Hey, there! Log in / Register
DA: No criminal charges in death of fan after Celtics victory
By adamg on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 1:28pm
Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley said today there is no reason to bring criminal charges against Boston police officers for the death of David Woodman, who collapsed while being arrested on June 18 and then died on June 29:
... As a result of a thorough, objective and independent review of the facts, I have concluded that no criminal charges are warranted in this case. The facts are clear and the medical evidence overwhelming that Mr. Woodman's death was the result of natural causes - specifically a serious, pre-existing heart condition. The evidence is also clear that officers of the Boston Police Department did not use excessive force in effectuating the lawful arrest of Mr. Woodman for public drinking, but only degree of force necessary to handcuff him. ...
The statements of police officers and civilian witnesses, most of whom are friends or acquaintances of Mr. Woodman, are in agreement. No officer used a weapon of any sort in arresting Mr. Woodman. No officer used a baton or chemical spray. No officer struck, punched, slapped, kicked, or used a chokehold on Mr. Woodman. ...
His complete statement is in the comments below.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Well that's not
Well that's not surprising.....
The technique that was used
The technique that was used by the BPD to arrest David Woodman caused his heart to stop beating. To claim it was a coincidence or the fault of David's heart and not the force used, is illogical, counter-intuitive, irresponsible and in error. Just becuase slamming a non-dangerous suspect to the ground, chest and face-first, is commonplace in BPD procedure does not make it reasonable force. Procedure is developed to protect the rights and well-being of suspects, bystanders and the police. in this case, procedure failed and DA Conley's decision regarding excessive force is a miscarriage of justice.
ok your right and the doctor is wrong.
And why would someone with a heart problem die of a heart problem?
according to you
according to you if the police force a person with a normal heart to the ground while restraining their arms so they can't protect themselves from the force of the fall, onto their face and chest with enough force to stop their heart, it is excessive force
...but if they do that to someone with a heart condition it's not excessive force, because the person has a heart condition.
not according to me, its according to the law, and the doctors
when you resist, officers can use force to counter that resistance. When you choose to grab onto a fence by resisting arrest, you shouldnt expect your hands to be free when get pulled from it, and guess what? There is going to be a chance that you might fall to the ground when you do get pulled from that fence. You had the chance to put your hands behind your back and get handcuffed normally. If you want to resist by grabbing onto something, expect the police to counter by using force.
And when the DA reviews the facts and talks to witnesses, he comes to a conclusion whether or not the cops acted within this poicy.
There is going to be a
There is going to be a chance that you might fall to the ground when you do get pulled from that fence.
you're an idiot.
yea your right.
the cops should have brought over a soft cushy chair or mattress for him in case he fell.
Im also sure youve handuffed lots of people and know handcuffing techniques and policies.
cardiac concussion
blow to the chest can cause cardiac arrest
clear EXCESSIVE FORCE likely due to COMMOTIO CORDIS
this syndrome is not that well known, even by doctors, but it describes the condition that most likely killed DAVID WOODMAN... it can be seen mostly in young, white men who sustain a blow to the chest wall, causing different kinds of cardiac arrhythmias...it is usually fatal...it is unnecessary AND dangerous to slam anyone to the ground, especially given the minor nature of the offense...other mechanisms might also apply..."VOODOO DEATH" due to overwhelming fear and CAROTID SINUS RECEPTOR DAMAGE due to head and neck injury ...
Commisioner, Donald Stern, Esq., PBD investigation, civil suit
I don't think we'll see the DA's research in writing. A verbal announcement and limited Q&A will do the trick for him.
The Commissioner however hired the former US attorney, now in private law practice to review police procedure and report on whether procedure might have contributed to the damages, and therefore would need to be reviewed and modified. We should see that, we paid for it. FOIA.
The commissioner also considered hiring civil rights attorneys to become part of any large crowd control operation, from organizational meetings in police quarters, to the street, followed by an action report critiquing police action as violating or not violating civil rights, and how so. This would be a big step forward for protecting crowds. The commissioner has had plenty of time to research and move this forward. He better or David Woodman died in vain.
If I'm in the Woodman family, I want to see all of the reports an all of the interviews produced by Boston Police Detectives, which I can have access to in discovery if I file a wrongful death lawsuit. (Did they already?)
Just because the DA thinks there was no crime, or thinks he can't get a conviction (two reasons why he wouldn't charge) doesn't mean the family can't get a wrongful death finding in civil action, although it surely will be a hard case to prove unless someone perjured themselves in a cover up (if any.)
Death Investigation Protocols
This determination is absolutely not limited to a verbal announcement and limited Q&A. The evidentiary foundation upon which the decision was based will be released as they are for all Suffolk County death investigations.
Following the investigation into Victoria Snelgrove's death, reporters were granted access to the entire investigative file here at the DA's office; it took a while, but every interested party was able to view it. In this case, reporters will be granted similar access, but to electronic versions of the file, which should make it faster and more efficient to distribute.
Conley's statement
On June 18, 2008 officers from the Boston Police Department arrested David Woodman for public drinking following the celebration of the Celtics' final game victory. The arrest occurred near the intersection of Brookline Avenue and the Fenway. Mr. Woodman suffered a cardiac arrhythmia during the arrest and he was taken to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for treatment. Mr. Woodman died in the hospital 11 days later on June 29, 2008. Under Massachusetts law, it is my duty to direct an investigation of Mr. Woodman's death and determine whether criminal charges should be pursued against any police officer for conduct related to the arrest and subsequent death of Mr. Woodman.
Detectives from the Boston Police Homicide Unit were directed in this investigation by senior prosecutors from my office, while the Chief Medical Examiner, representing his independent agency, provided the medical documentation, opinions, and conclusions that were pivotal in this case. This death investigation was diligent, thorough, and fully documented. It is undertaken objectively and my final determination is made independently. Earlier today, I met with Mr. Woodman's parents and their attorney to inform them of our findings.
As a result of a thorough, objective and independent review of the facts, I have concluded that no criminal charges are warranted in this case. The facts are clear and the medical evidence overwhelming that Mr. Woodman's death was the result of natural causes - specifically a serious, pre-existing heart condition. The evidence is also clear that officers of the Boston Police Department did not use excessive force in effectuating the lawful arrest of Mr. Woodman for public drinking, but only degree of force necessary to handcuff him.
A death of a person in police custody deserves the closest independent scrutiny, and I am confident that my office and the Chief Medical Examiner provided that independent scrutiny in order to determine the facts of this incident. The Chief Medical Examiner conducted a thorough autopsy, consulted with outside medical experts in cardiology and neuropathology, and closely reviewed the medical records of Mr. Woodman's treatment on the night of June 18 and during his hospital stay. After collecting and considering all of the relevant medical facts, the Chief Medical Examiner determined that Mr. Woodman's death was a result of natural causes. The medical facts are clear: no person caused the death of Mr. Woodman.
The Chief Medical Examiner determined that Mr. Woodman during his arrest suffered a cardiac arrhythmia - a disruption of the electrical activity in the human heart. Mr. Woodman was born with a heart condition that required nearly immediate corrective surgery. The successful surgery allowed Mr. Woodman to live a relatively normal life, but his heart was not normal. It was twice the size of a normal heart. As a result of his heart condition and resulting enlarged heart, Mr. Woodman was at constant risk of cardiac arrhythmia and was advised to avoid certain physical activities. The medical evidence is clear and is not contradicted: on June 18, Mr. Woodman suffered a cardiac arrhythmia as a natural result of his pre-existing heart condition.
The cardiac arrhythmia led to a predictable and serious chain of medical events: Mr. Woodman's heart stopped functioning properly, blood did not flow to his brain, the brain was therefore deprived of sufficient oxygen, and serious brain damage resulted. Hospital treatment revived Mr. Woodman. A second cardiac arrhythmia occurred on June 29 while Mr. Woodman was still at the hospital. Hospital medical personnel provided immediate treatment that was unable to revive Mr. Woodman's heart.
Our inquiry also considered the possibility that the officers used excessive force that did not cause Mr. Woodman's death. The evidence on this point is also clear: no officer used excessive force in arresting Mr. Woodman. For this conclusion I have relied on the medical evidence, the conclusions and opinions of the Chief Medical Examiner, the tape recorded statements of the civilian witnesses, the tape recorded interviews of the police officers present at the scene, and the tape recorded interviews of firefighters and ambulance personnel who arrived on the scene.
The statements of police officers and civilian witnesses, most of whom are friends or acquaintances of Mr. Woodman, are in agreement. No officer used a weapon of any sort in arresting Mr. Woodman. No officer used a baton or chemical spray. No officer struck, punched, slapped, kicked, or used a chokehold on Mr. Woodman.
The medical evidence corroborates the statements of the police officers and the civilians. The autopsy documents that Mr. Woodman suffered no fractures, no injury to an internal organ, no penetrating injury, no neck injury, no chest injury, and no brain injury associated with blunt force trauma. The medical evidence produces no finding that suggests excessive force.
In summary, the Chief Medical Examiner determined that Mr. Woodman died of natural causes associated with cardiac arrhythmia that resulted from a pre-existing heart condition. No police officer caused Mr. Woodman's death and no police officer used excessive force in arresting Mr. Woodman. There will, therefore, be no criminal charges in this case.
Because the investigation is now complete, I can describe the events that led to Mr. Woodman's arrest and the specific actions of Mr. Woodman and the police officers as the arrest occurred.
On the night of June 17, Mr. Woodman and some friends gathered at his Boylston Street apartment to watch Game Six of the NBA finals. Mr. Woodman's friends report that he drank several beers. At halftime, Mr. Woodman walked with his friends to Boston Billiards on Brookline Avenue and continued drinking at that bar. The group left Boston Billiards after the Celtics' victory, and walked with the intent to return to Mr. Woodman's apartment.
As he walked with his friends, Mr. Woodman carried a clear plastic cup of beer taken out of Boston Billiards. The Boston Police Department's operation plan for crowd control and public safety included several squads of officers deployed in the Fenway and Kenmore Square. Mr. Woodman walked near a squad of nine uniformed officers at the intersection of Brookline Avenue and the Fenway.
Mr. Woodman made one or more statements to the officers as he walked past. Officers noticed Mr. Woodman's clear plastic cup of beer. One officer told Mr. Woodman to stop; Mr. Woodman ignored the order and kept walking away. Officers repeated the command and Mr. Woodman again did not comply. Additional commands went unheeded until one officer approached Mr. Woodman, took hold of his arm, and spoke directly to him. Mr. Woodman took a sip from his cup and threw it to the ground.
The officer attempted to place Mr. Woodman under arrest for drinking in public. As he reached for Mr. Woodman's hand to handcuff him, Mr. Woodman grabbed a nearby wrought iron fence. The fence is located on Brookline Avenue and encircles the property of Emmanuel College. Mr. Woodman used both hands to grip the fence and prevent handcuffing. Two officers attempted to pull Mr. Woodman away from the fence; one officer grabbed Mr. Woodman's left hand and the other officer grabbed the right hand. He resisted those efforts and refused to let go of the fence.
Several officers working together finally loosened Mr. Woodman's grasp on the fence. They brought him to the ground and handcuffed him in a prone position. They used a level and type of force appropriate to the resistance they encountered, and they complied with the Boston Police Department's rules and procedures in doing so. While he was face down, resisting arrest, being handcuffed he suffered what the Chief Medical Examiner described as superficial abrasions to his face. Those abrasions resulted from Mr. Woodman's face scraping against the pavement.
Mr. Woodman's friends, who had also been drinking, were in close proximity to the officers' efforts to restrain an intoxicated suspect who was resisting arrest. To be sure that the situation did not escalate further and in accordance with arrest procedures, the officers ordered those individuals to move away from the scene.
Once Mr. Woodman was handcuffed, the officers attempted to get him to his feet and realized he could not stand under his own power. They returned Mr. Woodman to the ground and the officers, who knew he had been drinking but did not know of his medical condition, believed him to be intoxicated. They positioned him on his side in the event that he vomited. Within one or two minutes, they noticed that he was not breathing and had no pulse, and they immediately took action.
The officers removed his handcuffs. One officer, who had been trained and certified as an emergency medical technician, began to administer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Another performed chest compressions. A third called for an ambulance over his radio while three additional officers ran on foot in the direction of an ambulance they had seen a short time earlier. Prompted by the sight of the running officers, two off-duty firefighters responded and offered assistance in rendering first aid. Finally, officers on-scene flagged down another ambulance as it drove by.
Paramedics on board took over life support efforts and transported Mr. Woodman to Beth Israel. It was during this ambulance ride that paramedics administered an EKG and realized Mr. Woodman had suffered a cardiac arrhythmia. Mr. Woodman remained at Beth Israel until June 29, when he suffered a second cardiac arrhythmia. He died as a result of this second medical event.
I am fully aware of the importance of this investigation to the Woodman family. I am fully aware of its importance to the officers involved. I am familiar with the extensive coverage this case received in the media and I know that many will look to our investigation for answers. For this reason, I will provide a copy of the entire investigative file to the Woodman family and I will also make that file available to the media to ensure the transparency of this process.
While we as human beings understand the powerful emotions that surround any tragic death, we as prosecutors must make our charging decisions solely on the basis of the facts and the law. The cause of David Woodman's death and the circumstances of his arrest have been clearly established - factually, medically, and legally - and do not support criminal charges.
sorry to say it, but this
sorry to say it, but this kid brought this upon himself. The sooner people realize that instead of trying to point fingers and blame everyone else, the better.
How so?
Since when do we have a death penalty for public drinking? Police should just be able to ticket people for that, rather than arresting them.
Sorry but I agree with the
Sorry but I agree with the other guy. I'm sick of all these idiots who think they can go out, get incredibly drunk, then become everyone else's problem. Or worse yet are the ones that trash everything. Getting THAT drunk means you're willing to impair yourself and take your chances walking around, crossing the street ... Nope, no sympathy from me.
True, but this kid wasn't
True, but this kid wasn't that drunk, nor trashing anyone. He made a not too snarky remark to a cop with a night stick up his ass and got the death penalty for a civil infraction.
These situations can be dealt with better. Cops escalate the problems just as much as the hooligans, which are a small percentage of the celebrating public.
nice
Did you read the report? He "resisted arrest" by grabbing onto a fence. He didn't fight them, he just tried to avoid being handcuffed.
The question remains: why did the cops feel it necessary to leave him face-down on the ground? Why wasn't he handcuffed and brought up to stand, or sat down on the curb? And, as the parents pointed out, why did he show up at the hospital with evidence of extended oxygen deprivation?
The fact that a DA can stand up there and say with a straight face that a DA's office investigation is "independent" is the fucking funniest thing I've ever heard, especially in light of the recent evidence of collusion between the DA and Boston cops.
Was anyone able to find out if the DA found any independent witnesses or videotape footage? I'd be shocked if the arrest and detention didn't get caught on tape by someone's security camera or a traffic am. Also, where is the radio call log?
PS:In before Pete Nice defends the death of a civilian in police custody
Refusing to be handcuffed by
Refusing to be handcuffed by its very nature constitutes resisting arrest.
Mr. Woodman was handcuffed in the prone position because it is the safest position for the suspect and officer in the overwhlemingly vast majority of arrests. Officers did attempt to bring him to his feet and realized he could not stand. At that time, they began measures to provide first aid, including mouth-to-mouth, chest compressions, calling for an ambulance, and running to find one.
The cessation of oxygenated blood flow to the brain leaves the brain without oxygen.
I think you might have the wrong agency in mind with regard to your statement about collusion: boston.com...judge_chastises_federal_attorney/
Independent witnesses were interviewed -- as were witnesses referred to investigators by the Woodman family attorney. No videotape footage was recovered, but the radio transmissions that night were scrutinized and will be provided to the family and the media.
No videotape footage was
You have some good information which I did not find here. Do you work for the DA's office or the BPD? How did you come by this?
Jake Wark
Is the spokesman for the DA's office.
Thank you Jake.
Thank you Adam.
Brett: The question remains:
Brett:
Conley:
He couldn't stand under his own power because he was already experiencing the cardiac arrhythmia but they just thought he was too drunk to stand. Somehow they forgot they were having trouble pealing him off the fence moments before and getting him off his feet face down, prone. They missed it. He wasn't too drunk to stand, he was having a cardiac event. I think it is disingenuous to say the physical and emotional stress did not contribute to his cardiac event but probable cause to arrest is exculpatory.
The family would have to prove excessive force (contributory negligence) or negligence after the arrest to prove damages.
Im not going to defend the death
but like I said before, if this kid did not have a pre-existing heart condition, he probably wouldn't have died, and that is why charges weren't filed.
And I would say the same thing if a cop died during the struggle and it came out that the cop had some sort of heart problem. I would not to see the kid charged with murder because there would have been doubt about what actually caused the death of the cop.
And grabbing a fence would be "resisting arrest" under MA law. He would have resisted arrest if he had simply ran away and then submitted peacefully.
Although I would admit I was suprised that the department of justice or FBI didnt do the report just so the Bretts of the world could be convinced. Then again, the Bretts of the world already know the the police are 100% at fault here.
the suspect attempted to flee
What ever happened to "the suspect attempted to flee." I don't see it in Conley's report. Did Woodman attempt to flee and Conley failed to mention it, or did it not happen even though the police originally asserted it did?
That latter - it did not happen even though the police originally asserted it did - would be far more troublesome because it would imply that the official police report testimony cannot be trusted.
ordered to leave or face arrest
You have to wonder if the friend returning is what prompted the police to take another look at David Woodman and ascertain his critical medical condition.
If so, Stern should consider recommending that the BPD end the policy of threatening to arrest bystanders (for whom there is no probable cause of a crime.)
They should be allowed to watch if they keep a safe distance. This is not a police state is it? Why should the police not be subject to visual scrutiny by citizens in the course of executing their duty? There were no firearms involved, simply a young man with a .147 blood alcohol level.
If they had not threatened to arrest his friends, you have to wonder if his condition would have been recognized almost immediately
eggshell skull defense
And I would say the same thing if a cop died during the struggle and it came out that the cop had some sort of heart problem. I would not to see the kid charged with murder because there would have been doubt about what actually caused the death of the cop.
The kid would have been undoubtedly charged with murder. It's called the eggshell skull defense, and you're full of shit if you think the death of a cop would be treated the same as the death of a civilian. The kid would undoubtedly show up for his court hearing severely beaten and lucky to have survived the night.
If the shoe fits civilians, it's gotta fit the cops, and that's the problem here: somewhere along the line, it became "deserved" for SUSPECTS to be injured or killed whilst being detained or arrested, as evidenced by the numerous deaths from tasers (and of course, this is the department that managed to kill someone with a pepperball gun. Do we really need any further evidence of how low respect is for civilian life at BPD?) Somewhere along the line, it became acceptable for police to overreact in the interests of being paranoid about saving their own skins, instead of accepting the dangers of the job.
Im not saying what would happen
Im saying what I think is right. There is a difference. And the eggshell defense isn't going to work in all police cases. If a cop is responding to a shoplifting call and gets in a car crash on the way there, the shoplifter does not get charged with murder.
And again, there are so many issues about this story to pick out.
What percentage of people that get handcuffed get injured or killed? If you resist the police from handcuffing you, then you are going to feel pain. Do you think the cops should give out candy or something to entice you to put your hands behind yoru back?
Now if you think the cops threw this kid to the ground for no reason, then thats a whole different story. Of course if that happend then the cops did the wrong thing. But you and I dont know that this happened.
google, use it.
Im saying what I think is right. There is a difference. And the eggshell defense isn't going to work in all police cases. If a cop is responding to a shoplifting call and gets in a car crash on the way there, the shoplifter does not get charged with murder.
Of course not, because the actions of the shoplifter did not cause the cop to crash. The eggshell skull rule refers to the amount of damage/injury versus intention. Go read it- the classic example is the guy who punches another in the face, and kills him.
The defense would be "well, a punch wouldn't injure a normal person"; however, the case history is that if you commit a criminal act, you must "take your victims as you find them." It comes down to this: if you he hadn't been punched, he wouldn't have died. Did you punch him? Yes? Then you're guilty. There is direct causation between the punch and the death, unlike your example.
Do you think the cops should give out candy or something to entice you to put your hands behind your back?
No. I think the death of a SUSPECT should be treated as what it is: manslaughter (if it was not intentional) and murder if it was. There is no question he suffered injuries that ultimately killed him. There is no question who caused those injuries. The only question remaining is intent, and which officers were directly guilty, and which either helped cover it up, or were at the least negligent in their supervision.
I hope the officers involved and the city get the shit sued out of them, as they no doubt will. The city will spend millions defending itself, pulling money from the budget and hurting them as a result. It won't bring the kid back, but maybe when BPD officers find their union and cozy relationship with the DA won't protect them from spending the rest of their lives working off a court settlement, they'll think twice about roughing up a suspect.
Plenty of cities have officers who show remarkable professionalism (including when someone shows up with a camera/video camera.) There's no reason we have to tolerate a bunch of bullies who are so hot-tempered they kill someone because he cracks a joke about them earning overtime and supposedly had an open container.
I agree but there is... proximate cause
I agree but there is the question of the proximate cause of his death, which occurred days later after a second cardiac arrhythmia... unless it could be argued that he was treated with excessive force AND the excessive force treatment caused the first cardiac arrhythmia AND he would not have had the second cardiac arrhythmia otherwise.
I know what it is.
And ok, I used a bad example. But Ive seen it used in court on several occasions with different results. "google" shouldn't be your bible.
Did you punch him? Yes? Then you're guilty. There is direct causation between the punch and the death, unlike your example.
No, that doesn't mean your guilty. Maybe the other guy punched you first? Maybe you were defending yourself? That what happend in this case and all these things you are making up about what you don't even know happened.
There is no question he suffered injuries that ultimately killed him.
No question? No question at all? The kid had a heart condition and thats a fact. The kid was drunk and thats a fact. The kid committed a crime and thats a fact. The kid resisted arrest and according to witnesses that were mentioned in Conley's letter to Davis. Seems like a fact too. So your wrong or stupid because there is a HUGE QUESTION as to how he died.
Let me ask you this Brett. Lets say there was a videotape of the kid going up to the back of an officer and then punching him in the head. Then the kid kicks and punches while officers arrest him and then dies in the same way he did die in this case. Is that manslaughter? Again, you are the one spewing out "facts" that are only your assumptions when even witnesses said the police did not throw him to the ground or do anything else except make a lawful arrest.
Again, you dont know about arresting someone or a use of force chart that officers use in arresting someone and you certainly dont know what happened that night.
There is no question who caused those injuries. The only question remaining is intent, and which officers were directly guilty, and which either helped cover it up, or were at the least negligent in their supervision
What injuries? Do you not believe the witnesses that said the cops did not use exessive force? Do you know for a fact officers covered it up?
Why am I asking these questions? You are wrong and that is a fact.
There's no reason we have to tolerate a bunch of bullies who are so hot-tempered they kill someone because he cracks a joke about them earning overtime and supposedly had an open container.
Supposedly? I mean, are you serious? Do hear voices in your head about how the US probably caused 9-11?
Injuries
His injuries did not kill him. His congenital heart condition, which put him at an acute and lifelong risk of a fatal cardiac arrhythmia, killed him. His injuries were described by the independent Office of the Chief Medical Examiner as "superficial abrasions."
Many people today seem to have taken the position that one must blame either the police or David Woodman for Mr. Woodman's death. I would submit -- and the opinions of medical experts suggest -- that this is a false dichotomy.
lots and lots of questions
His ...heart condition, which put him at an acute and lifelong risk of a [fatal] cardiac arrhythmia, killed him.
True with one exception, whether it is fatal or not is subject to other factors that occur after the onset of the cardiac arrhythmia, such as medical care or the absence of. He didn't die from his heart condition. He died (in the hospital) because the treatment he got didn't correct the rhythm after living with it for over two decades.
We know that cardiac arrhythmia can be triggered by physical and emotional stress that produces a surge in adrenaline. It's been reported that he played basketball with his friends earlier that day. What triggered cardiac arrhythmia at the time of the incident that didn't trigger cardiac arrhythmia in the afternoon on the basketball court. Did he have a history of cardiac arrhythmia or was this the first time in his life?
What's the average life span of a person born with the congenital heart defect like David's who lived 24 years already?
I'm curious about accounting for the Commissioner's first statement shortly after the incident that said Woodman fled. I did not notice it in AG Conley's report. Did I miss it or was that statement retracted by officers on the scene. Can you provide details about that original testimony and the course of events in which it was retracted? This is important because it goes to the credibility and integrity of the officers who participated or observed the arrest.
Why are police given such wide latitude to threaten arrest in order to disburse passerbys, such as David Woodman's friends in this case. Let's assume the police had no probable cause to detain or search David's friends. Why are police given such wide latitude to threaten arrest? It makes people wonder whether the police are trying to hide something. They were in a public place - public sidewalks - and they were not interfering with police duties.
When David's friend came back, he noticed David was not breathing and that the police had not noticed. Did David's friend bring it to their attention? Do the police have an affirmative obligation to protect the health and well-being of a person under arrest? Was that obligation met?
AG Conley's report said it was one to two minutes between when the officers left David on his side and when they noticed he was not breathing. Was the AG able to corroborate that estimate? Do we know it was no longer than 120 seconds? Is that estimate consistent with the brain damage finding by David's neurologist in Beth Israel hospital? Did he have a normal cardiac rhythm when he was loaded in the bus?
Were the police asked if it occurred to them that this strong determined inebriated man (David) with whom they had to struggle moments before to arrest, could have suddenly become so drunk that he could no longer stand on his own two feet? I don't think it would have occurred to me. For how long did they leave him unobserved after that strange and rapid deterioration in his ability to stand on his feet?
Is it department policy for all (nine) police officers in a detail to bang off early and leave their post in order to get stress counseling after an arrest of a drunken person and Cardiac Pulmonary Resuscitation of the same? Why does the department not require the nine officers who witnessed the arrest to file their own reports? How can it be considered reasonable to have a supervisor, who was not present, file the report? Does the BPD understand that these actions would make any reasonable citizen wonder why the nine policemen are not expected to document the event and stand by it.
Is Stern's report available?
Will the Commissioner make an announcement of policy changes as a result of Stern's review of procedure, and the facts in this case, such as not leaving a hand-cuffed suspect, who is unable to stand on his own two feet, alone without supervision unless there are specific delineated circumstance that take priority, such as making an arrest?
people without any cardiac
people without any cardiac conditions can die from this amount of force to the chest wall...especially young, white males
More details on the investigation
Letter from Conley to Police Commissioner Ed Davis (PDF file).
BAC
Mr Woodman's blood alcohol concentration was .137, which means he was very probably not in control -- slurring, staggering, emotionally volatile. Good reason for the officers to treat him as if he were drunk, because he was.
Blame him for his own death? Certainly not. And nothing will erase the tragedy of the event. But Conley's investigation and report strike me as serious, thorough and believable. We can't ask for more.
excerpts - DA Conley's ltr to Commisioner Davis
[please note that I referred to DA Conley as AG Conley in comments above and although DA Conley might aspire to the office, it was my mistake.]
slammed/not slammed, exsessive/not excessive, causal/coincidence
Five officers forced Woodmen to the ground. Five (5).
Woodman resisted, apparently with great strength and probably great exertion. This is of interest becuase exertion can play a role in triggering cardiac arrhythmia.
DA Conley describes this as "officers were forced to wrestle Mr Woodman to the ground." Unstated here but stated elsewhere is procedure when the police cannot handcuff a resisting suspect, they force the suspect to the ground face down to subdue and then cuff.
"Wrestling" with Woodman is probably an apt phrase for when five officers are grabbing him and holding him but "wrestling him to the ground" implies a softer landing than may have occurred, given some of the eyewitnesses testimony, and the cuts on his face and forehead (...if we can assume the cuts happened when he landed face down.)
One eyewitness said he was "thrown".
One eyewitness said he was "slammed".
Two eyewitnesses contradicted that he was "thrown" or "slammed"
One eyewitness said officers were trying to "bring him down."
One eyewitness denied officer threw Woodman to the ground.
By my count, we have an equal number of eyewitnesses who believe and testified he was "thrown","slammed","brought down" as those who believe he was not. That's remarkable maybe incredible symmetry in the eyewitness testimony if you think about it. That one witness would use the word "thrown" and another say "not thrown." That one witness would say "slammed" and yet another say "not slammed".
Either way the sum of the eyewitness testimony is curiously self-eliminating. The facial cuts however are objective physical evidence if they can be directly attributed to the moment the five police officers were successful in their effort to "force[d to wrestle] Mr. Woodman to the ground face down."
Then we might conclude that he hit with great force, force that the five policemen found necessary but a great force nonetheless: Force that could have been the proximate cause in his cardiac event.
The sheer coincidence of being tackled or wrestled to the ground by five policemen and landing face down and having a cardiac arrhythmia then or moments later as a sheer coincidence without a cause and effect relationship is too cosmically freakish for a thinking person to imagine.
In other words landing face down, slammed or otherwise, with five policeman moving you in that direction and causing you to collide with the ground set in motion David Woodman's cardiac arrhythmia.
Yes, he could have had one at anytime but he did have one when he was being subdued by five policemen and met the ground, face down and chest down, with great force.
DA Conley's account makes little of the time between when the officers put Woodman on his side and when they realize he's got a life-threatening health issue. I think DA Conley describes this time as one or two minutes. Early newspaper accounts have time stamp when the officers call in for a wagon to pick up a drunk. In the original account this was after he was arrested but before they knew he was in distress. A second call is made for a rush emergency ambulance after they recognize his problem and start CPR. I think the time between these two calls is eight minutes but I'd have to look back. How does that mesh with the one to two minutes DA Conley refers to in this documents?
Slamming
It's gonna be hard to unpick this knot. I'll contribute to your argument two things: if David Woodman, a strong young man, was holding on to that wrought iron fence with both hands, it would have been a mighty struggle to get him to let go. Probably a greater exertion than basketball.
Also, slamming someone hard to the ground can knock them right out, without leaving any bruises, just from compression of the chest. I know because I have done this to someone. (Hey, he took a swing at me!) I think it does that by messing up your heart and stopping it momentarily (commotio cordis). If you had a double-size heart like Woodman, I guess it'd be easier. Apparently, you don't tend to come back from commotio cordis if you've got hypertrophic myopathy. (Now that I look back on it, I'm awful glad I didn't kill that guy accidentally...)
In any case, it sucks. If I were his parent, I'd be suing, no doubt. The DA refuses to share the autopsy? There's no goddamn reason for that. No reason at all. Maybe he's not trying to hide something, but it sure gives that impression. I wouldn't be satisfied if I were his parent.
I'm not sure where this
I'm not sure where this allegation about refusal to share information comes from. The DA specifically states that he will release the entire, unredacted contents of the investigative file to the Woodman family and their attorney.
Throughout the investigation, prosecutors provided regular updates to the Woodman family through their attorney. From their statements yesterday, it doesn't appear that the updates were shared with them. Why not?
Be sure
It comes from the parents.
So now you know where it comes from! Yay!
reports and autopsy
I belive from day one any information including the autopsy would not be given to anyone. Now that the investigation is done, all reports including the autopsy will be released to anyone that has a legal right to them including the parents.
Releasing autopsy reports during death investigations can effect the actual investigation and information needed in the court.
request
Pete, thanks for responding about how these things work generally. Jake works for the DA's office. Please let him respond to these questions specifically, or say "usually..." Thanks.
No problem
But I did use the word "believe" in that last post. And I know for a fact that information involving criminal investigations don't get released untill the report is complete.
Yes, you did. Interesting
Yes, you did. Interesting that Jake is contributing here... The DAs office is committed to provided information to the public on this sensitive issue.
witnesses
"Althought two civilians stated that Mr. Woodman was "thrown" and "slammed" to the ground, other civilians contradicted this characterization. At least one other civilian specifically denied that the officers threw Mr. Woodman to the ground, and another civilian stated that officers were trying to "bring him down."
This here is the key statement that puts doubt in my mind that these cops were in the wrong.
This post of yours, took me
This post of yours, took me by surprise. Do you want to explain further?
It was more in a response
to some people here who think it is a fact that the cops murdered this kid. I think its unfair for anyone who wasn't there or doesn't know the facts to say for a fact what happend here.
And I did not know there were any other witnesses before I saw the letter. I thought it was just the cops, Woodman, and Woodman's friends. But if people saw what happened and did not think the cops were out of line, it at least should put a question in your mind that Woodman may not have been murdered.
What does "Approximately 5
What does
"Approximately 5 officers were involved in subduing Mr Woodman"
mean?
It means the DA does not have a clear picture of each officer's involvement in the critical action of unhanding Woodman from the fence and forcing him to the ground, face first, with his hands restrained by police officers with enough force to cause facial and forehead abrasions.
One eyewitness says Woodman was "slammed" and another says he was "thrown".
It is not hard to imagine the force with which he could be forced to the ground, face down, arms restrained, by five officers, especially if he had been successfully resisting their efforts to unhand him from the fence. (I don't imagine five officers went over immediately. I imagine one or two started and more joined in to help when the need for their help became obvious to them)
How is it that these two eyewitnesses' testimony is dismissed simply becuase other eyewitnesses contradict their assertions.
If being slammed is the difference between accidental death and contributory negligence and manslaughter, then how can DA Conley not put these facts to a grand jury?
The number of officers
The number of officers involved in the arrest varied over a period of time. It did not take place in an instant.
No one's statement was dismissed -- not for the reasons suggested here and not for any other.
One verb is not the difference between the two outcomes suggested here, both of which were ruled out by the person whose job it is to determine the cause of a person's death.
The chief medical examiner and two outside pathologists representing the fields of cardiology and neurology determined that Mr. Woodman died of a natural cause. Specifically, that cause was a cardiac arrhythmia on June 29 that was not related to the cardiac arrhythmia or any injury he suffered on June 18.
failed
No one's statement was dismissed -- not for the reasons suggested here and not for any other.
Obviously, the statements of two witnesses who saw David "slammed" and "thrown" to the ground were dismissed. Otherwise, the police would have been charged with using excessive force.
What the DA is allowing to stand is procedure - forcing suspects to the ground face-first with force - that risks the health and well-being of the suspect, whether or not the citizen is perceived as dangerous. In this case, he was merely resisting arrest and not a danger, which I think the police at the scene would agree was the case too.
In other words, the police have a one-size fits all technique for subduing suspects that puts the well-being of the suspect at risk. Isn't that irrefutable given the facts? Use violent submission as a proportional response but not when apprehending citizen for public drinking who is not a danger.
An intoxicated citizen who ended up with brain damage and later dead after a medical crisis precisely coincidental with the act of BPD taking them into custody, is not an occasion to declare exoneration.
Here, force was a factor. I reasonably argue it was excessive becuase of the damage caused to the suspect.
David Woodman is not Charlie Manson, which is to say David Woodman is not dangerous. And yet the force used to subdue him was that same force police would use to subdue a dangerous suspect... becuase he resisted not becuase he was dangerous.
If the DA is finding no responsibility for the BPD without comment on leaving the suspect cuffed alone for a period long enough to cause brain damage and without comment on the amount of force used when multiple officers force a suspect to fall face down, chest and face first, to the ground; then he should at least call upon the Commissioner to come forward with new procedure that will protect the lives of all citizens not just those without cardiac pathology. The DAs assumes that the PBD has no such responsibility to safeguard the health of suspects with cardiac pathology. Why not?
This is what the DA and the BPD fail to recognize. Also, not reviewed by the DA was the fact that all nine officers left the scene and did not file reports. Instead the report was filed by a supervisor who was not at the scene. We cannot trust our police force if they will not take responsibility and be accountable for their actions. Accountability is necessary for public trust. David Woodman and his family was failed by Boston government including the BPD, now the DA. It could have been any one of us.
Consequences
So if the police decide they must arrest somebody, and that person decides he doesn't want to be arrested, they should just say sorry and let him walk off? I think that might end up having some unfortunate consequences, like encouraging people to resist the police.
On the other hand, why exactly they had to take him in is unclear to me. If they could figure out who he was and could see that he wasn't actively posing a danger to anybody, then just citing him and letting him walk should have been enough.
And they could always have cuffed him to that fence he was holding onto. It's not like he could get away.
Maybe, like you say, they need something like the rules about car chases - at a certain point, they have to break off when it appears they're posing a public danger more than they are assisting with public safety.
to anon "consequences"
On the other hand, why exactly they had to take him in is unclear to me. If they could figure out who he was and could see that he wasn't actively posing a danger to anybody, then just citing him and letting him walk should have been enough.
Im going to be they were trying to figure out who he was when they asked him to stop. He refused to stop so the police took it to the next step.
Refused to stop?
Was that before he was holding onto a stationary iron fence with both hands, or afterwards?
before
He was told to stop before he was brought to the ground.
Told to stop?
To stop doing what? Walking or holding onto the fence?
Don't get me wrong, Pete, I for one appreciate the contribution you make here, and I'm not trying to be argumentative. But the report says clearly that Woodman was holding onto a wrought iron fence with both hands when the five cops brought him down.
What part of that is not stopping?
I didn't read the whole report but this is what I gather.
-cops are standing around corner as part of a special assignment
-group of people walk by and make a comment that the police dont like.
-police see that one of them has an open container that contains alcohol.
-police have probable cause to "sieze" this person.
-Police ask person to stop "they sieze him"
-Person ignores the police and doesn't stop "passivly resists", or actually "activly resists" by continuing to walk.
-Police go after him and use complaince techniques in accordance to the resistance of the person in question. Im not sure what tecnique the police used here. (escort technique?, armbar takedown?)
-Person grabs onto fence and resists arrest in doing so.
-Police use other teqniques to release his grasp from fence.
I was talking about him stopping at the initial part.
Okay
So at the point where the kid is grabbing onto the fence, he's stopped, right? He's holding onto the fence, either from sheer stubbornness or from fear for his safety from the police.
At the point where the kid is hanging onto the fence, he's not going anywhere. Can't they ID him where he's standing, give him a ticket, and let him go? Woudn't that be a better thing to to than to wrestle him to the ground?
I think the line was crossed at that point.
At the point where the kid is grabbing the fence he was already wrestled to the ground wasn't he? I mean, this isn't a case of "say uncle" and you get a ticket instead of being arrested.
Once police tell you to stop after you commit an arrestable offense, you are legally seized and under arrest. So just by ignoring officers commands you are legally "resisting arrest" and are committing further crimes.
This what I meant about drawing the line. You simply can't ignore police, make them chase you and then play the old "I give up game"
No
No, he wasn't on the ground. It took so many cops to wrestle him down because he was holding tight to the fence.
There's one point of fact, and here's another: a cop can tell you to stop without having to put you under arrest. A cop can just say "hey, stop there!" and talk to you for a minute. So you are not under arrest the minute any cop tells you to stop. If that were true, there'd be no such thing as traffic tickets.
No, of course you can't just ignore police. You really do have to stop when they tell you to. Yes, Mr. Woodman didn't heed the first order to stop, and he did walk on until a cop went after him and put his hands on him. And he shouldn't have.
But what is the reason, even at that point, that there was any need to place Mr. Woodman under arrest? Was he a danger to himself? To others? Nobody has so much as suggested that. What is the penalty for the open-container law? A fine? Why couldn't they just write him a ticket?
Was Mr. Woodman arrested at that point to protect public safety? Or was this a punitive arrest, part of an interpersonal power trip, and disassociated from any protection of public safety?
Ok
so he resisted resist by holding onto the fence which is another crime.
Drinking alchoho in public is arrestable. Cops asked him to stop, he didn't, so why should they give him a ticket at this point?
My whole point here with this is that these cops aren't going to play games at this point and follow this kid across the city begging him for his name.
Imagine that?
"Hey, just pretend to ignore the cops when they tell you to stop and maybe they will stop following you since smoking weed isn't really a crime any more"
Why should they give him a ticket?
They should give him a ticket because he acted like a jerk. If he wasn't acting like a jerk, they would never even have noticed him or his suspicious container. If he wasn't determined to act like a jerk, he would have just dumped his beer and kept his mouth shut when he saw them. But that's still not a good reason to arrest him.
My whole point here is that the cops were playing games at this point. They weren't protecting his safety, or the safety of anybody else. They were playing some ego trip game about I'm the cop so you have to kiss my ass now. And he was playing tough guy who wises off to the cops.
They didn't have to follow the kid anywhere. He was holding on to an iron fence for dear life when they decided breaking his grip was their best play.
they couldn't have done anything
if he wasnt breaking the law. ....
True and not true
They could have done anything they wanted to even if he wasn't breaking the law. The only difference is that the charges wouldn't stick in court.
In this case, evidence indicates he was breaking the law. But the law can be enforced without beating the crap out of every suspect. "The law" is not an excuse for brutality.
The escalation of force, as you put it, went to a degree entirely unnecessary and inappropriate given the original law that was being broken. Public safety was not enhanced but harmed by the actions of the police.
circles and circles
They could have done anything they wanted to even if he wasn't breaking the law. The only difference is that the charges wouldn't stick in court.
Sure, they could have lied and charged him with murder or rape or terrorism. That didn't happen here. And you still can't resist if you are being arrested for something you didn't do.
In this case, evidence indicates he was breaking the law. But the law can be enforced without beating the crap out of every suspect. "The law" is not an excuse for brutality
Well the witnesses in this case did not think officers "beat the crap" out of him. Sure, if an officer grabbed him by the hair and smashed his head off the sidewalk for the sake of smashing his head, then yea, that would be excessive force. But from witness accounts, that did not happen here.
The escalation of force, as you put it, went to a degree entirely unnecessary and inappropriate given the original law that was being broken.
the escalation of force has nothing to do with what law you break. It has to do with how much you resist arrest. People get arrested for small crimes all the time like driving with a suspended licence, traffic warrants, making a fake ID to buy beer. etc. When you get arrested you get handcuffed. If you want to resist, cops will use a level of force no matter if you robbed a bank or pissed on a baroom floor.
So in theory
If the "escalation of force" kept going, cops would be justified for shooting someone in the head for the initial crime of spitting on the sidewalk?
Imagining
Imagining a city where cops don't chase after and beat down people who are smoking a joint and otherwise minding their business...
Imagining...
Ok. Done. Sounds great. Where do I sign up?
You should read the report
You should read the report Pete. It doesn't take long and then you would know what facts they allege so you could opine on them.
I don't think I can
Im not sure if any average joe can see this entire report yet can they?
Is it out anywhere?
It will be available to the
It will be available to the media. We're currently working on the most practicable way to make it so. I think Anonymous is referring here to the DA's letter to the PC, which Adam has graciously posted here on UH.
You are correct Jake, DA
You are correct Jake, DA Conley's statement which Adam posted and DAs letter to the Commissioner.
Let Him Go Drive Home
Sure, let him go. Let him go straight to a car and drive with a point-whatever and kill someone who wasn't breaking any laws at all. And what would you say when you found out that BPD spoke to the kid that night and didn't arrest him for an arrestable offense?
You can't expect cops to treat a suspect as if he has a heart condition when he's doing short of chainsmoking to suggest that he doesn't have a heart condition.
anonymous
Woodman's friends testimony would probably given equal weight to the cops testimony don't you think? Wouldn't you hold the opinions of two unbiased observers higher than the cops or drunk friends of someone who got injured?
Police have a "use of force" chart that has been developed over time and has stood up in court over and over again. And this use of force chart doesn't use terms like "merely resisting arrest". They use terms like "active resistance" and the then to counter that the police would use compliance tecniques that they are trained in.
Now if you know for a fact what these court approved tecniques are and that the police did not use them then maybe the cops did use excessive force. You and I don't know that of course because we weren't there. All we can go by is what the witnesses said, and the experience of the DA and what he suspects would happen in court if this case actually did go to trail. And if you don't know the use of force policy, then you are even more unaware of the legality of these circumstances.
"It could have been any one of us."
And no, when the police ask me to do something, I do it. And if they are wrong or break the law, then afterward I would do something about it. Even if they falsly arrest me and Im 100% sure of it, I legally cannot resist arrest. Thats actually something that people should know.
Punitive Arrests
Pete, what do you think about punitive arrests? That's when there's no apparent need to actually arrest somebody - you can figure out who they are, you have their address, they're not posing a danger to themselves or someone else, and the infraction they have committed is relatively minor - but the cops arrest him anyway, 'just to teach him a lesson,' or to 'get him back,' by giving him the immediate legal and financial consequences of arrest.
It seems like Woodman's was a 'punitive arrest;' they wanted to get him back for being mouthy. I know there's a special chart to give them cover by letting them ratchet up the actions and responses. So the body-slam is acceptable force given the 'active resistance.' But what was the justification for escalation to arrest in the first place? Maybe that's what should be looked at seriously. What are the guidelines for what is a serious enough offense to warrant arrest?
punitive arrests
Good question that doesn't have an easy answer. My best answer would be that there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the law in the end is going to dictate it. Basically, you have to listen to the police, and the police don't make the laws, and most citizens don't break them.
I mean, lets look at the basics here. Drinking in public is a crime. 99% of the time if someone is caught drinking in public, the cop is going to tell him/her to get rid of it and put it away and not pursue any legal action, including summonsing them to court. At some point though there has to be a line that is drawn. That is why these crimes are arrestable, and are only arrestable if they are done in the presence of an officer.
-Like the party that officers have to go back to 3-4 times because neighbors can't sleep, and people are drinking on the street or are underage.
-Or the case where there is a person who is constantly being called on by citizens for drinking in public.
-Or the kid says "fuck you officer, this is the USA and I want to have a beer on my street".
At some point there has to be some sort of order and law.
If you go up to a random person in the street and punch them in the face and wait for police to show up, they can't arrest you. You can even tell them that you didn't like the way the guy was looking at you and you just felt like punching him. It's simply not arrestable. Thats why they have these "in presense" stipulations to 99% of misdemeanors.
Cops are right, you are wrong
That's the way things go these days unless you want a protracted legal battle.
It doesn't matter if you act legally knowing full well the extent of the law for your case. If the officer *thinks* that your action was illegal, it suddenly becomes so. You won't be able to talk your way out of his incorrect assessment of the situation and when it comes before the court system, the officer's word that what you did is illegal trumps the actual law (because the court system doesn't come prepared to know the actual law involved in your case).
The idea that some random citizen witness's opinion on an event is given the same weight as a cop's statement is absurd. The very basis for traffic offenses, for example, is that the ticket is right, no matter what you or anyone else says happened, unless you can unravel the officer's credibility at all. He-said, cop-said...you will lose every time. Sure, you listened to "he said" and it may have even jived with the evidence, but if it didn't meld better than the cop's testimony, then whatever variance is deferred to the cop.
I just paid $25 for "breaking a law" that explicitly states that what I did when I "broke the law" is legal...all because a cop didn't know the law and didn't want to accept what the law stated when I handed him the state's form where the law was printed directly on it stating that he was wrong. The cop made his reality and stuck to it and the kangaroo court system, via a magistrate clerk, reinforced his reality rather than pay attention to what the law actually states (just like the cop). So, talk all you want about what ideally should happen with this sort of punitive arrest, but once the cop has acted against you, it's automatically a tremendous uphill battle even over the smallest "offense" to get justice these days and that's just wrong.
Kaz, again
If I remember, your first appeal to the magistrate is just to show that the officer had probably cause to cite you, and the citation is probable cause. So you would have needed to go in front of a judge to prove your case. And you didn't choose to do that so the public has no idea whether you were right or wrong without hearing you both on the stand right? So you can't unfairly bash the process if you didn't go through it the whole way can you?
How do you know the trooper didn't cite you for an unsafe pass on the right which is illegal for mopeds and scooters? He could have felt that passing on the right was unsafe there and might not have ever noticed if it were a safe to pass right? They all come under the same chapter and section so you wouldn't know from just what was written on the ticket.
And let me ask you, do you think its safe to pass on the right side of Longwood Ave, approaching the intersection of Chapel St? (I think thats where you said you were) I mean, that isn't the safest place for bikes, mopeds, scooters, or people for that matter.
And remember there were witnesses here in the Woodman case.
Unsafe v safe
You can go back and read my account. When I drew up that account I was presenting *everything* that happened because I wanted unbiased opinions on what had happened. He cited me for passing on the right, period. Not "unsafely passing", because his contention in stopping me was that *any* pass on right for me is illegal (remember, one of his first complaints to me was that I was just like a motorcycle when it came to the law...he had no idea what he was talking about). The officer at the hearing simply stated that I had been observed passing 3 cars on the right and that was what I had been cited for (again, not "unsafely", simply the act of passing on right).
As to Longwood Ave, the lane there is nearly two cars wide and the shoulder is marked for no parking through that area leaving that road wide open. Scooters, bikes, all means of things often pass on right through there. Many cars even find enough room to basically create a second lane at the light with Chapel St. itself in order to make the right on red onto Chapel St reducing the burden on the little piece of Longwood between Chapel and Riverway.
I am simply one example of where what the cop said won. You're right that I could have pushed it further and may have even had good legal grounds to win. In my case, I had to make the pragmatic decision not to spend $20, lose a full day of work minimum, and take yet another legally-lopsided shot at avoiding paying $25 and risking even more disappointment in our current system. You state my point exactly. The ticket is "probable cause" and the magistrate upheld it. The fact that "probable cause" included a "law" that the officer was making up on the spot is just flat out *wrong*. The cop didn't like me and decided to be punitive with a ticket (whether the law was real or not). The cops didn't like Woodman and decided to be punitive with the arrest. It happens all the time. Law and order has mutated into "what I say is the law and I decide you're out of order unless you push the system to its fullest extent later". Cops know the system is faulty and then abuse it to their benefit knowing that it won't be worth it for you to fight to restore the fairness that's been taken from you. Some more than others.
a few things.
There is no "unsafe passing on the right". The law just says that mopeds can pass on the right in a safe manner. So if you were to be cited for passing in an unsafe manner, you would be cited for passing on the right and cited for what all moped violations are cited for (ch 90 s.1b).
I believe you when you say the trooper did not know the law. But I think he stopped you because you didnt not appear to be doing something safe. Didnt he even mention not wanting to "clean you up" off the road and that "no one could hear you" or something to that extent.
But I still don't think that is a safe section to pass cars, especially if there are parked cars, a traffic light out, detail officers at nearby intersections, contruction equipment, parked cars, and masholes on the road! I guess passing is never safe but sometime people are pulled over because something they do appears not to be safe.
And I don't think the Woodmans case is as clear as you think. Are you sure officers were going to arrest Woodman when they first wanted to stop him? Maybe they just wanted to cite him or give him an earfull?
No one's statement was
No one's statement was dismissed. Every statement was taken and considered as part of the evidence, whether it came from one of Mr. Woodman's friends, one of the officers involved, or one of the unaffiliated witnesses who was not part of either group.
The on-the-ground behind-the-back handcuff technique is not a one-size-fits-all technique -- in fact, there is no such technique. This situation escalated to the point where the officers brought Mr. Woodman to the ground and handcuffed him behind his back, which is the safest position for the suspect and the officer in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases.
The DA's role in this investigation was to determine whether state criminal charges were warranted in connection with Mr. Woodman's death. Homicide was taken off the table when the Chief Medical Examiner, with input from experts in cardiology and neurology, ruled Mr. Woodman's death natural. That is, one cannot prosecute homicide when a death is ruled to be of a natural cause. In this case, the medical experts further opined that the natural cause of Mr. Woodman's death was not caused by the arrhythmia he suffered on June 18. The medical evidence and witness statements -- including statements from Mr. Woodman's friends -- did not support charges of assault and battery or assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
Regardless of one's opinion of it, the handcuffing technique the officers used is a police procedure. Regardless of one's opinion of it, a superior officer writing a report for another officer is also a police procedure. Former US Attorney Donald Stern is reviewing policy and procedure at BPD's request; that review remains ongoing. The current US Attorney is reviewing the case to determine whether Mr. Woodman's civil rights were violated; that review is also ongoing.
excessive force
Would not the DA charge a crime even if the action was allowed under police procedure but he found the act to be illegal?
The DA concluded this was not wrongful death or excessive force.
I disagree entirely with his conclusion about excessive force.
The technique that was used by the BPD to arrest David Woodman caused his heart to stop beating. To claim it was a coincidence or the fault of David's heart and not the force used, is illogical, counter-intuitive, irresponsible and in error. Just becuase slamming a non-dangerous suspect to the ground, chest and face-first, is commonplace in BPD procedure does not make it reasonable force. Procure is developed to protect the rights and well-being of suspects, bystanders and the police. in this case, procedure failed and DA Conley's decision regarding excessive force is a miscarriage of justice.
After force caused Woodman's heart to stop, the BPD was negligent in recognizing the damage they had done which resulted in further damage, damage to David Woodman's brain.
There is no question that when they recognized his critical condition of respiratory arrest - perhaps due to the fact David's friend returned to the scene in spite of their threat to arrest him - they gave their best effort to protect his health but the brain damage was done.
The fact that he died 11 (or so) days later in the hospital from an allegedly unrelated cardiac incident due to his heart condition, is irrelevant to the issues raised here.
The DA should revisit this issue and focus in the second question of excessive force used in the arrest. David Woodman was not a danger, he was resisting arrest and therefore the procedure was excessive use of force as is witnessed by his cardiac arrhythmia and resulting brain damage. These facts are a stubborn. Even those who live with threatening heart conditions must be protected by our laws and justice system from being deprived of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All citizens are entitled to have their health and welfare safe-guarded by agents acting on behalf of the state.
excessive force.
becuase courts have found time and time again these use of force charts to be the legal standard for police force, and you can bet that Bostons use of force policy is consistent with these charts.
I would argure that the cops had pepper spray and didn't use it. Thats a great way to unlock someones grip from a fence and probably would have saved this guys life.
And do you really think the kids heart problem has nothing to do with this?
Cops kill Celtics fan
What a disgrace.Americans murdered by cowards.Even worst , to put out a lie of a report that NOW a heart
condition caused this. David was fine for over 20 years with this "heart condition",moments with the
Taliban (i mean the police)he's dead. This after the police threatened his friends and witnesses to leave or
they would also be detained.Anyone not asking to the heads to roll for this example of police brutality, murder ,
and cover up deserve to have grand misfortunes enter their lives.I pray that all those involved with
protecting/defending the governments actions will get cancer and die horrorably slow.I wish I could tell them
myself so I could look at their faces. And to all that support the outcome and sided with the government, I
hope a cop "accidentally discharges" his gun and kills one of your family members .For your collective
ignorance / stupidity promotes these hideous outcomes that make me wish I could take all that think that way and
put you in concentration camps to utilize your pathetic existences for medical experiments.I cannot hide my
hatred of these government animals and cowardly sheep that side with them.I wish I could legally torture you who
think that this is acceptable. I hope the family sues in court and I get to be a juror,guess who's side I'm on .I
wish I could take the lives away who killed David and return David's lifeforce so his family would be reassembled
again.That badge just gives cowards a shield to murder AMERICANS.If you support the actions like the police
here ,then you support this version of Al-Qaeda .
cops, public drinking, college kids, and riot squads
by the time the celtics won this championship the BPD had been down this road several times. the red sox and patriots each had their championships and with them came the celebrations.we all know what happened to v. snellgrove. it was tragic and the city is paying through the teeth, as they should. by the time of the celtics championship most of the city knew the drill. the colleges all held the kids hands and explained to them what would and would not be tolerated. public drinking would not be tolerated.mr woodman made a serious error in judgement on this evening. most nights they probably would have dumped his beer and sent him along. on this night they were out making sure the city was under control.mr woodman had a choice and he chose not to cooperate. i dont think anyone wanted this to happen but if mr woodman had stayed home and drank his beer on the couch he would probably still be with us.
if pigs could fly...
if pigs could fly...