Hey, there! Log in / Register

Theater District fracas ends with two musicians under arrest

Two musicians walked out of the Tam on Tremont Street early Sunday into a chaotic scene following one of your basic head-punching Theater District fights outside a neighboring pizza place.

That much guitarists Javier Reyes and Dustin Boudreau of Animals as Leaders and Boston Police agree on. Their accounts of what led to the two winding up in a cell at District A-1 for the rest of the night, and in court a couple days later for arraignment, however, diverge after that.

In an account posted on the Animals as Leaders Facebook page, a friend said the two men came out of the Tam on Tremont Street around 1:30 a.m., with Boudreau playing air guitar to the song that was playing inside. What they didn't know was that the area around Tremont and Stuart was swarming with cops, investigating a 1 a.m. fight outside New York Pizza, which left the fight's loser bleeding from the head and eye, the result of being punched repeatedly by the alleged victor.

According to the Animals as Leaders account, a cop immediately shoved boudreau and told him he interfering with a police investigation:

Confused and startled, [Boudreau] turned around and asked what Officer BLANK was talking about. Officer BLANK then grabbed [Boudreau] by the throat and slammed him against a wall, then turned him around to handcuff and arrest him.

Meanwhile, JAVIER REYES pulled out his cell phone and informed the officers that he was recording the arrest. Immediately, Officer BLANK turned around from arresting [Boudreau] and hit Reyes's cell phone from his hands (both hands were holding the cell phone) onto the ground, breaking the cell phone. Next, Officer BLANK grabs Reyes and shoved him face first into a wall and handcuffs him. Neither [Boudreau] nor Reyes, in any way, resisted arrest. ...

Reyes had the right to videotape the public arrest of [Boudreau] as we were in a public location, on the sidewalk, after exiting The Tam. Officer BLANK violated Reyes's rights by forcing the videotaping to end by his physical actions. Reyes phone screen is completely shattered; Officer BLANK unlawfully destroyed Reyes's property in order to stop the recording of [Boudreau] arrest.

The friend has sent a formal complaint to Boston Police, demanding an investigation.

The official police report on the incident, written by Officer Paul Downey of District A-1, however, says the two men were the aggressors:

As Officer Downey was attempting to gather information related to the suspect's description [in the earlier attack], a white male, approximately 25 years of age, suspect #1, approached Officer Downey's left side, jumping up and down, appearing to be playing the air guitar, shouting and screaming and jumping back and forth, coming extremely close to Officer Downey's face/body, causing a disturbance/scene. Detective [Michael] Doogan approached the suspect and asked the suspect to stop and back away from the scene. The suspect refused to stop and continued his antics. Detective Doogan advised the suspect that he was disturbing the peace as a crowd was beginning to gather. Detective Doogan then advised the suspect that if he did not immediately stop his behavior/actions and leave the area, that he would be placed under arrest. Detective Doogan attempted to escort the suspect away from the scene, at which time the suspect stated to Detective Doogan, "Get your fucken (sic) hand off me, and then violently twisted away from Detective Doogan.

As Detective Doogan was placing his department issued handcuffs on suspect #1, suspect #2 (Reyes) began yelling at Detective Doogan to leave suspect #1, his friend, alone. Detective Doogan ordered suspect #2 to back away from the arrest scene. Detective Doogan attempted to move the growing crowd back, when suspect #2 refused and became louder, stating that he was taping the incident and recording the officer's abuse. Suspect #2 was again ordered to step back away from the scene, as he was within a foot of Detective Doogan, forcefully shoving suspect #2's cell phone/camera less than an inch from Detective Doogan's face.

Detective Doogan, in fear of being struck in the face with said camera phone, attempted to remove the threat, using his forearm to create distance between the cell phone/camera and his, Detective Doogan's, face.

As Detective Doogan was creating distance between the cell/camera phone with his forearm, suspect #2 then violently grabbed Detective Doogan's left forearm and began to twist it. Detective Doogan, with the assistance of other officers on scene, placed suspect #2 under arrest and defused the situation.

After suspect #2 was placed under arrest, Detective Doogan recovered the suspect's cell/camera phone from the sidewalk and entered it into the suspect's property at the booking desk.

At the booking desk, the suspect continued his uncooperative, unruly towards the police (passive resistance), refusing to walk or enter into cell #10, as assigned. [Reyes] forced the Officers to physically place him in his cell.

Reyes reports he had to miss a scheduled date in Toronto to appear in court on May 30 for arraignment on a charge of assault and battery on a police officer. Both men were released on personal recognizance at their arraignments, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.

H/t JulieP.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

You boys must not be from around here....

up
Voting closed 0

Is one of the most shameful, unprofessional police departments in the country. A major city should be able to field and train competent professionals, not out-of-control thugs, to enforce the law.

up
Voting closed 0

Boston PD should strive to be more like NYC, LA, or NO PDs.

up
Voting closed 0

Just once, I'd like to hear an answer to Boston criticism that isn't "It sucks in other places, too."

I. Don't. Care.

I don't live in NYC, LA or NOLA and the perceived shittiness of their police departments has nothing to do with the shortcomings of our own BPD. I don't want them to be like some other town's department, I just want the police our town better and not throw a tantrum every time someone whips out a cameraphone.

up
Voting closed 0

When a cop is arresting someone, you aren't allowed to shove a camera in his face, especially after he asks you to stop. Maybe it is the people up here that are the problem?

up
Voting closed 0

There was just a court decision that proved you wrong.

http://www.aclum.org/news_3.27.12

Man, this town just worships a badge.

up
Voting closed 0

There's possibly quite a bit of difference between Glik and this case - it'll depend on what comes out in court.

The Glik ruling everybody cites does not establish an absolute right to video police officers.

"To be sure, the right to film is not without limitations. It may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions," the appeals court wrote in its Glik ruling.

In Glik's case, "[T]he complaint indicates that Glik 'filmed [the officers] from a comfortable remove' and 'neither spoke to nor molested them in any way' (except in directly responding to the officers when they addressed him). Such peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers' performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation."

Is that what happened here? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Were any of us there?

up
Voting closed 0

Pete's assertion was this:

When a cop is arresting someone, you aren't allowed to shove a camera in his face, especially after he asks you to stop.

BostonPedant's example suggests that may not be the case. As you say, it may, but it may not. Neither of you are wrong, given the vagaries of the decision.

up
Voting closed 0

I am glad no-one is taking sides, but for the sake of probability, it is much more likely that the police were acting out in an aggressive manner. Somewhere in the upper 90%.
First thing is that, for obvious reasons, the police department will not out one of it's members easily. Second, the police where already in a hostile environment (crowd control, investigating a fight) so they will be aggressive, especially in comparison to the performers who were arrested; If you've seen their work, you'll know they are tired and very unlikely to be aggressive. Also, you could say the performers were drunk, but again, if you've seen their work (highly technical) it is very unlikely.
Most definitive is the technicality of the arrests. The police act as if the arrest was justified because the phone was very close to the officer. How close is close? If you were videotaping an unlawful arrest, what good would it do you to shove it in the officers face, the one you are scared to confront because he is unlawfully arresting people? Highly unlikely, as oppose to the latter: officer was afraid of being prosecuted because of such evidence.

up
Voting closed 0

You cannot put a camera in a cops face if he is arresting someone, or investigating a crime, or talking to someone, or ordering food, or doing anything else. In fact, you aren't allowed to do that to anyone.

If you are in public and are not in the way of the police or anyone else, you can record whatever you want.

up
Voting closed 0

Problem is this guy wasn't "in the way" of the police. A person can record a cop as long as he or she stays out of the way, and even the cop's account suggests that wasn't the case.

The band guy was in public and wasn't posing an obstacle to this "investigation." But go ahead, keep toeing that blue line.

up
Voting closed 0

and even the cop's account suggests that wasn't the case.

Oh really?

Suspect #2 was again ordered to step back away from the scene, as he was within a foot of Detective Doogan, forcefully shoving suspect #2's cell phone/camera less than an inch from Detective Doogan's face.

Unless you were there? Or do you just like making thing up? Or maybe you just aren't that smart and can't read that well?

up
Voting closed 0

I am not saying cops jobs are easy, but multiple sworn statements contradict what the officer is claiming to have happened. And videotaping a cop performing his job is not grounds for destruction of property(cellphone) and aggressive arrest.

up
Voting closed 0

Or is this something else that is made up.

up
Voting closed 0

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/4274274-Co...

Maybe the people in question had every right to record the officer and BPD should pay attention to the courts. They're the police, not the papacy. This department's perception of infallibility is going to cripple it someday.

up
Voting closed 0

Putting a camera an inch from a cops face?

No it's doesn't. Totally different circumstances.

up
Voting closed 0

So you're saying the guy recorded the cop's eyeball? His pores?

Do me a favor: Hold a camera phone one inch from your face and record. Tell me what you come back with. Anyone who's recording officers in an attempt to defend themselves or compile evidence doesn't put the recording device an inch from the subject's face.

After doing review for a while, you start to learn to split the uprights. If the band guy says he was recording at a decent distance and the cop says he was an inch from his face, chances are that camera was somewhere in between. That weakens the cop's obstruction case and puts the camera firmly within the bounds set by the decision.

"But, but we don't KNOW." No, but we've been presented with two sides of this story, each hedging toward their side of the argument. Unfortunately, we have an individual who ended up locked up as a result. The officer in question faces the burden of proof, especially since his actions distracted from and drew manpower from an investigation.

It doesn't look good.

up
Voting closed 0

After going to a thousand calls for bar and street fights, I have good sense on how cops and people act when certain things happen, I have a feeling you don't.

Drunk people that have their friends arrested will often times do things like this because they don't think it is illegal because they aren't physically touching another person. They don't put the camera in someones face to actually record, they do it to get a reaction from someone, and this happens to people who want to get a reaction from the police or anyone (you can watch TMZ for other examples). You probably know some 10 year olds, ever see one of them do the old "I'm not touching you...I'm not touching you" game while they put their hand around their face and body? This is what drunk people will often do to cops because they don't think it is illegal. Is that what happend here? I don't know I wasn't there, but that wasn't your point. You point is that a court case made it legal to put a phone in a cops face when that cop is acting within the scope of his duties.

But ok, now you want to change your story and accuse the cop of lying. That is fine. He could have lied, I wasn't there. As an anon posted below, cops are very rarely going to arrestsomeone in situations like this in public with hundreds of bystandards because there is always a good change of someone recording the arrest. This is why I tend to believe the cop in situations like this, where there a lot of people around, and where people very rarely get arrested after things like this happen (see the call logs where tens of thousands of dispute calls come out with a very small percentage of court action being taken afterward.

up
Voting closed 0

Whats the chance that a person would put an iPhone an inch from someone's face where it would capture absolutely nothing but a black screen...or that a cop would know that to justify his abuse of power he would have to characterize it as "an inch from his face" so that time, place, and manner problems with the videographer's actions in his official account supported his abusive reaction to being filmed?

It will be interesting to see what further evidence bears out.

up
Voting closed 0

Kinda like resisting arrest:

IMAGE(http://woofie4.pixiq.com/files/cache/paulweiskel_620x414.jpg)

Right Pete?

Look cops lose their cool too. But lying about it on a police report is a big no no. As one user said below, it's obviously a attempt at creative writing. we've going to find out, quietly later, "in your face" was 10 feet away after officers roughed up that dirty hipster, cause he's having issues at home and by golly losing his temper is not his fault.

The officer above tried the same shit, but backed off from destroying the DSLR when he realized all the others with cameras around, and the futility of it. Not sure if it was you, but someone else came around trying to say the camera was "in his face" too.

forgetting that most of us around here understand focal length and aperture settings on nice lens, and could tell you this guy could have been anywhere from 50 feet away to 300.

up
Voting closed 0

The officer above tried the same shit

Tell me what this officer tried again? And can you show me where that was written or said in an official report or video or statement? This officer knew full well there were dozens of cameras there, and the Boston police department had some of them as well.

This is basically my "issue" with this topic. I understand this is the internet, and we are all just basically having discussions with opinions and dialogue, but half the stuff I read about cops is simply false.

it's obviously a attempt at creative writing. we've going to find out, quietly later,

Obviously? Is this because you have never seen how someone attempts to resist arrest? How many times have you actually seen someone in person get arrested for it? I bet none. That would mean your opinions are really only based on what you read on the internet right? Unless you can bring all the cases that have been prosecuted, found guilty/not guilty/dismissed, CWOFd etc?

No one has to tell me there are bad cops out there. I think 20% of the Boston Police should be fired right now, and probably should have never have been hired in the first place. But that isn't my issue here. My issue here is about the generalizations people have about the police when they really don't know what they are talking about.

up
Voting closed 0

If the biggest cop supporter here feels that 20% of the BPD should be fired, then how are these generalizations not accurate? You are saying that you have a 1 in 5 chance of dealing with a bad cop in any given interaction. Why would anyone give police the benefit of the doubt based on those odds? Bad apples, blah blah etc. When the good apples, the brass and the union clean house, I will stand up and applaud. Until then, it's only common sense to assume that the cop you are dealing with has a 20% likelyhood of being dishonest and willing to use the power of his badge to f*&k you over if it suits them.

up
Voting closed 0

That 20% should be fired because they are poor employees, not because they would lie on an arrest report or make false arrests. In my opinion only about .02% of officers would do something as foolish as make a false arrest in a situation like this one where there are hundreds of witnesses, possibly a few cell phone videos, and the possibility of getting in trouble.

up
Voting closed 0

OK lets look at what makes a Poor Employee for BPD:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/200...

For Example:

"David Juba, a 35-year-old patrolman, who was suspended for 45 days for using steroids in 2006, then lying about it. He also was punished for going to the Boom Boom Room twice while he was on duty and in uniform."

Anyone with two synapses to rub together can read this and determine the BPD is full of scumbags. The scumbags names are printed in the paper along with their misdeeds and yet they remain employed. Any other profession would have read "fired immediately" not "45 day unpaid vacation".

Why would any citizen trust David Juba and the department that tolerates him and his kind? They would be a fool to do so. That's the problem Pete. I don't know if the guy pulling me over is a steroid using known liar or not because it's a proven fact that BPD employs known liars and steroid users. If the BPD wants to be treated as a professional organization and receive the trust of the citizens, then clean house. The "bad apples" excuse doesn't cut it.

up
Voting closed 0

How many do you know? I already know the answer and that is why you think the way you do. If you knew the answer, you would have an idea of what kind of officer is going to pull you over for a traffic stop, and how they are going to react on that traffic stop depending on the circumstances. If you have a bad criminal record, you might get treated differently than if you were a white middle aged JP lady with no criminal record. The stats are going to back that up.

Also, people don't get fired for many of the things municipal empolyees do because their bosses never hear about it, and it doesn't make the news. Steroids are also treated like a drug problem and many workplaces, (epecially union municipal ones) are going to have the empolyee seek help rather than fire them, and this is for legal reasons as well.

You can't clean house, it is a civil service job with union protection.

up
Voting closed 0

don't help anyone.

You're allowed to take video of an officer. I don't know who the "problem" is in this scenario, but the cops could be just as culpable as "the people up here."

up
Voting closed 0

Between the gill case and what is alleged here.

You are allowed to take video of an officer, but you can not take that video if it interferes with the duties of that officer. The decision even says that.

up
Voting closed 0

The department's boots must be nice and shiny from you licking them. No obstruction here, thus no cause. Your flatfoots fucked up.

up
Voting closed 0

But Pete's right. Read the decision.

up
Voting closed 0

"Detective Doogan, in fear of being struck in the face with said camera phone, attempted to remove the threat, using his forearm to create distance between the cell phone/camera and his, Detective Doogan's, face."

I mean really?! He was in fear of a camera phone that was probably a good five to ten feet way from him?! Which is the distance any good videographer would be from the subject of the video. What a joke!

up
Voting closed 0

…he was within a foot of Detective Doogan, forcefully shoving suspect #2's cell phone/camera less than an inch from Detective Doogan's face…

Suspect #2 has insane fine motor skills, possibly related to his eleven-inch-long arms.

up
Voting closed 0

You know, those things which allow you to bend your arms?

What is wrong with people on this thread? At least say something like you think the cop was lying about the situation and just made up a story about the suspect being too close.

Or am I going insane?

up
Voting closed 0

Pete, it sounds like you've made insane your permanent address.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't hate cops. But I think it is highly likely that two guys who happened to be drunkenly goofing around made some noise and pissed an officer off. In the heat of the moment, the officer arrests them both. After the fact, there has to be some justification, and using by-the-book terminology (gathering crowd, an inch from the face, etc) they write something up.

So, yeah, I think it highly likely that the BPD either grossly exaggerated (ie: "lied") or outright lied in their report here.

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah, this one doesn't pass it. Knocking a cell phone out of guy #2's hands, breaking it and arresting him was a step too far if you're going to claim this all went down like that.

I don't like hipsters either Mr. Doogan, but not liking them isn't a arrestable offense.

up
Voting closed 0

It's not that hard to figure out who's right here. Just look at the cell phone video. Sure, it'll miss whatever led up to the arrest, but it will definitely be evident whether the phone was really 1 inch from the officer's face.

I know that "the phone is broken," but any decent phone techie should be able to pull a video off of a phone that got dropped.

up
Voting closed 0

Im assuming it's New York Pizza.
Just an FYI for clarity's sake

up
Voting closed 0

Fixed.

up
Voting closed 0

Anyone that says that BPD is violent have no idea what they are talking about and clearly base their opinion on a few trumped up news reports from one of our terrible newspapers.

Through my work, I interact a great deal with the BPD A1 guys, and after witnessing probably over a hundred arrests, I have never seen anything close to this alleged "thuggery." If anything, more often than not, I usually think that they are not physically aggressive enough, and let some of these punks get away with too much.

For example, I have seen BPD guys get shoved and even swung at, and they don't even arrest the guy, let alone tune him up like they would in any other city I have worked in.

The truth is, most of these guys are so afraid of getting in trouble even if they do their job properly that tuning someone up and arresting them for no reason is really out of the question for them.

This fear of getting jammed up for no reason actually keeps some of these officers from doing their jobs properly. Sometimes, people that should get arrested, don't because the officer is afraid of having to go physical to execute the arrest and then getting jammed up. And, let's be perfectly honest, some of these guys are just plain lazy, and the fear of getting jammed up is just one more excuse for them to do nothing in a situation that calls for action.

It is pretty sad that almost everyone here is so quick to take the word of some belligerent drunks over the words of our law enforcement officers. Has anyone ever arrested for something like this NOT said "I wasn't doing anything!!!" Believe it or not, the BPD guys have A LOT more to lose by lying on a police report than these guys do lying on their facebook page.

Next time you see a fight outside of a bar, or some aggressive panhandler bothering people on Newbury st (or other quality of life issues) and the police does nothing, blame yourselves for fostering a culture that makes the police afraid to do their jobs.

up
Voting closed 0

Nice story, bro. Unfortunately, the review board disagrees with you. Take off the kneepads and open your eyes.

up
Voting closed 0

Thankfully people like you are not involved in the public review process, unfortunately there are too many ignorant people like you out there, and that's dangerous for everyone.

up
Voting closed 0

Actually, I have been one of the people involved in the public review process. It's one of the more frustrating tasks an average Bostonian can undertake.

Slow your roll there, pal. I'm not the ignoramus applying that decision to an incident where there was no obstruction.

up
Voting closed 0

Or maybe this is the reason why these public review process don't go anywhere, because people that actually know the law (judges and lawyers) get the real final say and can overule morons like you?

And here you are, admitting you are involved in the public review process and you take one side of a story without reading the actual report? And you can't even read what is written on the internet? How fair is that process to anyone? Saying there was no obstruction when one side says there was? When you haven't seen the other reports or other videos?

You are clearly lying anyway, so no one has to worry about ignorant people like you being in charge of anything. Besides, the review board is made up of all professional lawmakers anyways, and it is clear by your reading comprehension skills and comments that you have zero legal or professional background.

up
Voting closed 0

"It is pretty sad that almost everyone here is so quick to take the word of some belligerent drunks over the words of our law enforcement officers"

Yes, I suppose you could say that. Whats really is sad is that the BPD has brought this situation upon themselves. With its continued backing of known perjerous officers the department has squandedred the trust of the people. They lie, they lie and then they lie some more. They lie in complaint filings, they lie in court, they lie to the public.

And so lost in all of the lies is the hard and honest work of thousands of good officers. So maybe if those good officers stop being silent in the face of the lies that come out the department, then their integrity wouldn't be questioned.

up
Voting closed 0

And so lost in all of the lies is the hard and honest work of thousands of good officers. So maybe if those good officers stop being silent in the face of the lies that come out the department, then their integrity wouldn't be questioned.

When a police officer lies on a report, the people who are lied about more often than not will complain about the lie. When an officer starts to get more than one of these complaints, Internal Affairs catches on real quick. The officer either stops after this one or two lies (which may have not even have beey lies), or they keep on lying. If they stop lying, nothing ever happens, if they continue to lie, they end up getting fired, sued, or put in prison.

People like you seem to think that cops can lie and lie and keep getting away with it, but you can never back that up with proof, even if that proof is just the amount of complaints an officer might have against them.

It just happens a lot less than people think.

up
Voting closed 0

Show me where it says that now.....

up
Voting closed 0

Rosemary C. Scapicchio, the lawyer who secured James Bush's freedom yesterday, left absolutely no doubt about the role Danny Keeler played in her defense.

"When the lead (homicide) detective lies under oath," she said, "files false reports and gets descriptions from witnesses that don't stand up under questioning . . . then, yes, I'd say that's more than crucial."

The witnesses Scapicchio spoke of were Malik Andrade-Percival's mother and father. Belmira Andrade and Ian Percival identified Bush in court as the armed invader who tried to force his way into their Dorchester home. Both testified they had separately selected his picture from an array Keeler provided and went on to pick him out of a lineup.

For his part, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley believed Malik's parents provided the jury with exactly "the kind of compelling evidence" they needed to return a guilty verdict.

Yet, Scapicchio was able to expose a contradiction between the parents' initial description of the invader and the amount of extra detail contained in Keeler's report.

In a Perry Mason moment, the jury saw Keeler admit his report included a false claim of videotaping the crime scene. He also wrote that a homicide colleague had interviewed witnesses at the scene when in actuality he was not there.

up
Voting closed 0

Just wanted to see where he:

A. Admitted to perjury
B. was charged with perjury.
C. Was Convicted of perjury

up
Voting closed 0

Filing false statements during court proceedings is perjury. That he was never prosecuted for this instance (or the time he stole those sunglasses) doesn't make him innocent. And that you want to split hairs instead of admitting he is evidence of a department unworthy of our trust gives truth to all those above who are accusing you of being a toady for the BPD. Dan Keeler is a disgrace and yet the BPD continues not only to back him, he is one of the highest paid employees the city has. Shameful.

up
Voting closed 0

Perjury is knowingly making false statements under oath. Read the hundreds of pages of Keeler's reports and you will see the difference.

And when you are dealing with legal issues, you have to split hairs. This whole issue is about whether someones hand was 1 foot, 10 feet, or 1 inch.

So legally this would make you a liar as well.

up
Voting closed 0

You're all a lying bunch of liars.

Also, carry fire extinguishers for your pants. They're consistently on fire.

up
Voting closed 0

I grew up next door to a guy who was a Boston cop. I've never forgotten one conversation I heard him having with my Dad over a few beers, in which he was talking about writing up police reports. He said (and I'm paraphrasing from memory), "Well, I obviously have to make it look like I had good reason to arrest you so there has to be an element of creative writing to it." Always good to know when the common person's rights and/or reputation are on the line. Protect, serve, make stuff up if you want to arrest someone.

up
Voting closed 0

You never know if you are dealing with officer friendly, officer roid rage, or officer testi-lie. That's the unfortunate truth. I'm an upper middle class white guy, and I wouldn't trust a cop as far as I could throw them. It's been obvious to anyone paying attention that dishonest and violent cops are tolerated by management, unions and fellow officers. Contempt of cop will land you in jail for the night. The best solution is limit your interaction with them as much as possible. Don't ever expect the cop to write anything up that will go against the narrative they need to present to justify their actions.

up
Voting closed 0

This wasn't in Boston, but the idea that this stuff doesn't go on here is ludicrous:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/offic...

This officer was going to jam up an innocent guy on a felony and the guy spent three nights in jail. The only reason the officer is busted and the citizen exonerated is because the citizen had video of the incident.

up
Voting closed 0