because I was not there)
1. Crowley lied and purposly included race when he knew he didn't hear race mentioned.
2. Crowley thought he heard witness A tell him the suspect was black but was mistaken.
3. Crowley thought he heard witness B tell him the suspect was black but said in the report that witness A told him that by mistake.
3a. Crowley thought he heard witness B tell him the suspect was black but said in the report that witness A told him that because no one had witness B's name (this would be a lie, but more of a lazy lie).
4. Crowley did hear witness A tell him the suspect was black. (witness A lied or didn't remember what she told the cop)
Now you have to ask yourself, why would Crowley lie about the race? People lie for a reason. When you see a mistake in a report, you have to ask yourself....hmmm, is this a lie, or a mistake?
What you do is - in nearly every discussion about cops - point out that there is at least one not-totally-impossible scenario in which the cops weren't behaving badly. You then point out that we weren't there, so we can't prove that the not-totally-impossible scenario didn't happen.
Therefore, logically, there aren't any bad cops.
I especially like it when he talks down to the people he argues with, "Let me go real slow here...." as if they are the dullard.
who refuse to present a non-biased view. Isn't it clear to you that anon is trying to paint a picture that corruption is a big problem in the BPD, and not that it might be a problem or a small problem? Just because something happens doesn't make it a widespread problem. Anon doesn't paint the picture that some cops are bad, he paints the picture that most cops are bad. And thats my issue.
And I only say "you werent there" to people who claim one side to be true when there is another side to the story.
If person b pushes person c first and person c pushes person b back, but person c says that person b pushed him first,
Anon would say it was a fact that person b pushed person c first, since person c belongs to group x.
In other words, you are claiming that "there is another side to the story" is true - even though you weren't there either.
I would love to hear how you reconcile that in your head. Please tell.
I just don't present things as fact if I read about them on the internet, especially when there are two sides to a story. Anon would basically get some info off the internet, and then state it as fact. Now this wouldn't be a big deal, but anon does it in situations where there are clearly two sides. Hell, he continues to say how Woodman didn't resist arrest because his friends said he didn't. When of course other witnesses (non-police witnesses) describe a totally different version of events than Woodmans friends. This difference of events basically sealed the case for the police here. You have the cops story, and you had Woodmans story, and then you had other witnesses story that matched the cops story. But anon kept stating on here that Woodman did not resist arrest. Now here it is.....'I wasn't there, but when you have three sides to a story, and one of the sides doesn't benefit by anything, Im going to go with the third party side'.
an isolated problem or a widespread problem. You don't care if its a problem. (More accurately, to you they are all non problems.)
When BPD arrests people for illegal wiretapping, you say much ado about noting they were probably interfering with the arrest. Of course, they wee charged with illegal wiretapping and the debate about whether that is a willful misuse of the statute gets marginalized by the debate you'd rather have, people interfering with police arrests.
When BPD officers file substantively inaccurate incident reports, you say "no big deal" it's probably a simple explanation like transposing an address. Ask Mrs. Woodman about that.
You do the BPD a great disservice.
Its really not that big of a deal. But I could think of 1000 bigger problems with the police than illegal wiretapping arrests.
I wonder if you have been following the unfolding details in the Gang Cops in Revere case.
Details that have come out in court suggest that the cop was shot because the shooter had the impression that the group of ne'er-do-wells getting wasted behind the High School was a bunch of Crips. Franklin has testified that he was drunk when he ran away, and also that "During the 40-minute ride back to Revere, all three men cracked open the beers as Soto drove to Margarita’s, a restaurant where they met Talbot’s fiancee, Constance Bethell, and Officer Stacy Bruzzese."
Have any of the officers involved in the case faced any charges for their illegal activities (public inebriation, drinking while driving, carrying a firearm while intoxicated, etc...) that night? Should they? Or should people who are cops get a free pass to endanger public safety in those ways?
It seemed to be from what I read that the cop was a punk who liked to brag about locking up gangbangers. So he taunted the gangbanger and the gangbanger called for some backup and the backup killed the cop. I assume the initial gangbanger was familiar with the dead cop, since the cop taunted him in the first place. I assume the reason he taunted him was because he knew him or knew him to be a gangbanger.
As for the charges against the cops, the drunk driving wouldnt stand a chance because you would have to prove the level of intoxication, witness him driving, etc. "Public inebriation" isn't a crime in MA, unless you mean drinking in public. Those are town bylaws that are only charged if you are caught in the act. Since no one would ever be charged after the fact for public drinking, the cops wouldn't either.
The drinking with a firearm is another story. Still a misdeamenor, these cops should be charged with this crime when the investigation is finished.
I find their behavior shockingly scurrilous, and continue to be surprised by revelations. I'll keep following it and see if any prosecution happens. It seems to me that folks like these do more to give cops a bad name than Anonymous does.
So Im sure they aren't messing around with any kind of cover up there. And were the cops armed?
Franklin wasn't fired for any of the miscellaneous misdemeanors he and/or other officers committed that night, and which a normal civilian might get arrested for - drinking and driving, drinking in public, trespassing, or use of a firearm while intoxicated. He was fired for being a coward and running away from a fellow officer in trouble. He hasn't been charged with any crime, just betrayal.
As for were the cops armed, the testimony reported in the Globe includes:
"“It was a gunfight, and I was in the middle of it, with no weapon,’’ said Franklin who had left his gun in the truck.
So he ran, as Soto and Talbot pulled out their weapons."
The story doesn't mention whether Bethel and Bruzesse were also armed and drunk. Testimony indicates that Franklin, at two shots and eight beers, was the drunkest among them.
I don't believe there is a cover up in progress. But I doubt very much that any of the police officers who were very much up to no good that day will be charged with anything, simply because it won't occur to them or their colleagues that it much matters if they break the law, on or off duty.
So why don't the good cops go after the bad cops? It's not like they don't know about the bad cops behavior and can document it easily. Could it be the blue wall of silence? Until the "good cops" start policing their own, all cops will be viewed with suspicion. I'm well aware these guys have to deal with the scum of the earth, but the level of crime and corruption displayed by the BPD over the past several years shows that they do not police their own ranks.
Most of these "bad cops" are doing drugs, stealing things, pimping out women, stealing evidence, etc, etc. They do it wihouth the knowledge of anyone.
And no one puts their name on the line for someone else that lies. Why don't you get this? People aren't going to risk their job for some lie. It doesn't happen.
And you have to remember that one of the reasons these cops are getting caught and arrested is because some good cop turns them in.
There should be one more thing added to this conversation. What happened before 1990 or 1980 does not happen now. It was bad then. Punching prisoners in the face, drinking on duty, not going to calls, doing drugs etc happened a lot more back in the day. A Boston cop did 5-10 years in federal prison punching a kid in the face after that kid spit on the cop. Even an evil cop isn't going to be as stupid as to break the law like it used to be done.
My final point is that bad things do happen, there are bad cops, there are bad departments (see Stoughton), and there are cops that lie for themselves and other cops. But it is not a major problem only because it doesn't happen on a large scale, not because it doesn't happen.
Pete saw stuff that crossed the line but he learned the code and said nothing.
"How many officers have been fired over the last ten years? You can bet there have been hundreds. Hundreds of dirty cops fired for doing illegal things and I would never defend them."
Can you please point us to some official statics or news article that backs up this assertion? "Hundreds" seems awfully high a number.
And I guess I should include those who resign. Often times cops in their first year resign instead of get fired since they are on probation and can get fired for no reason.
But thats not unheard of. Its a large organization with over 2,000 employees.
Also cops that get fired go though years of civil service appeals often enough.
What anon 1/21/10-10:19am said appears to be right:
From "Testifying, ‘testilying’ - crack down on dishonest cops" | Boston.com | August 7, 2009
BOSTON POLICE Commissioner Edward Davis is telling his officers that only the unvarnished truth can protect the reputation of the department. Any officer caught in a lie, says the commissioner, deserves no future on the force.
Davis is crafting a one-strike policy that he believes will be the toughest of any in the country regarding police officers who lie on the job. The commissioner wouldn’t provide a copy of the policy, which he said is under review by police unions. But he said it will be just a few sentences in length and cover any officer caught lying in the course of court testimony, falsifying police reports, or lying to Internal Affairs investigators. “The presumptive punishment would be termination,’’ says Davis. Currently, officers caught lying on the job can receive as little as a short suspension. read more
A new ‘Bright Line Rule’ against lying (link)
By Dick Lehr
July 31, 2009
Hold on a minute. You make a claim that "Hundreds" of dirty cops have been fired, but admit you just plucked the number out of thin air?
How about this David Williams guy:
Why was he still on the force to begin with after participating in a beating 15 years ago of a fellow cop and subsequently fired?
The guy he beat the tar out of was a corrections officer until Williams and his buddies split his head open, not some crackhead. Is Williams still on the force? How much is this sociopath going to cost the city because they tolerated his known penchant for violence?
You clearly work with the police on a regular basis in some sort of fashion, we get that. But the bottom line is that the BPD has a horrible reputation of their own making. When upper middle class white guys like myself and my peers don't trust the BPD, then there is a problem, period. You can defend them all you want, but it is not going to change the fact the BPD has a real problem with bad apples and does a piss poor job of weeding them out.
Or are those the words you chose to prove your own point to yourself.
Hey, good luck living the rest of your life in a bubble. But you really have no clue what your talking about. You aren't alone though.
the BPD at the Woodman arrest who said they "immediately" began CPR and called a bus I'm willing to listen.
How is it that you would defend that as a mistake like transposing an address.
It's testi-lying. Who got fired?
At least he has a clue about the real world. (sometimes)
“This department is serious about the issue of truthfulness,’’ he [Commissioner Davis] insists. “There can be no messing around with the facts on material issues.’’
As proof he means business, he discloses he’s putting the finishing touches on a new policy he’ll call the “Bright Line Rule.’’
“If our own internal process determines that an officer has been untruthful, the punishment will be termination.’’
Lying, he says, will now be a firing offense.
“Integrity and honesty have always been basic to the job,’’ he explains. Indeed, the twin values are policing platitudes cited by every chief and commissioner, with the BPD having its own high-minded-sounding Public Integrity Policy: Rule 113.
But for Davis, here’s the rub. “The consequences for not being truthful have not been clear. No one has yet said it’s going to be dealt with by termination. I’m changing that.’’ link
so that means no one lied!
(I like your logic actually anon)
A Boston police report given to the family's lawyer says that Woodman:
"began struggling with the officers as they attempted to handcuff him. Officers immediately realized that David Woodman was not breathing and they began to give CPR and summoned EMS to that location."
Notice it says "Boston police report" and "Officers immediately" which make this precisely about testi-lying.
Later she [Elaine Driscoll spokeswoman for the BPD] corrected that information, saying that officers didn't begin CPR at that time and initially just put out a low-priority call for an ambulance to tend to a drunken man.
"Immediately ... began to give CPR", "didn't begin CPR"
It seems pretty clear the BPD had a little trouble being truthful in its report. A cynic would say that they changed the official report after they realized there were records about when the call for a bus came in but those would just be facts to be taken into acount, then again the BPD did change the story from a favorable story about how they protected the life of the suspect to one in which they had to admit there was a delay ni the amount of time it took them to realize his life was endangered while under their care (for which they have an affirmative responsibility to protect, even wise asses.) Back to the point, the BPD report did not tell the truth about what happened.
Why not continue the lie then? That would be better to cover up things wouldn't it?
they probably just mis-remembered or maybe it was a typo like writing down the wrong address.
I imagine the officer(s) who put Woodward face down with his hands cuffed behind his back and then called the bus for a drunk just forgot (s)he/they actually walked away, as opposed to immediately administering CPR.
That you defend it as accidental, damages your credibility as an honest broker.
You didn't know about the 10K bonus cops get for killing someone and then getting off of all charges? You even get an extra 5K if you can arrest someone videotaping it in the process! A bunch of winners that night I tell ya!
I mean, are you saying the cops knew he was going to die and just let him die?
I'm talking about lying. Are you saying they killed him and covered it up? Even DA Conley doesn't think that.
why would you lie about that unless you intented for that person in need to die and wanted to cover it up?
Thats why there is no reason for the cops to lie here!
And didn't we find out from other witnesses that it was Woodmans friends that lied?
No I'm not. I'm saying they filed an official report about the sequence of events, and even gave it to the family, and later had to correct it becuase it was not true.
What was not true about it was the sequence and timing of events after he was cuffed and when they noticed he was not breathing. They lied and said they noticed immediately and gave CPR immediately. That was not true. Why would they report something that was not true? What is the value of a BPD officer's word? No one was fired.
Okay Pete, what is the number? Is it 101 officers fired, 750? How about 998? "Hundreds" is a pretty big spread. So which is it? You admit you have no backup for the number, so why should I believe you have any clue about which you speak other than your constant assurances that you do? You sure enjoy telling us we don't have a clue, projection maybe?
Are you going to address Officer Williams or just act like I didn't bring that up?
Officers that have resigned, been fired, not hired after probation. Probably public record, go find it. Thats my educated guess. Im sure someone here can find the truth on that.
Williams? You aren't serious are you? THE BOSTON POLICE FIRED HIM AND AN INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR MADE THE BOSTON POLICE HIRE HIM BACK.
I say he should have been fired a long time ago.
Thanks for responding. I have no need to "go find it". You're the one making the claim, perhaps you should.
Williams, yeah I am serious. I bet the guy who has permanent brain damage is pretty serious about it too as will be the city when they have to pay a well deserved huge settlement to the guy. Is Williams still employed? What about the other cops that participated in the beating and didn't stop it nor blow the whistle? I'm sure the fact that arbitration put a dirty cop back on street makes everyone sleep better at night.
I told you he was fired.
"THE BOSTON POLICE FIRED HIM AND AN INDEPENDENT ARBITRATOR MADE THE BOSTON POLICE HIRE HIM BACK."
Do you even pay attention to what you write Pete?
I can use caps lock too:
IS HE ON THE BPD PAYROLL NOW, IN THE YEAR 2010? I'M WELL AWARE HE WAS REHIRED DUE TO ARBITRATION.
since Davis has been commissioner.
"Then I ask the commissioner if he’s ever fired an officer for lying, either in Boston or in Lowell where he was that city’s police chief. He says no." link
for lying, aren't we?
I was talking about officers fired total.
If there was an innocent bystander videotaping Woodman's arrest on their cellphone, and the police arrested the innocent bystander on the public street and charged the person with illegal wiretapping, and then the police destroyed the video, would that give you more confidence that the police are telling the truth and have nothing to hide or less confidence?
If someone was out of the way videotaping something and the police took the video that would be illegal and the cops would be wrong.
“The police apparently do not want witnesses to what they do in public,’’ said Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, who helped to get the criminal charges against Surmacz dismissed.
Boston police spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll rejected the notion that police are abusing the law to block citizen oversight, saying the department trains officers about the wiretap law. “If an individual is inappropriately interfering with an arrest that could cause harm to an officer or another individual, an officer’s primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the situation,’’ she said.
(Does the definition of "harm" here include an officer facing disciplinary action for violating he suspect's civil rights?) What troublesome is that the BPD is defending the practice (procedure) instead of correcting it.
Driscoll cleverly interjects the charge of "interfering with the duties of a police officer" as a justification for arresting on "illegal wiretapping." But there is no evidence in the two cases cited in the article that either person was interfering. This is known as the change the topic defense. (See Pete Nice.)
"Simon Glik, a lawyer, was walking down Tremont Street in Boston when he saw three police officers struggling to extract a plastic bag from a teenager’s mouth. Thinking their force seemed excessive for a drug arrest, Glik pulled out his cellphone and began recording. Within minutes, Glik said, he was in handcuffs" (for illegal wiretapping, in public no less, not for "interfering with the duties of a police officer."
"Jon Surmacz, 34, experienced a similar situation. " read more here.
In 1968, Massachusetts became a “two-party’’ consent state, one of 12 currently in the country. Two-party consent means that all parties to a conversation must agree to be recorded on a telephone or other audio device; otherwise, the recording of conversation is illegal. The law, intended to protect the privacy rights of individuals, appears to have been triggered by a series of high-profile cases involving private detectives who were recording people without their consent.
In arresting people such as Glik and Surmacz, police are saying that they have not consented to being recorded, that their privacy rights have therefore been violated, and that the citizen action was criminal.
“The statute has been misconstrued by Boston police,’’ said June Jensen, the lawyer who represented Glik and succeeded in getting his charges dismissed. The law, she said, does not prohibit public recording of anyone. “You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want; you can do that.’’
But at least we know that its the training the BPD officers get as opposed to having a few rogue cops. Davis and Menino can be held accountable. In this case, the police are following procedure, albeit unjustified by the law and wrongful arrest. Maybe the lawyer(s) for the BPD should resign.
How do you know there is no evidence of people intefering with the arrest IF YOU DONT HAVE THE ARREST REPORT? Foget about actually being there, these were arrests that have arrest reports.
Again you want to go by the story of some guy on the internet and not the actual report. And that actual report could actually show that cops were in the wrong. But you and I can't say that as a fact UNTILL WE SEE THE REPORT!!!
the source of the story I referenced is the Globe.
1. You weren't there.
2. It's not only entirely plausible that Glik and Surmacz never interfered, the ween;t arrested for interfering. They were arrested for illegal wiretapping. There were standing by in public and recording the arrest.
LMAO Jay says, "in nearly every discussion about cops - point out that there is at least one not-totally-impossible scenario in which the cops weren't behaving badly. You then point out that we weren't there, so we can't prove that the not-totally-impossible scenario didn't happen."
Your reasoning is transparently thin gruel.
So don't go on some other blog and say 250 people got fired from the Boston Police in the last ten years for lying because thats a fact. Go on that blog and say some guy you never met with a fake name said a lot of cops (he estimated 150-250) have been fired over the past 10 years or so.
And I had an issue with that story in the globe for good reason. And my only issue what that the authors (college students that weren't even named I believe?) said that stats on specific crimes could not be obtained. That is BS and not true.
There were standing by in public and recording the arrest
This is exactly what Im talking about. If you can say this simple sentence as it is fact, then why can't I say any police report is fact?
You are going by what one person says. If what that person says is true, then I agree that the arrest was wrong. From my experience, this kind of situation is rare, and there is usually more to the story. Thats why I look at news articles, blog posts, arrest reports, testimony, etc with a grain of salt.
Ive been in thousands of situations where reports were then written about those situations. You really see how things get written, who lies, what would be the motivation for lying, why witnesses would say one thing from other witnesses, etc etc,
I dunno what else to say. Good luck in exposing the vast police corruption in this police state of massachusetts. I can only speak from my years of experience as a police officer in different states and cities. Take it for what its worth. If you think Im lying about all this so be it. Theres nothing I can do about it, and its now happy hour and I have to leave.
...is that the police report can be directly compared to video evidence. The cops accused him of quite a bit, and it had serious repercussions for him as a law student. Which is a shame, since he was looking out for the constitutional rights of the suspect.
Did the Glik recording ever make it into public?
One of the papers covered the dismissal of this case at Glik's motion, which I think means that it was never made public by Glik's own request. The police report should be available by request from the clerk of the court, whether the cops want you to see it or not. The video is available only through Glik and it doesn't look like he's too eager for that comparison to be made. Wouldn't the Globe have run a clip online?
Glik pulled out his cellphone and began recording. Within minutes, Glik said, he was in handcuffs" (for illegal wiretapping, in public no less, not for "interfering with the duties of a police officer."
If you dispute it, show your evidence. If you do not, explain.
Behind the blue wall