Hey, there! Log in / Register
Report: Questions raised about near-fatal crash involving off-duty Boston cop
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
The police officer that was
The police officer that was drunk should be charged with OUI,not so uncommon. The police officers at the scene should be fired and go to jail. They are the ones that make this case newsworthy, they are the ones that causes the public's negative perception of government and its employees.
I am shocked
SHOCKED-- that the BPD were lax in investigating one of their own, thus ensuring that he will never face criminal charges. That seems COMPLETELY out of character with the Boston Police Department's exemplary standards of professionalism and impartiality.
/sarcasm off/
And then they wonder why ordinary citizens want to record their actions on video. Sometimes the public just can't win: trust that they'll do their jobs, and you might be SOL. Record their actions for later accountability and you'll probably get arrested.
Fairness?
"the off-duty officer had more than twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system and has learned the officer was going about 70 mph, or about three times the speed limit when he caused the crash in Hyde Park."
res ipsa loquitur
By anon (not verified) - 6/27/12 - 11:24 am:
By Pete Nice - 6/27/12 - 12:20 pm:
Craig,...
Can you tell me how the BPD was lax in investigating this one?
Uuuuuhhhh... is that a
Uuuuuhhhh... is that a serious question?
Sure it is.
I'd like to know what Craig has seen in terms of the IA reports and the other interviews with officers and all the additional reports that Channel 4 or the defense attorneys haven't seen.
I mean, those are what investigations he was talking about. I just wanted to know why he thought they were lax in these investigations. Maybe you could fill me in?
Do you really enjoy being a literalist and a troll?
I knew you were going to be busy polishing the BPD's boots on this one, but you are ridiculous. Here, let me help your basic reading comprehension:
So, the police report has zero mention of any sort of blood alcohol testing. As I'm sure you know, a blood alcohol test 24 hours after the fact won't prove much of anything. Ergo, no test for impairment = no proof of impairment. A DA won't be able to prosecute beyond a shadow of a doubt without any proof that the guy was drunk, and the police conveniently didn't collect that evidence.
Have I seen a freakin' IA report? No. But some of us aren't so blindly in support of anything the Boston Police do that we can make some small logical assumptions. The fact that charges haven't been brought in over a month is another good sign that not much has happened. At least the state troopers finally took administrative action and fired THEIR drunk officer. Only after it was made public and some shame was brought on the department.
Do they let you go on ride-alongs or something? Shall we start calling you Paul Blart? Are you paid to be professionally obtuse? Really, I am simply astounded...
I think you are the troll Craig and you contniue.....
to just make things up. Let me start by saying this though: I know this cop was drunk and would bet my life on it. He should be fired for driving drunk and driving negligently. My problem with people like you is that you make no sense and like to write a bunch of garbage which isn't true. I know what happened here and I know how investigations like this have to work. Trying to distinguish between the initial scene and investigation isn't really being too literal is it? (I guess it could be for someone like you)
Did you see the report or are you talking about the news blurb that some intern obviously wrote? The officer had a BAD of over .16. Anything else you want to make up about that? Am I being too literal for you?
Did you actually read the report? Did you see the evidence? Do you know the listed BAC on the reports?
The State Police were able to fire that officer because he was hired within the first year. Civil Service rules allow departments to fire employees within the first year without a great reason. This is why the trooper was fired so quick. Should I be suprised you didn't know that? (By the way, that was being investigated before it was made public as well, and I am again not suprised you did not know that as well)
You said the BPD was being lax on how the were investigating this. What do you base that on? When cops are investigated after an initial report is already written, the Internal Affiars division has to do their own report. They have to interview everyone else involved and make their own report, and then confer with the DAs office about other procedures when investigating officers in crimes such as drunk driving. This doesn't take a few days, it can take weeks.
And like I said below, NO ONE gets a breathalyzer if they go to the hospital. The victims lawyer should now that. The hospital has the BAC, CDR has the speeds, and an investigation is going to show that the officer was drunk driving and he will be charged when the investigation is complete.
Okay, let's try this
If a drunk driver hit and nearly killed an off-duty cop, what are the odds that person would be a free man over a month after the accident? Balance that against the odds that he "resisted arrest" and had to be "forcibly subdued"?
But yes, you have convinced me that everything here was done absolutely by the book. I can't imagine why everyone here but you seems to have had an ounce of doubt about the moral uprightness and fairness of a police force.
Sure let's try it.
Since you didn't get it the first few times.
99.9% chance the person would be free, since 99.9% of all drunk drivers would be free (.1% would have had other convictions/warrants, and the trial wouldn't have started anyway) But since you like to just throw out words and don't like to be exact, I'm going to assume you mean "be charged with a crime". For that it would depend. Were you waiting on a search warrant for the CDR (black box on the vehicle)? Did you have to wait to make sure you had the correct CDR download equipment for that vehicle to be shipped in from Bosch? Were you waiting on BAC results to come back from the hospital or the search warrant for other hospital records? Were you waiting on video evidence from a private source that hasn't gotten back to you yet? Keep in mind that IA wouldn't have to do another investigation on the situation you mention, so it would be much quicker to wrap up the report in time.
I don't need to convince you because you clearly have zero impact on the judical process of this country (which is good for us all).
So first you want to claim the investigation was lax (from what you read on the internet), then you want to make up sections of a police report you admit you have never read (or even existed), and then you want to question why things take so long when the police have to charge other police with a crime, and now you want to question the moral uprightness and fairness of a police force when you already admitted that my arguments were too "literal" for you? I mean, did you want just throw out false generalizations about a specific incident and then expect the anonymous internet world to back you up? This isn't the Herald pal.
Just enforce the law as written . . . for everyone
This was a simple car accident, Mr. Nice, over a month ago, not the crime of the century. Last night, the story broke on TV. This AM, the case was going to the Grand Jury, as of tonite, charges have already been filed in West Roxbury District Court.
The officer has the constitutional presumption of innocence. However, here, instead of being taken away in a wagon, it appears the wagons encircled him.
Exactly
I'm always amazed how these intricate investigative processes always take a day or two longer than the amount of time it takes the press to find out. I'm sure it's coincidence. Mr. Nice has made clear that cops never do anything wrong, and I realize the error of my ways.
Two things Nancy Drew.
About how this was not a simple car accident.
1. As I stated before, no one would have ever been arrested, or given a breath test after a crash like this. This would be true for everyone. I don't think I can make that any more clear, but this is clearly an issue that you guys don't understand.
2. Once an officer is involved with a criminal offense, department policy is clear that additional reports and followups must be done before charges can be filed. If the superintendent on scene that night filed charges the next morning, the officer's attorney would have an easy case and the entire thing would have been thrown out when it got to trial. Do you want the Boston Police to break policy?
Re: #2
Isn't that part of the complaint you're responding to, Pete? Why does an off-duty cop get an extra set of policies that protect him from having charges filed immediately...when the rest of us don't have the same protections and would also likely get a dose of harassment for our completely irresponsible actions which this guy seems to have missed out on too?
He's off-duty...didn't you argue with me a while back that that should just make him an average joe...that the blue lights aren't always on and he shouldn't be held to the same standards as when he's wearing the badge because he's not working at the time? Yet, he's expecting to get the same "policies" that protect him from being rung up as an average joe that any on-duty cop would get. I don't think anyone's asking for policies to be broken...but questioning why the policies have allowed this guy to shirk arrest in a way any of the rest of us will never be allowed.
No kaz
First things first. The search warrant for the CDR in the officers car has to be obtained, exccuted and the results examined by different people before anyone is charged. This 70mph finding is a pretty fucking important piece of information, and that 70mph isn't going to be a fact until a bunch of things happen. Toyota CDR information is also brand new this year (called EDRs in toyotas actually), so you really want to make sure this EDR report is accurate and analyzed properly. This is common in any crash. Let alone a crash involving police officers.
The policies are there so the initial bogus report isnt an official report. We want to make sure the officers on scene aren't covering anything up, so the BPD wants to make sure everyone has the same story before it goes to trial.
Those policies aren't there to protect him, they are there to hurt him in this situation. Imagine if he was charged and all we had to go on was a report with a bunch of potential lies in it? How is that right? Clerks would throw out the entire case if all they had was the information that was included in the initial report.
And let me add this
I am not involved with this case, but I am trained in crash investigations. A Toyota tundra going 70 mph is going to kill anyone in the car she was driving. Something doesn't add up with those numbers.
Circling of the wagons is an idiom . . .
in case you've never heard the expression, in your 20 year law enforcement career.
This accident was allegedly caused by an inebriated off duty cop, in his own car, on his own time, while flying 70 mph thru a stop sign, in a nhood where the speed limit is 25. 3 civilian witnesses, independent of the injured party, reported the odor of alcohol on the driver. Undoubtedly, the 2 EMS personnel who treated him, recorded their own observations of his condition. Medical records reportedly indicated a .l6 BAC. All that info, 33+ days ago.
His profession & policy don't dictate how or when charges are filed. The MASS. GENERAL LAWS do. And they apply to everyone. In Hyde Park. With or without a badge.
Nancy drew
The Ma general laws actually give the police a few years to file charges, but I thnk I understand your point.
If you charged him right away, you wouldn't have the 70mph, the witness statements, the .16BAC or anything else. all you would have is the initial police report, which doesn't say much. Wouldn't you rather have the other facts that the BPD obtained later?
I think you don't realize that most crashes like this actually take a while before charges get filed.
Circling of the wagons is an idiom . . .
in case you've never heard the expression, in your 20 year law enforcement career.
This accident was allegedly caused by an inebriated off duty cop, in his own car, on his own time, while flying 70 mph thru a stop sign, in a nhood where the speed limit is 25. 3 civilian witnesses, independent of the injured party, reported the odor of alcohol on the driver. Undoubtedly, the 2 EMS personnel who treated him, recorded their own observations of his condition. Medical records reportedly indicated a .l6 BAC. All that info, 33+ days ago.
His profession & policy don't dictate how or when charges are filed. The MASS. GENERAL LAWS do. And they apply to everyone. In Hyde Park. With or without a badge.
First things first.
I have never in my 20+ years of law enforcement experience seen anyone, ANYONE, given a breathalyzer after going to the hospital after a car crash. Every hospital will get blood and have the most accurate BAC possible.
And unless there is another crime besides OUIL, most people aren't arrested after leaving the hospital either. It's a strange statute where you are arrested, you,must be given the chance for a breathalyzer, and if things aren't done I the right order, evidence like blood tests, breath test results and other statements can be thrown out. If a superintendent showed up, we are going to know the BAC, and he will b charged with OUIL once the results Are made public. The Boston IAD unit also has to do their own reports first or else the entire OUIL case can be jeapordized.
Welcome back, Pete
I figure you went on vacation, because we didn't hear you pitch in to explain why the police officer who swore at, bullied, and threatened to steal things from the boys skateboarding downtown was doing everything just right.
I hope your time in the sun was pleasant.
No I was here.
I might have handled that situation differently, but I don't think the ACLU is losing any sleep over what happend with the skateboarders.
Is that what you wanted to know?
"restricted administrative duty"
with no driver's license or firearm, it must be VERY "restricted".
Janitorial duties? Answering the phone while they figure out a way to broom this?
This is why people say
fuck the police.
Update: Officer charged with OUI today
Channel 4 reports.
Justice moves quickly, sometimes
So, the incident occurs on the 24th of May. From there, either two things happened. Either they spent just shy of 5 weeks exhaustively investigating this, then, just as the story breaks, they file charges, or they sat on this until the story broke, then filed charges in a CYA move. I'm cynical enough to think the latter.
This reminds me of the Trayvon Martin case. Look, either Zimmerman is guilty or innocent, and that is for a jury to decide, but the idea that he shot someone to death and wasn't even arrested for it is bad. Thankfully, no one died in this case, but it doesn't look good for the BPD and DA's office that it appears that nothing was done in this case until WBZ got involved. Sure, Pete will say that an investigation took place, BAC was discovered, and so on, but still, appearance means a lot, and the timeline on this just looks bad.
Good thing the reports are timestamped Waquoit.
Great questions, but you will find that courts have been charging cops with crimes for a long time, and this procedure is standard for the DAs office and police department. As long as the officer is suspended right away (which he was), there is no CYA going on. The reports will show when investigations took place, when people were called, when search warrants were obtained and exceuted, when reports were filed, etc, etc.
CYA's simply don't happen in cases like this. CYA cases happen when no one gets hurt, or if there is no way other officers can get in trouble. Believe me when I tell you that a case like this there is no CYA going on.
The Zimmerman case is another instance where a police department wants to pursue charges, but the DAs office wants to sit on it.
It's reality versus perception
Pete,
The problem you're having is that you are basing your views on reality. Yes, I'm opening myself up to a lot, but read me out.
I didn't see the first broadcast on WBZ, but I watched it at 6 yesterday. If you saw the report and had no other information to go on and later heard that there were charges, you would see the preception issue.
At the end of the day, the right thing was done, but there are still issues out there. The police report (which I have only heard about but have not seen, hence preception) seems to make some claims at odds with reality, such as quoting a witness (again, per WBZ not the actual report) saying the opposite of what they actually said (the suspect may have stopped or rolled through the stop sign versus gunning down the street at unsafe speed without acknowledging the sign.)
Really, Pete, I defer to you a lot on this, but perception is what colors the views of the citizenry in this case. I look forward to seeing the police report if it is ever posted anywhere (I'm curious about the location of the incident to start) to see what reality it.
Oh yea you are completly right.
That is why the news could have done a better job asking why someone might not be arrested or given a breathalyzer after a crash (since no one is ever given a breathalyzer and is rarely arrested after a crash like this). The TV station colored the views of the citizenry on this one. I just wanted to clear some things up and add some information as to how these investigations get handled. The original report might have some problems, but I was resopnding to someone who questioned the investigation. Then I was accused of just defending anything and everything the cops do and that just isn't the case.
As you can read above, not everyone was basing their opinions on perception. They were simply making things up that weren't even there.
It happend at Austin and West St in Hyde Park. (One of my favorite neighborhoods in Boston, especially Austin St.)
Thanks
You know we like your insights. Don't beat yourself up about people beating you up, they're beating up the guy who caused the crash.
That intersection is on my running path. I've been pretty blase about crossing it, and almost all cars are really good about the new stop signs. I need to be more careful now, I guess.