Doctor stabbed by patient at 50 Staniford St., LTC holder saves the day

Rating - 96.8%
30   1   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
11,352
Likes
3,360
Location
Texas
Last edited:
Rating - 96.8%
30   1   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
11,352
Likes
3,360
Location
Texas
Likely not, as shooting someone is an intentional act. If it turns out to be civilly wrongful, it would be what we call an "intentional tort." Not only are intentional torts excluded from virtually all liability policies by their language, there is sound reason to doubt whether insurance against liability for an intentional tort would be consistent with public policy (and, if not, it would be unenforceable).


Most HO policies ammend the intentional act exclusion to exempt 'reasonable force used to protect person or property.'

In a civil suit, he'd have an excellent argument for coverage. THAT'S why the scum sucking atty's trying to goad the estate into hiring him for a wrongful death lawsuit.
 
Rating - 96.8%
30   1   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
11,352
Likes
3,360
Location
Texas
On a semi-related note, I took my wife to the Dana Farber yesterday for a regular appointment and the security was significantly beefed up. She had to show her patient card going in, something we've never had to do before. I'm guessing that all the med facilities in the area are worried about copy-cats (and yes, I was carrying - I was concerned about that too).
 

dixidawg

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
4,113
Likes
943
Location
Georgetown, Ma
I got irritated enough by this morning's Globe article again saying that "Langone was authorized to carry a weapon in his capacity as a sworn special police officer, "

that I sent this email to the authors:


Good morning,

I am writing to point out an ongoing inaccuracy in the Globe's reporting of the MGH incident. Namely this in this morning's column:

"Langone was authorized to carry a weapon in his capacity as a sworn special police officer, a title given to security personnel who work for private firms but are licensed by Boston police."

Special Police Officers are not authorized to carry due to their status as SPO's. They must first obtain an LTC, just as any civilian would by going through background checks interviews, and getting approval from the Chief of Police in their home town.

From the Boston PD website:

http://www.cityofboston.gov/police/pdfs/rule400.pdf

"The Training and Education Division shall also test applicants who are licensed to carry a firearm and who are authorized to carry one in the course of their employment."

"Once qualified, the Special Officer shall only carry, while on duty, the firearm with which he/she qualified."

"Under no circumstances will a Special Officer be allowed to carry a firearm while wearing plain clothes. "

"A. The only equipment authorized for use or possession by a Special Officer while on duty is a service baton comparable to a Mondanock expandable baton, Model number 9052, handcuffs and a flashlight. All Special Officers must participate in training approved by the Commissioner on the use of such equipment.

B. Special Officers who are holders of a Firearm Identification Card may also carry a chemical propellant and must participate in training approved by the Police Commissioner regarding its use.

C. While on duty, Special Police Officers shall only carry .38 caliber revolvers having not less than a 4" barrel that are loaded with 158 grain, +P, hollow point ammunition. No plastic firearm or replica of any type of handgun is authorized.

D. Special Officers licensed to carry a firearm shall take all reasonable precautions to secure personally owned weapon or the weapon issued to him/her by his/her employer and protect said weapons from loss, misuse, or theft."


"Sec. 10 FIREARMS:

Applicants for a Special Officer’s license who are also licensed to carry a firearm and are authorized to carry a firearm while in the course of their employment shall: "


As reported in various sources, Mr. Langone appears to have been in conflict with several of the provisions noted above if he were acting under authority of a SPO.

Your column today says:

".....Cambridge, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said all evidence, including witness accounts and Langone’s statements to police, indicated that Langone acted lawfully..."


Without Mr Langone having a "civilian" LTC granted by his Police Chief, he would not have been acting lawfully, as at a minimum, he was:

1. Not in the course of his employment, and
2. He was wearing plain clothes

In fact, in this morning's press conference, the DA referred to this incident as a "civilian shooting" ( at approximately 02:48):

http://wn.whdh.com/global/video/pop...ck investigation (10/29/09)&vt1=v&at1=Station

In short, Mr Langone's right to possess and carry the firearm is NOT granted by his status as a Boston SPO. It is granted as a duly licensed civilian citizen of the Commonwealth. I would hope that the error in your reporting will be rectified, and that any future reports will correctly state that this tragedy was stopped by a duly licensed CIVILIAN gun owner.


Thank you for your time.
 
Last edited:

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,851
Likes
703
Location
Boston
I know....... but ........C258 defines it as:

Who Is a Public Employee? A public employee is any “elected or appointed, officers or employees of any public employer, whether serving full or part-time, temporary or permanent, compensated or uncompensated, . . . .” G.L. c. 258, §1. Independent contractors are not public employees. Rowe v. Arlington, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 389 (1990).

Just thinking out loud.

Interesting question.

Not too many people focus on it, but a traditional police officer has a dual role: he is an appointed, sworn officer and he is a municipal employee. These roles can sometimes conflict, such as when his employment superior directs him to take an action that is contrary to his own judgment as an appointed officer. Thankfully, the issue does not arise often.

Here, while the individual was an appointed special police officer, with duties and powers as a result of that appointment, the appointment was not in connection with any duties performed for a state, county or municipal entity. I suppose a court could rule him nonetheless a "municipal employee" by parsing the words of the statute as you have done. No less conceivable is that a Court would conclude to the contrary, for the reasons I have stated. A third possibility is that a Court would rule that, whether or not this individual was a "municipal employee" within the meaning of ch. 258, he nonetheless enjoys no immunity under ch. 258 because, at the time of the incident, he was a civilian and was not "acting within the scope of his office." G. L. (2006 ed.) ch. 258, sec. 2.

How would the SJC actually rule? The batteries on my crystal ball are beeping.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
617
Likes
18
Location
Inside the transmitter!
I hear some attorney is interested in a civil case against the guard now.
He is from Reading. I don't know if Reading is a so-called "green" town or if there were any restrictions on his LTC. If it was restricted to "employment only" and he wasn't officially on-duty when this happened, there is a chance that his chief could consider him to be "unsuitable". It wouldn't really matter how much of a "hero" he is if he is in violation of any restrictions on the LTC; he could still end up having it revoked. There are many "Special Police Officers" in Boston, most of whom work for private security companies and have this status while in uniform and on duty only. Regarding lawsuits, there may not be much to seize from him even if judgment is rendered against him. Security guards, armed or otherwise, are not highly paid. He lives with his parents, so he obviously doesn't own any real estate. They may sue his employer or even the chief who issued the LTC, but I cannot see that going far. If he is found civilly liable and has judgment rendered, he will probably just file BK7.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,065
Likes
68,523
I looked before posting and I did not see anything in the MA laws section?

I merged this mess into the existing thread. This really isn't a "law"
thread, per se. (although it's kind of evolved into that).

-Mike
 

Palladin

NES Member
Rating - 100%
29   0   0
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
28,298
Likes
15,994
Location
Southern New Hampshire
no where have they said what he was carrying.

The revolver & .38 comments come from the Rule 400, as it applies to Boston Special 'on duty'.

This guy was strictly acting as a civilian.
 

BillB

Banned
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
2,718
Likes
54
Location
Worcester, MA
I heard on the radio today that the guy who got shot was about 300#....good reason for the double tap.
And that Scott Brown has introduced some kind of 'Good Samaritan' legislation.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,205
Likes
5,398
Location
Stoughton
http://www.cityofboston.gov/police/pdfs/rule400.pdf



I wouldn't think the BPPA would. These guys are strictly free lance, working for security companies..they man the housing projects, Longwood towers, Shattuck Hospital, Boston City Hosp, etc.

You just mixed a bunch of different operations in with each other. Boston Medical Center officers are special police, but are not armed. Shattuck has it's own security, who last time I looked worked for the state, as well as the MSP since it's a state hospital. Public housing projects are patrolled by the Boston Housing Authority PD, as well as the Boston PD. Some privately owned buildings use a private company to patrol their properties. Those officers are armed. I've never seen one armed with anything but a revolver.
 

Realtor MA

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
4,239
Likes
1,490
Yes. The District Attorney has already called him a civilian shooter or something to that effect. Therefore I don't think these parameters are in anyway relevant.

The DA stated that he drew his 'personal' firearm. It's in the video earlier in this thread.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
3,945
Likes
992
Location
The beach, NH
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...s/2009/11/02/major_gaps_in_hospital_security/

Great article written by a doctor today in the Globe:
Had an armed private citizen not been present to defend Dr. Desrosiers, the outcome undoubtedly would have been even more tragic. Without any reasonable means for doctors and nurses to defend themselves against violent attacks at work, hospitals must implement better training programs and a uniform method for reporting incidents. A recent report of the National Institute for Occupational Safety shows major gaps in hospital security, though in states with regulations designed to prevent violence against health care workers, hospitals reportedly have safer working conditions.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
99
Likes
3
Location
Boston
Email response from Dr. Nolan (the BU prof David Wade quoted)

Hello [Evergreen],

Thank you for your note and I was a bit concerned that my comments would be misconstrued when I saw the interview air. I’m under no illusion that LTCs in Massachusetts would offer protection for someone who used a firearm to defend property (and yes, this is not Texas [thankfully]). In my defense, this was a fifteen minute interview that saw aired relatively little of what I said in total. I was referring to MGL Ch. 140, Sec 131 that states: “(d) Any person residing or having a place of business within the jurisdiction of the licensing authority or any law enforcement officer employed by the licensing authority or any person residing in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction located within a city or town may submit to such licensing authority or the colonel of state police, an application for a Class A or Class B license to carry firearms, or renewal of the same, which such licensing authority or said colonel may issue if it appears that the applicant is a suitable person to be issued such license, and that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property, or for any other reason, including the carrying of firearms for use in sport or target practice only, subject to such restrictions expressed or authorized under this section” as well as language that has historically been affixed to LTCs (when I had one, which I no longer do) that stated “protection of life and property.”

You are absolutely correct, [Evergreen], and I did, in my interview, go into a good deal of detail about circumstances and conditions justifying the use of deadly force by those licensed to carry firearms. Unfortunately, these comments did not air—we have little control over what “hits the floor” in the cutting room. I do appreciate your taking the time (and paying attention) to address these concerns—should I comment further I will be sure to keep your perspective in mind.

Tom Nolan

Thomas Nolan, Ed.D.
Associate Professor in Criminal Justice
Boston University
 
Top Bottom