Disorderly For Woodstock Man

CONTACT#: 802-457-1420
DATE/TIME: 05/24/20013​/ 02:22 hours
LOCATION: RTE 12/ Pomfret Rd.
INCIDENT/VIOLATION: Disorderly Conduct/ Possession of Alcohol by person under 21
ACCUSED: David R. Andrews​
AGE: 18
SUMMARY OF INCIDENT: On 052413 at 02:22 hours Woodstock Police responded to the area of RTE 12 and Pomfret Rd. for a report of two male subjects on bikes being loud and disorderly and acting suspicious.

When the officer arrived in the area the subjects observed the officer and allegedly attempted to flee the area.

The officer was able to make contact with one of the subjects, subsequently identified as David Andrews.

During the contact, Andrews continued his alleged disorderly behavior and was arrested and transported to WPD and processed.

COURT DATE: 052413
COURT: .Windsor
LODGED – LOCATION: Southern State Correctional Facility – Springfield

9 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Wayne Hinson on May 24, 2013 at 08:59

    Is this small incident really worthy of being “news”? The person is legally innocent until proven otherwise isn’t he?


    • Woodstock Early Bird has gone to much effort to encourage police to issue timely releases in a consistent fashion regardless of person or subject.

      They are now doing so in the public interest and consistent with standard public information releases. We applaud them for their effort and responsiveness.

      It is our policy to issue news of police incidents and activity without prejudice in an equally timely and consistent manner.

      And yes, of course, everyone gets their day in court.

      These are only charges and a report of the facts of the original contact made by police. WEB


  2. Posted by Corwin Sharp on May 24, 2013 at 09:20

    I am disappointed, Julia. I see no need or advantage to anyone to post this story. I know David and his family and this is very unfair. David is a really good kid who has had a lot to deal with as have many other kids in our community. David and his family have worked hard to walk the straight and narrow and I respect their courage and determination. Your story does nothing to help this situation…it only hurts David, his family, and our community. The incident is public record but why make a headline out of others unfortunate circumstances.


    • In order to be consistent with the same WEB policy that has been in effect for two years, WEB has and will continue to post press releases as they are issued whether or not we know or have a personal relationship with the individuals in question.

      That is a very important point of reporting — for there not to be particular prejudice for or against any individual who has a reported encounter with police.

      We suspect most folks read the Vermont Standard Police Blotter every week. This is no different.

      Neither the police nor WEB gets to pick and choose who will and will not “appear” publically.



      • Posted by Corwin Sharp on May 24, 2013 at 14:25

        So much for living in a small town in VT and caring for and helping our neighbors in times both good and bad. You certainly DO have a choice as to what gets posted on your blog.


        • Actually to repeat the above – to be a reliable and FAIR source of news as it pertains to the police in this community, WEB readers need to know that WEB is not protecting some from publicity while publishing charges for those who are lesser known or those who do not have advocates.

          We would note that we have received recently a press release about an incident involving two make individuals in a physical fight over a woman. Since there were no charges filed with police, we did not publish that information.

          However if charges are filed, notwithstanding whatever the individuals efforts and standing in the community, we will publish them out of fairness to ALL.

          If you don’t understand we can’t explain it any better.

          We would also say that if folks don’t want to end up in the police blotter, perhaps they might take greater care in avoiding instances that push them in contact with the system.

          Yes, we all make mistakes and it is the role of judges to adjudicate within the system taking into account the full record. It is not the role of the press or this blogger to play that role. We are simply reporting charges.

          We are pretty sure if someone were to be disturbing the peace and eluding police in YOUR neighborhood, you would want the law to work on your behalf to restore the peace. You might not be as concerned about the alleged perpetrator’s background in seeking a resolution to the problem or in filing charges if necessary.

          Some of the protest here has a hint of NIMBY: Police should do their duty – and the press report on it – but NOT if it is too close to home and involves MY friends and neighbors.

          We are not without understanding or compassion for those in our community struggling to improve themselves whether their struggles are publically known or not.

          We have asked police that in order for us to have trust in them, they report incidents, accidents and charges in a fair, consistent and timely manner. In asking for those non-prejudical press releases, we need to support that effort AND the credibility of this blog, by reporting in the same non-prejudical manner.

          No matter the discomfort, we stand by our policy. WEB


  3. Posted by Careen on May 24, 2013 at 11:07

    Although I am reluctant to weigh in on the subject, I feel that I must. As the mother of two kids that have grown up in this town, I have repeatedly observed behaviors from our law enforcement officials that suggest to me that they are determined to harass the younger members of our community. I am not suggesting that the situation described in this press release didn’t warrant police involvement, but I am suggesting that the speed in which it became public record might be a reflection of power, control, and harassment ( and perhaps using the Early Bird to be their mouth piece??) . I also feel that certain members of our police force target kids – partly, it seems, based on their experiences growing up in this area and partly due to the insights they may have from raising their own children in this area. I support their efforts to keep kids safe, and I understand that the law states no drinking until 21, but I feel that there have been a number of situations where their efforts have actually put kids in danger. I ,too, know David Andrews and agree with Corwin- he is a good kid, no question about it. We need to remember that kids make mistakes and it is our job to instill a sense of responsibility and accountability so they grow into productive, law abiding citizens. I would be willing to bet that a number of Early Bird readers, like myself, come from the era when 18 was the legal drinking age. I am curious how it might have played out for us if we were under the scrutiny that these kids are under until they’re 21? Again, I am not saying the laws shouldn’t be enforced. What I am saying is that we need to ask ourselves whether we are protecting our kids, keeping them safe, and teaching them to respect the law and those that enforce it ? I feel there are double standards in terms of how younger adults are treated in our community and which stories are subject to immediate press release? I have not seen any evidence that we are creating long term, law abiding citizens. Perhaps instead we are creating an environment of resentment for and disrespect of the legal process?


  4. Posted by Jim McCarthy on May 24, 2013 at 17:52

    The area law enforcement people must remember how easily one can be dismissed in executive session by their employer for stepping on the wrong toes.Secondly.it is very difficult to detect who the “good kids” are ! All local youth will probably, upon reaching maturity, have to leave the area to gain meaningful employment in order to afford anything close to a “Woodstock” lifestyle.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: