Daniel Barlow, a freelance journalist whose work frequently appears in the Brattleboro Reformer, normally does some pretty good work. However, there is one grievous inaccuracy in this story (see below)... Barlow writes that Robert Woodward was "wielding" a knife when he entered All Souls Unitarian-Universalist Church, yet by all other accounts he drew the knife out of his pocket once he was inside the sanctuary and became afraid that those in the church would leave or call the police. A knife in one's pocket is not being "wielded".
By all descriptions, Woodward in effect held the people in the church hostage in a moral sense by using the knife to threaten himself. Obviously, this would make some people fearful and uncomfortable so that they would want to leave, and others -- so morally 'held' or engaged -- would stay and try to help him. Since he was holding the knife, the statements by a few of the witnesses (and the police who shot him) that they themselves felt threatened are understandable, just because of the presence of the knife and the fact that it was pointed at someone, as though to be used for injury. But there are solid accounts that professionally-qualified people in the congregation had calmed him before the police arrived, and he then put the knife away.
The fact remains that he was killed within a couple of minutes of the police entering the church sanctuary. This, to me, taken with the fact that the knife was reported never wielded as a weapon in such a manner as to threaten another person, is prima facie evidence that the police did not act 'in good faith'. So the 'wielding' issue is very important indeed.
The other great discrepancy is that recent accounts of the trial and the issues seem to have 'forgotten' the early reports that said the Brattleboro officers had no non-lethal means of subduing people on their persons at the time. This deserves further investigation. Later reports said that in fact there were such means available. Did the police claim this later in order to 'cover their tracks' on the training and equipment issue? It is a fact that in 2002, the Windham County sheriff ran for re-election stating that unlike the Brattleboro police department, he had made sure that his deputies had such means and were trained in their use. Why is this matter overlooked in all recent news coverage of the issue? Is there some sort of tacit conspiracy to make sure the Town of Brattleboro doesn't come up on the short end of the stick in a huge negligence lawsuit for pecuniary damages?
-- John Wilmerding
Former Secretary
Working Party on Restorative Justice
United Nations Coalition on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (UN-ECOSOC)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
"(U.S. District Court Judge Garvan A.) Murtha upheld one of the central claims to the officers' defense -- that Parker and Holbrook were doing governmental work, and are therefore entitled to governmental immunity.
"The ruling states that the officers were acting within the authority of their jobs, that their actions were reasonable and that there was no indication that they were not acting in 'good faith.'"
.....
"Judge Throws Out Woodward Case
by Daniel Barlow <dbarlow@reformer.com>
Brattleboro, Vermont -- A U.S. district court judge Thursday cleared the town of Brattleboro and two police officers of any wrongdoing in a civil case brought on following the 2001 shooting death of Robert Woodward.
In a 29-page ruling, Judge J. Garvan Murtha dismissed the civil charges against the town and Brattleboro Police Department Officers Terrance Parker and Marshall Holbrook.
The ruling will be appealed, according to an attorney representing Woodward's family.
The judge stated that there was no evidence that Woodward's constitutional rights were violated, that police training in Brattleboro was deficient or that the two officers used excessive force.
"Given the undisputed fact that Mr. Woodward was armed and uncooperative, it was objectively reasonable for officers to believe that either their lives or the lives of others in the area were in danger," Murtha wrote.
The ruling ends another chapter in the tragedy that has consumed the Brattleboro area since December 2001 and has been the focus of many demonstrations and ideological clashes, causing a rift between the community and the police department and within the community itself.
Woodward, 37, was shot seven times by the two officers on the morning of December 2, 2001, in the All Soul's Unitarian Church in West Brattleboro.
Woodward, a Bellows Falls resident who was not a member of the congregation, entered the church wielding a knife with a 3.5 inch blade, threatening suicide and claiming he was seeking sanctuary.
Vermont's Attorney General William Sorrell later ruled the shooting was tragic, but justified. Less than a month later, Woodward's parents and sister filed the civil suit against the town and the two officers, seeking a jury trial and damages.
Reports on Woodward's final movements before he was shot -- if he was still holding the knife to his eye or if he advanced toward the officers -- is disputed...."
You can read the rest here:
http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~2248034,00.html
http://www.BrattleboroPolice.com
http://www.JusticeForWoody.org