Classic Boston thing: Guy in car veers towards guy in crosswalk, who swings at car with his umbrella. Only the guy in the car is an off-duty cop. Stephen Arlowe videoed what happened next.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
see above
By Robin
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:25pm
I keep looking for the elderly person. Don't see one.
But yes, react is over the top.
One person's elderly person is another person's 50 yo
By downtown-anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 3:08pm
It is all in the perspective of the viewer.
Thug
By zetag
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:29pm
.
Massholes
By anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:31pm
All the way down.
Double Masshole: horrible driver with a badge
Quadruple Masshole
By SoBoYuppie
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 10:07pm
1. Bad Driver
2. Cop
3. Doesn't even live in Boston.
4. Red Non-Authentic Red Sox Jersey (a grown ass man wearing one..barf).
Being a cop automatically
By anon
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 7:49am
Being a cop automatically makes you an asshole?
If you believe that then you should voluntarily revoke your own 911 privileges. You don't get to call. For anything. Ever.
not even for
By Marco
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 10:46am
fire or medical emergency? I mean, if you call 911 for cops its probably not gonna get you anywhere anyway until the deed is done. They only go to collect statements for the most part.
Why call 911 when you risk
By anon
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:00am
Why call 911 when you risk this thing showing up to "help" you?
How do you know where he lives?
By Arthur
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 9:44am
Don't call the cops when you're in trouble if they're so bad.
Calm down
By SoBo-Yuppie
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 10:46am
Never said all cops were bad.
I know plenty of great officers...and I know plenty of bad ones. I just found another with this story!
Off duty
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:40pm
Should probably last a little longer.
Did they make the punk in the red shirt blow a breathalyzer?
Yeah
By zetag
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:42pm
Why didn't all the good cops there arrest red sox jersey for assaulting the pedestrian?
They don't get it
By anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 5:12pm
They don't realize that sticking together when they act like idiots or commit crimes makes them all look bad in the end.
Having the respect and trust of the public is unfortunately secondary to the code of silence.
Of all the professions you
By anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 6:23pm
Of all the professions you need a license to practice, police is not one of them. There needs to be an independent, civilian review board that hears complains like this one. A panel that doesn't answer to state, local, or federal governments, or the police unions. If you're found to have committed an abuse of power, act of brutality, corruption, etc, you're fired and your license to work in law enforcement is revoked.
RE: Of all the professions you
By Jake B
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 12:28am
That civilian review board does exist, and it's called the legal system. While the judiciary is technically part of the government, it does not answer to the legislative or executive branches of government, the latter of which includes police. Even if no criminal charges are brought, civil suits are still a viable course of action to take in these situations.
The real crime
By Brent Jeffries
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:49pm
...is filming this in portrait rather than landscape.
Keeping the camera from
By Omri
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 2:37pm
Keeping the camera from falling off your hands is a bit more important than getting the aspect ratio right.
Keeping the camera from
By Omri
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 2:37pm
Keeping the camera from falling off your hands is a bit more important than getting the aspect ratio right.
Overreacted like crazy
By anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:50pm
But we also all agree on how obnoxious the guy filming is... Jeeze
Don't care. If not for him,
By anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:55pm
Don't care. If not for him, this video wouldn't exist.
Agreed
By Bob Murphy
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 3:39pm
Definitely an overreaction, hope the guy smashed to the ground is ok and although I'm glad this video exists (and I really am), the guy taking it is really annoying. If I were the cop,
FWIW, I wouldn't have answered the videographer with the God complex either...of course I also wouldn't have slammed this guy to the ground for jaywalking, so there's that.
Not jaywalking
By Ari O
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 3:47pm
Guy was in crosswalk. Car was making turn. Pedestrian had right of way. Car ran in to pedestrian.
There appears to be fault on
By anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 3:59pm
There appears to be fault on both sides here. A steady UPRAISED HAND (symbolizing DONT WALK) signal indication means that a pedestrian shall not enter the roadway in the direction of the signal indication.
how do you know that the sign said no walking?
By anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:21pm
When the light is green in the direction of the cars (in this case one way traffic facing the pedestrian but same concept), the cross light can be white, giving the pedestrian the right to cross. Even without, once he is in the crosswalk, the driver is beholden to yield to the pedestrian once they leave the curb (smaller streets) or if the pedestrian is within 10 feet of the lane of travel of the car.
The driver was turning right - either on a red or with the green light. Even with a green light, he is required to yield to the pedestrian in the crosswalk (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/T...). If you consider the cop's car as being in lane 3, he could only turn right if the pedestrian was in lane 1 or not in the crosswalk. Unless the man has rubber stretchy arms, he would have to be at least in lane 2 to tap the cop's (unmarked) car with his short, teeny umbrella. The cop was in the wrong.
Since he also did not identify himself while on camera, despite multiple multiple requests, it can be inferred that he didn't identify himself nearly a block away when he tackled the pedestrian off camera. As far as the pedestrian knew, he was being attacked by a stranger, not "detained" by a cop (again, no badge, uniform, marked car, verbal information). I hope he sues.
Nice wannabe lawyer, however,
By anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 8:59pm
Nice wannabe lawyer, however, the pedestrian whether having the right away or not has clearly vandalized the property of the driver. Therefore, the driver had every right to apprehend the pedestrian. Was excessive force used? I don't know, it's not on tape.
Aside from not identifying himself, I see nothing wrong with what the off-duty officer did.
Really?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 9:25pm
You want to pay good tax money for thugs to road rage and then play the cop card?
So nice to hear from from a representative of the Cops Union though.
Lol awesome point! I'm sure
By anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 11:16pm
Lol awesome point! I'm sure you just ruined the remainder of someone's detail shift.
Ok Mr Corrupt Police Officer
By TheTruthHurts
Sun, 05/29/2016 - 1:28am
Ok Mr Corrupt Police Officer but the 57 year old man in the crosswalk didn't destroy or damage any property. He tapped the back window of the cops car with his 6" umbrella to let the cop know that he almost ran over a pedestrian in a cross walk. The alleged crack in the window was a blatant lie that was discreted right in the video when someone pointed out it was a smudge unrelated to the mans tap. He then chased, tackled, and pressed his knee in the mans back. Witnesses said he slammed the mans face in the ground twice. He should be charged with assault and fired. Hope this guys sues him for that 20 year pension since he was off duty.
Vandalized?
By JB
Mon, 05/30/2016 - 12:02am
How was his car vandalized? A smudge-which might have already been there is not vandalism. Vandalism is actual damage. Did you watch the tape? It's clear that excessive force was used.
The law
By Arthur
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 9:50am
Let's assume the cop is wrong garding the traffic rules, is there anything in the law that allows people to hit other people's cars with objects that violate the traffic rules?
How do we know the guy even
By anon
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 1:47pm
How do we know the guy even hit the car with his umbrella? Were you there or is that what you heard on the video?
Was the victim arrested? No,
By JB
Mon, 05/30/2016 - 12:05am
Was the victim arrested? No, so obviously no law was broken-because those cops would surely have arrested him if they could have.
Well the union attorney will agrue.
By Pete Nice
Mon, 05/30/2016 - 9:35am
That if he identified himself as a police officer to investigate any violation that is enforceable by a law enforcemnt officer (from jaywalking to murder), a person must stop and identify himself. If that person runs, he has committed an arrestable offense, and a specific level of force (compliance techinques vs. an active resistant subject) is required to effect that arrest.
Not buying it
By BostonDog
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:57pm
How do you know the guy didn't start crossing when the light was white? The white cross signal is lit on most Boston streets for about 5s. Most crosswalk signals in Boston are way too short.
Anyway, the cop should have most written the guy a $1 fine for jaywalking. He posed no threat to the driver but the driver could have killed him. Pretty big imbalance there.
Ari O, I thought you were
By anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:26pm
Ari O, I thought you were transportation guru?
You dont know that a pedestrian doesnt have the right of way in a crosswalk with a Do Not Walk signal?
You are incorrect
By GoSoxGo
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 6:36pm
See comments below.
It does not matter, anon...
By whyaduck
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 12:39pm
The cop's actions were not appropriate for the situation. A eye-witness said that before he started videoing, the cop slammed the guy's head into the sidewalk twice.
Were you there?
By Arthur
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 9:47am
Where you there or is that what you heard on the video?
What does the video show?
By Arthur
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 9:46am
Definitely no abuse or brutality in the video. Cops are supposed to allow their cars to be vandalized and just move along? I'm sure this cop just decided to randomly abandon his car and chase this guy for no reason.
Great!
By erik g
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:16am
I'm glad we've set some sane boundaries. You're right, tackling someone, pinning them to the ground, slamming their head into the concrete, and then frog-marching them across the sidewalk is firmly in the "not abuse or brutality" category.
In a completely unrelated point, I'm having a barbecue this weekend, do you want to come? I promise you won't be abused or brutalized.
The car was not vandalized, #1
By whyaduck
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 12:44pm
The cop totally overacted (and that is an understatement on my part) for the situation, #2.
You might want to go back to re-read the article. Your comments about no abuse or brutality are sorely out of order.
Here you go:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/05/25/video-...
It was his personal car and
By Metoo
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 10:14pm
It was his personal car and he was in A RedSox shirt. So if someone taps my car with an object I get to chase them down and slam their head into the ground and pull them back to my car by choking them with their shirt??? No abuse?! Are you kidding me?!!! He never showed a badge!!!
Vandalized?
By TheTruth
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 10:38pm
How is tapping the window on a car that nearly ran you over considered vandalism? If the glass was not scratched or cracked, which it wasn't, then there is no vandalism. Perhaps the cop should follow the laws he is supposed to be upholding and yield to a pedestrian.
Fair is fair
By Michael
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:06pm
If this guy wins the huge lawsuit against the cop and the city that one would hope is in his future, it's only fair to deduct the cost of a paper towel and a spritz of Windex from his award.
Please don't include me in
By dvg
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 3:39pm
Please don't include me in the "we also all agree" since I couldn't disagree more with your statement. If I was the man whose head gets slammed on the sidewalk by a cop who almost ran me over, this witness is exactly the guy I'd want by my side. I am not sure I would have the gut of doing what he did myself.
And
By BostonDog
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 5:01pm
We all agree one should never make blanket, all inclusive statements.
maybe a little
By anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 6:14pm
His voice and "I'm gonna blog this" are definitely cringey, but he's still filming it and he's the reason we got to watch it.
I know the "old" guy
By PharmaGuy
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:55pm
I know the man being assaulted. I can't imagine a situation where he ends up with his face on the sidewalk like this. I don't want to jump to any conclusions on what happened. I'm glad someone got a video of it though.
What?
By bosguy22
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 3:16pm
You don't think a man should be chased and tackled for jaywalking? That's all they had to "arrest" him on. Destruction of property for a smudge on the window?
He wasn't jaywalking
By anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 3:27pm
The cop failed to yield.
Sources?
By anon
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 3:38pm
Sources?
Quote from "police office"/Red Sox fan
By Ari O
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 3:48pm
"I was making a turn." Which means you have to yield to pedestrians.
Rather than look up the law
By Rob O
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:08pm
I'll just ask this question: if the driver had a green light and the pedestrian had a don't walk sign, doesn't the driver have the ROW?
As far as I'm aware, it is
By ZachAndTired
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:14pm
As far as I'm aware, it is illegal to run over a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
Alright lazy bones...
By Jeff F
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:21pm
30 seconds on teh google:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/T...
Specifically, paragraph 2 (emphasis added by me):
No driver of a vehicle shall pass any other vehicle which has stopped at a marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross, nor shall any such operator enter a marked crosswalk while a pedestrian is crossing or until there is a sufficient space beyond the crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating, notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed.
:)
By Rob O
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:25pm
I still think this is somewhat ambiguous. Does the first clause modify the entire sentence? In other words, is "any such operator" referring only to operators that come up behind a vehicle that has stopped to let someone cross? OR is the first clause narrow and the second clause all encompassing?
While I'm interested in the nitty gritty of the traffic law, the right-of-way situation should really be the least of anyone's concerns in this video.
any driver of any vehicle
By Sybaritic1
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:33pm
"Any such operator" = "driver of a vehicle".
Bottom line, as I always say to myself while driving in Boston, is it's illegal to run over pedestrians.
There are really three cases
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:47pm
The first thing a driver can't do is pass another car stopped at a crosswalk. The not passing part doesn't just refer to cars you're behind. If a car in the right lane stops at a crosswalk, and you are in the left lane, you must also stop. You may not pass.
Second thing a driver can't do is enter a crosswalk if there are pedestrians crossing.
The third thing a driver can't do is enter a crosswalk unless they can move to the other side of it before they stop. This is about not blocking crosswalks.
The notwithstanding clause applies to all three cases. You can't do any of these things, even if you have the light to proceed.
Whether a pedestrian does or does not have the walk signal does not affect in any way your obligation to follow this law. A pedestrian may be breaking any number of laws - smoking a Cuban cigar, tearing tags off mattresses, publishing prohibited algorithms - without giving you the right to murder him.
And yeah, this whole thing isn't about right of way. This is about a jackass who should not be a cop.
I agree somewhat
By Rob O
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:54pm
Yes, there are three cases or situations that are addressed by this sentence. As a matter of linguistics, I still think that the first clause could limit the scope of the second two cases that you discuss. Your conclusion to the contrary seems to be an assumption (a reasonable one, I'll agree).
But that's the last I'll say on that. ROW is a side-show.
Not always true.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 6:29pm
I had a situation about 10 years ago where a car stopped at a green light for a pedestrian (who may have been blind) who walked into a marked crosswalk against a red hand, and got struck by a vehicle who had passed the stopped car. The judge ruled a resonable driver Would not have known a pedestrian would be walking and did not charge the driver, and said it would have been the pedestrians fault if he was cited, which I don't think he was. The other driver who stopped took off and no one got their information. It wasn't a serious injury, but a broken leg I think.
Anyway, it isn't written in stone that you are automatically at fault if you strike a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
Caveat
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 7:04pm
If the pedestrian was blind AND had a cane with a red tip, all bets are off.
Whoa!!!
By mplo
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 11:36pm
Where on earth does anybody get the idea that hitting a pedestrian on a crosswalk even if s/he does violate the "Don't Walk" sign? Pedestrians, as stupid as they can be and often enough are, must be protected from their own stupidity, since they're human beings, too.
No it's the same.....
By Pete Nice
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 10:20am
A reasonable person walking should see a marked crosswalk or pedestrian light, barring special circumstances, which there obviously could be in pretty much every situation.
No, not ambiguous
By Jeff F
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:51pm
The noun phrase being referenced in the clause "nor shall any such operator" is "No driver of a vehicle". As lawyer-speak goes, it's pretty straightforward, and there's plenty of MA case law on the point to boot.
But yeah - I agree that r-o-w is at best secondary to the behaviour of the PO.
The phasing at this
By JimmyV
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 5:28pm
The phasing at this intersection of Arlington(assuming it happened here) is concurrent pedestrian crossing with Boylston Street's green signal. If the PO was taking the right onto Arlington any other time, he would be making a prohibited right on red. The pedestrian has ROW at all times the PO could make a legal right turn.
Also, something to note: Boston has it's own traffic laws that may supersede. They seem to contradict the state law under the signal indication part Section 15.1.a: " Drivers turning
right or left shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within
the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such indication is exhibited. "
That's actually not the case for that light...
By violetkris
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 8:02pm
It's an awkward crossing. and I walk/drive there quite a bit, when circling the area looking for parking. The drivers taking a right get a green light while the walkers get a "Don't Walk" sign, but a lot of pedestrians will cross anyway, when they get a chance. Hell, we all jaywalk in Boston - some do a better job of being courteous than others.
Not trying to excuse the cop's behavior, though. My feeling is that he got a bit hot-headed when the guy crossed against the light and tried to scare him by zooming past him. Then the guy (rightly, perhaps) tapped his car with the umbrella.
I've gotten annoyed with the occasional pedestrian at that turn, but would never dream of pulling anything like this, even if I did have a badge and a buzz cut. I mean, you're driving in Boston. Sometimes people will piss you off. Just mutter something uncouth and move on with your day.
The other thing that really
By anon
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 12:30pm
The other thing that really bugs me about this intersection:
https://goo.gl/maps/QY54VCqoHb12
How the heck are you supposed to know that the roadway to the left of the median is for turning left onto Charles Street at the next light, and the right side is for continuing on Boylston? https://goo.gl/maps/aPJpDMCntpr
For that matter, there aren't any One Way signs on the downstream (eastern) leg of Boylston. So how are you supposed to know that the median isn't creating a divided two-way street?
Unless he had a Don't Walk signal
By Anony-Mouse
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 5:54pm
If there was a Don't Walk sign, the pedestrian should stay on the curb. (** Massive Disclaimer: The driver should still be paying attention and not hit jay-walkers. And the cop took things to absurd levels, regardless of the letter-of-the-law).
But MGL 89 Sec 11 is for intersections with no signal:
When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be so to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk marked in accordance with standards established by the department of highways if the pedestrian is on that half of the traveled part of the way on which the vehicle is traveling or if the pedestrian approaches from the opposite half of the traveled part of the way to within 10 feet of that half of the traveled part of the way on which said vehicle is traveling.
Incorrect
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 6:36pm
Section 11 is for marked crosswalks, all of them.
The first paragraph has to do with crosswalks without traffic signals or with no functioning traffic signals.
The other paragraphs have to do with all crosswalks, including signalized and non-signalized.
If you would like to prove this to be incorrect, and that this section only applies to non-signalized crosswalks, please show us the corresponding section of MGL for signalized crosswalks.
You are correct.
By roadman
Thu, 05/26/2016 - 3:27pm
However, what is missing from the provisions of Chapter 89, Section 11 concerning crosswalks at traffic signals is the phrase "pedestrians who are lawfully within the crosswalk when the traffic signal indication changes."
Because of this omission, as it stands, a jaywalker who is breaking the law still has the right of way over a driver obeying the law. Wonderful perverse logic at work here, and I don't think this is what people had in mind when the right of way law was written.
Of course, none of this changes the fact that the cop was totally out of line for what he did both before and after the pedestrian "swung" his umbrella at him.
Pages
Add comment