Hey, there! Log in / Register
Cop at center of Michael Cox beating case fired over another case involving excessive use of force
By adamg on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 8:46am
The Globe reports (paid subscription required) on the firing of David C. Williams for putting a man in a prohibited choke hold during a North End traffic stop, then lying about it.
This is the second time Boston Police have fired Williams. The first time was after the beating of Michael Cox, an undercover cop whom other cops beat, allegedly because they thought he was a homicide suspect, in 1995. Williams won his job back on appeal; his lawyer says he plans to appeal the latest firing as well.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Lawsuit complaint in the North End case | 0 bytes |
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
I understand that there are
I understand that there are probably police union rules that allow him to appeal the firing but... really, twice?
Why does the police union want to protect and defend a cop that routinely beats people the lies about their actions.
I can guess that the community does not want such an individual to be reinstated.
Of course I dont have all the facts to make a fully informed judgement.
First firing overturned, never happened in the eyes of the law
But you go ahead and do so anyway?
The first firing was overturned so it essentially never happened in the eyes of the law and almost certainly can't be raised at a hearing, unless the officer raises it to show that he has been unfairly targeted by this administration in the past. My understanding is that the officer can appeal both to an independent arbitrator and or the Civil Service Commission, both of which look for a pattern of progressive discipline in the officer's work history. Verbal reprimands, written reprimands, suspensions before firing. If the officer doesn't have a pattern of discipline (that has stuck) it's doubtful an arbitrator will agree to termination based on the fact pattern presented. In fact, he may void any disciplinary action whatsoever.
An unruly drunk who disobeys lawful verbal commands while refusing to be handcuffed, then shoves an officer, is taken to the pavement? This follows the well established force continuum taught at the police academy. He wasn't pepper sprayed, tased or shot. Police work is a contact sport and the arbitrators know this. As for the officer's foggy recollection, by the "victim's" own admission, the case wasn't investigated for a year and memories fade. My guess is that the officer is looking at reinstatement and another half million dollar payday. Shame on Menino and Davis for throwing another officer to the wolves, albeit temporarily.
Defending Vermin like Williams= Lost Credibility
Williams should be in prison, in my opinion. Just a scumbag thug with a badge, giving a bad rep to all the good cops. Not a trace of professionalism or respect for the law he's supposed to be enforcing. And you do every good cop a disservice as well by defending these creeps.
Do you know Officer Williams, Dan?
Do you know Officer Williams, Dan? If so, do tell us from your own firsthand knowledge what makes him a creep. I don't know him and don't defend him specifically, I merely defend his due process rights. I'm also old enough to know not to believe everything I read, especially in lawsuits against police officers.
If you've ever taken a promotional exam for police sergeant, lieutenant, captain, etc. you surely realize from the study materials that the officer who generates zero or very few citizen complaints is most likely not doing his job, especially in this litigious society. Unfortunately, those are the officers usually hiding behind a school studying for promotion while the "aggressive" officers take the majority of calls, exposing themselves to said complaints. Of course Police Commissioner in Boston requires no studying or exam, merely a pledge of allegiance to Menino.
Don't know him- read a whole book about him.
Williams was quite willing to let an innocent comrade go down for something he did. That says a lot about his character, I think.
You have your facts wrong
You are pretty arrogant for someone who has no idea of the facts of the case. You take on faith the officer's version of the events when the department declared it to be a stack of lies. In fact, the suspect merely pushed off the first officer's hand as he unlawfully sought to confiscate the man's cell phone camera. Williams made no verbal commands of any kind but in fact charged at the suspect and tackled him like a tackling dummy, smashing his head to the pavement. Williams put him immediately into an illegal choke hold, as his partner testified.
At the station, Williams wrote up an official report in which he lied about his actions, omitting the tackle, the choke hold, and the lack of verbal commands. He changed his story again and again once confronted with testimony by all the witnesses, particularly his partner, who was of course reluctant to "break the code" but courageous enough to be truthful. His partner's truthful account squared with the suspect's version and Williams then began to shift his story, lying multiple times to IAB and at his initial hearing. Far from having a foggy recognition, Williams was in fact consciously shifting his tale. That is why the department found against him.
Same BPD that wrongly declared a "pack of lies" in Cox case?
Is this the same BPD that wrongly declared a "pack of lies" in the Cox case then was ordered to pay millions in back pay for Officer Williams and the other officers wrongly terminated?
The lawsuit indicates that the "victim" now can't work, has PTSD, is irritable and easily startled as a result of this momentary incident. Having seen the police prevail on many other brutality lawsuits where the evidence against them has been stronger, I'd love to see the jury deliberate the truthfulness of those claims.
"Lawful" verbal commands don't include witness intimidation
Ordering a civilian on a public street using his cellphone to publicly record a conversation does not justify an order from an officer to put away his phone. Therefore, it is NOT a LAWFUL command. Cops don't like it, but people don't have to do everything they say. Instead these dirty cops fabricated a story to find a reason for arrest. Perhaps the other cop should have been charged with witness intimidation.
Sure, this guy wasn't sprayed, tased or shot. At least he could have fully recovered from those. Instead, he was choked and battered, left with lifelong brain damage.
Like it or not, cops have to follow the law, too. For big things and little. Think about that the next time a cop leaves his/her yellow coat out when he's parked illegally. And think about all the ways the city could have better used these resources.
Huh?
The case wasn't investigated for a year...because BPD didn't decide to do anything about the complaint for a year. So, who's burden should that be to bear? Sorry, but if Williams should be exonerated from his actions so badly, maybe even HE should have pushed for the investigation to come sooner rather than later so the facts would be straight and memories wouldn't fade so easily. I doubt the guy who passed out while being choked and may or may not have a brain injury as a result wanted to wait a year to discuss this officer's actions with the police department.
PS - There is NOTHING in this "contact sport" you call force continuum that should lead to a person passing out due to a lack of blood being allowed to flow to their brain. Officer Williams should be considered lucky that the guy he assaulted didn't throw a clot and stroke out or have an aneurysm waiting to burst.
Appeal to whom, specifically?
Hopefully not the same exact clowns who reinstated him the first time. By the way, remember Lt. G-O-N-E, the cop who sent a racist email to Yvonne Abraham? Did he end up getting fired, and did he appeal his dismissal in similar fashion to Mr. Williams?
Just an FYI
The Globe's firewall is intentionally porous. If you link to a story, anyone can read it regardless of whether or not they have subscriptions.
A non-subscriber can't read the Globe but can read individual stories shared through social media and blogs.
Exactly right, I just read
Exactly right, I just read the story through the link and I refuse to pay for online access to the Globe