Wellesley woman charged with running down, dragging state trooper at Logan Airport

It sounds like an escalating panic reaction to me.

stock brokers are used to operating with impunity with our nation's wealth, why should things be different at the airport?

In fact, the RMV should pay her a retention bonus because she was still driving! [/snark]

I was waiting at the airport once when I saw a woman back a high-end minivan into another vehicle, denting it and breaking some of the front corner lights. (this was back when you could leave your car for a minute or two without a tow away)She got out, looked at what she did, then drove off like nothing happened. I wrote down the important information, and hailed a trooper to come have a look.

From what I later learned when I was aksed for an affidavit that described how she saw what she did and still drove off, this "hit and run" was the culmination of a very spotty driving record for Ms. Suburbia. She was trying to pull the the "gee I didn't know I hit anything" principle. I guess a casually-dressed woman standing next to a ratty ford station wagon and staring at her didn't exist in her world.

innocent, etc.

Now in addition to finding out when she was married, where she lives, and who she gives political contributions to, any observer (read future employer or in-law) will be able to learn about Margaret Greer's great adventure at Logan.

But maybe they'll be so befuddled they'll think she races greyhounds in Australia or teaches Spanish in Texas.

When the hell did people begin believing that they could disobey a direct order from a police officer with impunity?

When the cop in question is ordering you to do something illegal and/or dangerous (such as ordering a road cyclist onto a crowded sidewalk marked "no bikes" when there is no emergency reason to do so)

Of course, the airport doesn't fall under this situation. It has more signs telling you that the cops will make you move than it has signs that properly guide you through the maze or to the appropriate places to wait for buses. Recorded announcements, too. They even put in a cel phone lot - late, sure, but it exists and works quite nicely.

When the hell did people begin believing that they could disobey a direct order from a police officer with impunity?

That's bizarre and disturbing - I agree.

You say "trooper", so I assume it's staties that patrol Logan. But could low public opinion of the Boston police contribute to a general disrespect for LEOs?

I spent 12 years in Virginia, and best I remember, the police there were respected (despite the MA-like proliferation of parks police, VA/MD/DC police, etc.). In fact, I once saw a car full of teens go speeding by on the shoulder with some sort of police-insignia license plate, and the state troopers' office was concerned enough to send a trooper by to discuss the incident with me. They seemed to understand that cops are held to an exemplary standard. And growing up in New York, the idea of "New York's finest" was my default image of the police.

But here? Where Boston cops get arrested and it doesn't even make the front page? Where the union runs a dishonest campaign for "safety" through construction details, when we'd actually *support* the real reason (cops don't get paid enough)? Where cops don't even bother to FACE the traffic they're supposed to be directing? Where a thuggish, vocal minority make fools of the rest of the department, and the only public comment is support from the union?

Legally, morally, there's usually no excuse for disobeying a police officer. If you think they're acting on false authority, you do what they say, and you file a complaint (or even a lawsuit) later.

But psychologically: the way to get people to listen to you is by commanding their respect, not by wearing riot gear. Boston police have an image problem.

I think a broken-windows approach could go a long way, but in this town, I have little hope of seeing it.

that the woman who works for one co. drives the same sort of car as the one who works for the other co. and they just happened to pick up the "wrong" VP...

There's definitely a place for both papers.

The Globe's lede was dainty, and the Herald's was picturesque.

Both articles report pretty much the same information.

Where I think the differences really go wrong is that Herald adds a bit about ambushing the suspect at her home, and runs a photo of the ambush that should have been culled for technical reasons alone, besides inappropriateness. (The photog might have been cleverly trying to draw parallels between the subject's behavior in the original incident and in the Herald ambush, but it looks like a safety shot that was actually a miss.)

In general, I'd like to see the Herald provide a counterpoint to the Globe -- somewhat different priorities and perspectives, but fair and intelligent reporting just the same -- and for the two papers to help keep each other honest. Both papers do some good journalism, but then the Herald does stuff like the reporting of this ambush, which keeps the bar low and gives the Globe the go-ahead to indulge its own vices on other stories.