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

The ex-perp's lawyer is being interviewed by Michael Graham right now. He's saying that if the shooter was so well trained, then why should he have had to shoot the assailant in the head instead of using more controlled shots.
The perp's lawyer doesn't know beans about defensive shooting.
 
my personal opinion: it's a bipolar clinic, he's armed, if he was seeking treatment for a bipolar disorder it implies he's not mentally stable


There are Police Officers I know who see Psychiatric professionals who work at various places that are unrelated to the needs of the officers. It just so happens that is where the Doctor works out of.

Officers see these Doctors for various issues due to experiences in the work environment and it has no bearing on their suitability to carry a gun.

He also may have just been driving a family member.......

Stop the speculation and wait for the truth.

He did right regardless of his purpose for being there.
 
The perp's lawyer doesn't know beans about defensive shooting.

Unfortunately, he probably knows quite a bit.. Enough to convince 12 people that as a "trained professional" all he needed to do was use his Google-fu on the poor-confused-machete wielding- Jason and a chorus of Kumbyah and all would have been fine.
 
Unfortunately, he probably knows quite a bit.. Enough to convince 12 people that as a "trained professional" all he needed to do was use his Google-fu on the poor-confused-machete wielding- Jason and a chorus of Kumbyah and all would have been fine.

Romokid just posted that his uncle was shot twice in the legs and he bled out. Someone should tell the lawyer that appendage shots are just as lethal.
 
I don't know if anyone's suggested this - I don't have time to read all the posts in this thread at the moment, however....

Ya know how everyone running to fat Teddy's seat is anti gun (all the D's) ? How about if we start a write in campaign to elect our Security Officer to replace ol' Teddy? Think about it...... [smile]

Personally, I feel bad for the guy. No matter what, he pulled the trigger and ended someone's life. That's not an easy thing to live with. As someone who's worked in Security and has worked armed, you have to think about the possibility of that happening. No matter how much the dirtbag deserves it, it's still something that has to be lived with. I hope he's doing okay.
 
Well, I noticed some of you guys are on board to raise some funds for this guys defense. Count me in. Also, Christy Mihos pledged $1000.00 to his defense last night on Michelle Mcphee's show...he should be held to it, considering this guy is gonna need it...
 
Personally, I feel bad for the guy. No matter what, he pulled the trigger and ended someone's life. That's not an easy thing to live with. As someone who's worked in Security and has worked armed, you have to think about the possibility of that happening. No matter how much the dirtbag deserves it, it's still something that has to be lived with. I hope he's doing okay.

It's a crappy situation, you're right. I pray that I'm never in such a situation where I have to shoot someone in self defense or in defense of another. I hope that in such a situation I would be able to look at it the other way though - me pulling the trigger didn't end someone's life, but instead, me pulling the trigger saved someone's life.

Hopefully, seeing the doctor is still alive will bring him some comfort.
 
“I have my own serious reservations about him being hailed as hero,” said E. James Perullo, who was representing Jay Carciero, 37, in a civil matter at the time of his death. “I think his actions were, to be polite, a little too rash, but that’s my opinion, but not the opinion of the family.”

After a some digging around, I think Mr. Perullo's legal talent is, to be polite, a little weak.

All of the talk about civil suits always makes me wonder how damages are determined. Apart from just dumping the problem onto a jury, I can't see how any objective economic expert testimony could support a big number in a case like this. What are the but-for scenarios where a guy guilty of attempted murder produces non-trivial income? And after consideration of costs, how does the stabber produce cash flow with positive NPV? I wouldn't take a position without working through the problem, but the objective loss for the estate seems to be small or zero based on the superficial facts.

Finally, let's not forget the much more worthy claim of the doctor against the stabber's estate.
 
Unions only protect their own members. Nothing so far has indicated that he's a member of any union.

As Half-Cocked as stated about why Langone was present . . .

- I've been in a few Gyn offices with my Wife, yet I'm never there for an exam.

- Likewise I've been in the waiting area of a Mammography office.

Being "present" is not an indication of anything other than he happened to be in that spot at that time and heard the screams of someone being murdered!
 
This just in:

< Security guard shooting justifiable, law enforcement officials say
E-mail|Link|Comments (8) October 29, 2009 02:47 PM
By Maria Cramer and Brian R. Ballou, Globe Staff

The killing of a knife-wielding patient at a bipolar clinic earlier this week appears to have been a "justifiable" shooting because the assailant would have killed his doctor if an off-duty security guard had not intervened with his gun, several law enforcement officials said today.

The law enforcement officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the findings of a formal investigation by the Suffolk District Attorney's office have not yet been made public. District Attorney Daniel F. Conley has scheduled a press conference for later this afternoon, but it is not clear what will be announced. A preliminary autopsy report, however, is expected to be finished today.

The security guard, Paul Langone, fired three shots on Tuesday afternoon inside the clinic near Massachusetts General Hospital, striking the patient, Jay Carciero, in the torso and head, according to attorney James Perullo, who is speaking for the dead man's family.

When police rushed to the scene, Langone calmly and deliberately turned to them, identified himself as the shooter, and put his hands in the air. Officers removed the gun from him and some of the hospital workers who had been on the floor rushed to Langone to hug him, the officials said.

Perullo today questioned why Langone shot Carciero three times, calling the action "rash."

"I can appreciate that Jay is someone who may have needed to be shot in that environment," said Perullo, stressing that he was speaking for himself and not the Carciero family. "Philosophically, I have problems with it, but I can accept the concept."

Asked whether the family is considering a wrongful death lawsuit against Langone, Perullo said he had no comment. Jake Wark, spokesman for the district attorney, declined to discuss Perullo's statements.

On Tuesday afternoon at the clinic, Carciero had forced Dr. Astrid Desrosiers to the ground and was on top of her, attacking her with a knife, according to two law enforcement officials. It has not been made public where Carciero got the knife.

Another doctor tried to pull him off of Desrosiers but had to step back when Carciero slashed at him. Hearing the screams, Langone stormed into the room and opened fire on Carciero, the officials said.
 
Mass law doesn't even prohibit any "public buildings", only schools. Federal law prohibits in federal courthouses and other buildings and in the secured areas of airports. Police stations, court houses and similar places have their own policies which they enforce with limited access and metal detectors. Sneak around them and you're trespassing.

Ken

I heard that the Cape Cod Canal (federal property, you can even openly have a can of beer there) also? I fish there often, at night....

If you went/carry to a MA court house, will they hold your gun for you, reject you, or arrest you?
 
I can't see how any objective economic expert testimony could support a big number in a case like this.

There is the emotional pain of the survivors, which can be addressed only with money. Just ask a juror to "figure out how much would it take to fully compensate you for the loss of a loved one, and award that amount to the plaintiff".

There is the physical pain of the decedent which is actionable, as the judgement would be awarded to him posthumously and become part of his estate. You don't lose your right to sue just because you are dead.

Plaintiff's counsel could simply say "I'll make sure you spend at least $200K on legal fees defending yourself unless you pay half that for me to go away", at which point the only question is not will he be paid, but how much will he collect.
 
Last edited:
If you went/carry to a MA court house, will they hold your gun for you, reject you, or arrest you?
If you disclose it before entering the detector, they will hold it for you (state - federal courthouses do not offer this service). If the catch someone with an LTC not declaring a gun, they might have a reach figuring out what charge applies (there is no crime "attempting to sneak a gun past a metal detector into a place where you are not prohibited by law from carrying", so they would have to use something more general such as declaring such conduct to be disorderly) but getting the LTC revoked would probably be pretty easy.
 
//
Plaintiff's counsel could simply say "I'll make sure you spend at least $200K on legal fees defending yourself unless you pay half that for me to go away", at which point the only question is not will he be paid, but how much will he collect.
Is he likely to have any insurance that would cover him for that?
 
Is he likely to have any insurance that would cover him for that?

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).
 
you know this whole thing never would have happened if we just made tougher knife laws!





But in all seriousness, 3 families' lives have forever been effected by this. I feel sorry for all three, and hope that they can continue on with as little pain as possible.
 
Herald Source
DA: Guard acted ‘lawfully’ in MGH shooting

By Jessica Van Sack, Marie Szaniszlo & Joe Dwinell |
Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:20 PM|
http://www.bostonherald.com |

The fatal shooting of an enraged bipolar patient Tuesday at a psychiatrist’s office in Boston appears to be justified and may have saved other innocent lives, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said today.

The DA said off-duty special officer Paul M. Langone, 33, of Reading, was on the fifth floor of a medical office at 50 Staniford St. when he heard “screams” and reacted.

Langone burst into an office to see Jay Carciero, 37, also of Reading, on top of Dr. Astrid Desrosiers, 49, “stabbing her,” Conley said.

The DA said Langone ordered the man to stop and when he didn’t he fired multiple times with two shots hitting Carciero.

Both the doctor and patient were taken to Massachusetts General Hospital where Carciero was pronounced dead and Desrosiers is still recovering. She is in such “grievous” condition, Conley said, investigators have yet to speak to her.

Conley said Langone saved her life and “possibly several others.” The special officer, who patrols Boston housing properties, was legally armed and ordered the attacker to “drop his weapon.” Conley said Carciero did not obey.

“Evidence at the scene ... and witness statements all indicate Mr. Langone acted lawfully,” said Conley.

Conley said Langone was on the fifth floor of the Mass. General office building for a “scheduled appointment on a floor with several medical, dental, research and mental health offices.” The DA would not divulge which office Langone was visiting.

Langone’s father, Paul F. Langone, said he was “very pleased” by Conley’s preliminary finding that the shooing was lawful, but he had hoped for a final resolution.

“The DA does not know my son like I do. But I am 100 percent confident that when all the facts come out he will be cleared,” the father said.

“He would never use force unless it was absolutely neccessary,” he added.

The elder Langone said Carciero came after his son, once swinging at him and then coming after him with a knife. That’s when his son opened fire.

“He came at my son more than once with a knife. They’ll find that out from the ballistics,” he said.

“My son is very athletic. When he swung at him he went backwards. We’re very, very sorry for the loss of life,” he said. “My family continues to pray for the Carciero family.”

Carciero leaves a wife and four children, ages 3 to 12.

The shooting occurred inside the Mass. General Bipolar Clinical and Research Program on Tuesday afternoon just after 2.

Dr. Desrosiers, a married mother of two from Belmont, was stabbed more than a dozen times, reports say, with many of her wounds defensive. Her son told the Herald yesterday Langone “saved my mother’s life.”

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1208261
 
It's going to be check or turn you away, depending entirely on where and when. (On what charge might they arrest you, attempting scrupulously to follow the law and their rules?) The presiding judge for each court sets the rules for that court. Since that position rotates frequently, it's hard to say what any particular court's policy might be at any given time. Some will check your gun; others will check for LEOs only.

Ken
 
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).

Since he is a sworn BPD special....... would Chapter 258 apply?
 
I am fairly certain that if you stand there watching someone being stabbed to death and at the same time have the ABILITY to stop the murder, you are just as guilty as the guy using the knife and will be charged.

With what offense?
 
No, because he is not a municipal employee.

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.
 
Half Cocked, read BPD Rule 400. It lays out that the City isn't responsible for anything they do, yada, yada, yada. No idea if that would stand up in court or not, but they certainly do try to distance themselves from any liability in all cases.
 
While watching the new this morning I noticed that the DA said in him press conference that Mr. Langone was a "civilian shooter". Of course the media will not admit this, at least the DA did. And it is on record.
 
Half Cocked, read BPD Rule 400. It lays out that the City isn't responsible for anything they do, yada, yada, yada. No idea if that would stand up in court or not

The chapter 258 issue is certainly interesting. It may be that the Boston PD's declaration of lack of responsibility has about as much weight as a sign someone puts up on their house stating "Not responsible if someone hurts themselves while visiting or robbing this property".
 
Back
Top Bottom