Dorchester shooting - this is interesting

[kimmie1911]

First off - I live in Dorchester and have lived here for most of my 50+ years except for a couple of brief foray's to other areas. Sooooo, no Dot bashing please. I know we have a high crime rate, and so on and so on. But the point of this post is this -

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/man_arraigned_i_9.html

Do you notice the ONE brief reference about the gunman being shot in the hip by a bystander who returned fire? Who happened to be licensed to carry? Who no charges are being filed against?

I asked numerous people at BGRA over the weekend if they had seen this or knew about it. No one did/had.

I hope the person legally carrying was in one of my safety classes!!!!

I find it very curious that this is buried in this article. Why isn't this man being touted as a hero for perhaps having stopped more deaths/injuries from happening? If he was doing something wrong, I think it would be on the front page under 'gun play causes death of 19 year old mother' or something along those lines.

But..... he is the epitome of why should have the right to be armed.

One person carrying at Virginia tech......... one person carrying at one of the mall shootings........ and so on and so on.

Thoughts??????


Donna

 

[Big_Red]

It is a double standard. Had the bystander returned fire, missed the BG and accidentally hit someone else, we would have certainly heard about that and how guns, even in the hands of those licensed, are EVIL. Here we have a person who risked his/her life to protect others, presumably strangers, and he gets a one sentence note. It doesn't matter if guns are used to save lives. In the eyes of the gun grabbers they are good for only one thing...

 

[mikem317]

I find it very curious that this is buried in this article. Why isn't this man being touted as a hero for perhaps having stopped more deaths/injuries from happening? If he was dong something wrong, I think it would be on the front page under 'gun play causes death of 19 year old mother' or something along those lines.

Because it's Massachusetts and all guns are evil and scary, and no good can come from them. They all need to be confiscated and only police should have them and that's why I voted for Dear Leader Obama.

 

[hminsky]

I agree that if this is a case of legal self defense, it is shocking that the media cannot find the will to cover that, if not celebrate it.

 

[PATRON]

Do you think the bystander who retured fire lives in Boston. He most likely lives in a green town and works in Boston.

 

[Palladin]

read the BPD blog, reads like they did a magnificent piece of police work. No mention of the .40 the BG took as opposed to the .45' s in everyone else.

http://www.bpdnews.com/news_releases/

November 14, 2008
UPDATE TO ELDER STREET HOMICIDE
BOSTON POLICE FUGITIVE UNIT ARREST SUSPECT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDER OF 19 YEAR OLD ALEXANDRA GOMES

Today Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis and Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley announce the arrest of suspect, Daniel Harris, in connection with the homicide of Alexandra Gomes.

As a result of information obtained during the investigation, Boston Police homicide detectives applied for and were granted a warrant for his arrest. The Boston Police fugitive unit located Harris and placed him under arrest for the homicide of 19 year old Alexandra Gomes. Daniel Harris, 23, of Boston is charged with murder, 3 counts of Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Illegal Possession of a Firearm and Illegal Possession of Ammunition.
District Attorney Daniel Conley stated, "This arrest brings us one step closer to justice for a young mother taken from those who loved and needed her most, but it's not the end of our efforts. We urge everyone in the community to step forward with what they know and assist in the investigation as best they can -- even the smallest piece of evidence could be of great value to investigators."

Police Commissioner Ed Davis stated, “Prevention of violence is our first job, but when an incident erupts in our neighborhoods it is vitally important that those responsible be held accountable. The Boston Police and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office have worked tirelessly to make this arrest and bring the family a sense of justice.”
At about 2:24am, on Sunday, November 9, 2008, officers from Area B-2 (Roxbury) responded to a radio call for shots fired in the area of 6 Elder Street. On arrival, officers were unable to locate any victims. However, while still on the scene, officers were informed that several individuals, all suffering from gunshot wounds, were in the process of self-admitting themselves to two area hospitals: the Boston Medical Center and the Brigham & Women’s Hospital. As a result, officers were immediately dispatched to both locations. Once on scene at the Boston Medical Center, officers learned that a 19 year-old Alexandra Gomes, suffering from multiple gunshot wounds was pronounced at the hospital. The 2nd victim, an 18 year-old female, suffering from multiple gunshot wounds, was treated for non-life threatening injuries. The 3rd victim, a 30 year-old male, suffering from multiple gunshot wounds, was also being treated for non-life threatening injures.

Officers responding to the Brigham & Women’s Hospital learned that two victims had self-applied themselves to the hospital. Officers learned that a 20 year-old male and a 23 year-old male, both suffering from gunshot wounds, were treated for non-life threatening injuries.

The Boston Police Department is actively investigating the facts and circumstances surrounding this incident. Anyone with information is strongly urged to contact the Boston Police Homicide Unit at (617) 343-4470.
Community members who wish to assist this investigation in an anonymous manner can either call CrimeStoppers at 1(800) 494-TIPS or text the word ‘TIP’ to CRIME (27463). The Boston Police Department will stringently protect the identity of those who wish to remain anonymous.

 

[terraformer]

read the BPD blog, reads like they did a magnificent piece of police work. No mention of the .40 the BG took as opposed to the .45' s in everyone else.

http://www.bpdnews.com/news_releases/

I see no reference to calibers in either story. You assuming or do you know something you are not letting on to?

 

[GSG]

Do you think the bystander who retured fire lives in Boston. He most likely lives in a green town and works in Boston.

No kidding. I always carry when I go to Boston or any other red municipality.

Double standard for sure. I'm surprised that there was even a mention of the lawfully armed citizen.

 

[Rob]

VERY interesting that the 'clean shoot' lawfully licensed bystander isn't being charged. Under normal Mass conditions he'd be the FIRST one behind bars.

And I'm curious if the shot to the hip was a mistake or careful aim. Maybe he was trying to hit a more manly area and the perp turned.

 

[kimmie1911]

Do you think the bystander who retured fire lives in Boston. He most likely lives in a green town and works in Boston.

Not necessarily. I have a very diverse group of people come through my basic safety class at BGRA. Asian, Hispanic, Black, White, Cape Verdean, etc.... Most of them live in Boston. A lot in Dorchester. A lot of them are business owners - bars, restaurants, liquor stores. In this case, they will usually get an unrestricted license. I have an unrestricted license and I live in Boston. It does happen. I've had several students come back to let me know they got their unrestricted license. One in particular, a young Cape Verdean gentleman, who owned a liquor store in the area of the shooting, comes to mind.

Also, this happened at 2am in the morning in an area of the city where it's unlikely for people to just be 'walking or driving by'.

2 other thoughts. Lots of housing developments in Boston have armed security (like Alliance) patrolling the properties. But I would think they would have said if it was an armed security officer. The other thought - there's nothing to keep a person with a sport/target restricted license from carrying concealed. But would they then be opened to charges for saving lives? What law, exactly, are you breaking if you have a class a, sport/target restricted license and you carry concealed? But maybe that's another thread.

But in anycase - why no coverage??????????

Donna

 

[Rob]

No coverage because a civilian in Mass was doing the right thing. What would the state do if suddenly crime went down because lawfully armed citizens were stopping crime dead in it's tracks. This state has lawful gun owners by the gonads. Anything that would paint gun owners in a 'good Samaritan' light is an absolute no-no.

If this was a cop, he'd be receiving a commendation and it'd be front page.

 

[maee]

What law, exactly, are you breaking if you have a class a, sport/target restricted license and you carry concealed? But maybe that's another thread.

M.G.L. Chapter 140, Section 131, part A:

(a) A Class A license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) firearms, including large capacity firearms, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems proper; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity weapons, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of large capacity rifles and shotguns as it deems proper. A violation of a restriction imposed by the licensing authority under the provisions of this paragraph shall be cause for suspension or revocation and shall, unless otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000; provided, however, that the provisions of section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply to such violation.

So in other words, they can choose to revoke your license and fine you 1,000 to 10,000 dollars. Still probably better than being shot in Dorchester though.

 

[WayneWong]

Not necessarily. I have a very diverse group of people come through my basic safety class at BGRA. Asian, Hispanic, Black, White, Cape Verdean, etc.... Most of them live in Boston. A lot in Dorchester. A lot of them are business owners - bars, restaurants, liquor stores. In this case, they will usually get an unrestricted license. I have an unrestricted license and I live in Boston. It does happen. I've had several students come back to let me know they got their unrestricted license. One in particular, a young Cape Verdean gentleman, who owned a liquor store in the area of the shooting, comes to mind.

Also, this happened at 2am in the morning in an area of the city where it's unlikely for people to just be 'walking or driving by'.

2 other thoughts. Lots of housing developments in Boston have armed security (like Alliance) patrolling the properties. But I would think they would have said if it was an armed security officer. The other thought - there's nothing to keep a person with a sport/target restricted license from carrying concealed. But would they then be opened to charges for saving lives? What law, exactly, are you breaking if you have a class a, sport/target restricted license and you carry concealed? But maybe that's another thread.

But in anycase - why no coverage??????????

Donna

There is a $10,000 fine and revocation for carrying outside your restriction, but no prison time. And actually, if you consider the area (no disrespect intended), I can understand someone carrying outside their restriction there.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

While of vital interest to all of us, that fact that a lawfully armed bystander took action was only incidental to the actual story, i.e. the arraignment of a murder suspect. In fact, I'm surprised that it was mentioned at all. It's not relevant, (but, it is hugely interesting).

What I find more interesting is that the lawfully carrying bystander was NOT charged. After years of enduring continual stream of Mass/Boston bashing on this board, I would have expected summary execution for the individual!

While the facts are thin on this aspect of the case, why would anyone assume that this person would be in any trouble? Please point me to a case where someone was persecuted despite being clearly justified in their use of a firearm.

Sure, Boston like most other large metropolitan areas, has a strong anti-gun bias. It's to be expected, it's the Realpolitik of urban America. As a matter of public policy the BPD does not issue unrestricted LTCs liberally - and current Mass law gives them that discretion. But they do issue them. They also issue LTCs on time (by mail, I'm not inconvenienced by having to go back to the station) and they don't insist upon all that three reference letters on stationary BS like others do. Sure they make you go through some other crap and it's an annoyance, but it's relatively minor compared to what some other chiefs want.

BTW kimmie1911, it was good shooting with you Sunday. Go BUAS!

 

[GSG]

Still probably better than being shot in Dorchester though.

+1

 

[OnTheRoad]

While the bystander may not be charged, how much says he's going to be sued?

 

[terraformer]

While the bystander may not be charged, how much says he's going to be sued?

Exactly, which is why he is probably not talking to the press, NES, or any one else for that matter. The press won't focus on anything unless they have a name and a face. Figuratively, I am sure they know his name, although I suspect the lawyer has already asked for the news to not repeat his name for security reasons. Anyhow, if you hold back on that stuff, unless you have a reporter who thinks you are in the middle of the story and are trying to hide something, a no-name can make a story die real easy.

 

[GSG]

Exactly, which is why he is probably not talking to the press, NES, or any one else for that matter. The press won't focus on anything unless they have a name and a face. Figuratively, I am sure they know his name, although I suspect the lawyer has already asked for the news to not repeat his name for security reasons. Anyhow, if you hold back on that stuff, unless you have a reporter who thinks you are in the middle of the story and are trying to hide something, a no-name can make a story die real easy.

I remember reading recently about an incident in the news (in North Carolina, IIRC) where a woman's husband stabbed her a few times on a sidewalk, then poured gas on her and tried lighting her on fire. Tons of people were around, and no one did anything except some unknown man with a gun who held him at gunpoint until the cops showed up, then disappeared into the crowd and was never seen or heard from again.

I wondered to myself if he was a convicted felon illegally carrying who didn't want to go to jail, or a law abiding citizen who didn't want to have his name in the news and police reports where he might become a victim of retaliation whether it was through lawsuits, home invasion or just nasty phone calls.

Either way, the woman survived, the criminal was caught, and the good Samaritan disappeared.

I wouldn't ever advocate not reporting involvement in a shooting to the police, but I can certainly see why someone might want to keep their mouth shut.

 

[kimmie1911]

Thanks - it was a good match except for that swinger that kept moving on me -

Drawing up a proposal to present to the powers to be - I'm going to really push this!!! Yeah - Go BUAS!!!!!!

 

[rwl1955]

Dorchester

First off - I live in Dorchester and have lived here for most of my 50+ years except for a couple of brief foray's to other areas. Sooooo, not Dot bashing please. I know we have a high crime rate, and so on and so on. But the point of this post is this -

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/man_arraigned_i_9.html

Do you notice the ONE brief reference about the gunman being shot in the hip by a bystander who returned fire? Who happened to be licensed to carry? Who no charges are being filed against?

I asked numerous people at BGRA over the weekend if they had seen this or knew about it. No one did/had.

I hope the person legally carrying was in one of my safety classes!!!!

I find it very curious that this is buried in this article. Why isn't this man being touted as a hero for perhaps having stopped more deaths/injuries from happening? If he was dong something wrong, I think it would be on the front page under 'gun play causes death of 19 year old mother' or something along those lines.

But..... he is the epitome of why should have the right to be armed.

One person carrying at Virginia tech......... one person carrying at one of the mall shootings........ and so on and so on.

Thoughts??????


Donna

*******
My daughter lives in Dorchester.

 

[Palladin]

I see no reference to calibers in either story. You assuming or do you know something you are not letting on to?

no winks!

I had googled another story on this, the BG fired 10 rounds of .45, the good guy fired one of .40 and hit BG in the upper thigh.

http://hawk.heraldinteractive.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1133009

 

[Riverside]

The other thought - there's nothing to keep a person with a sport/target restricted license from carrying concealed. But would they then be opened to charges for saving lives? What law, exactly, are you breaking if you have a class a, sport/target restricted license and you carry concealed? But maybe that's another thread.
But in anycase - why no coverage??????????
Donna

I heard this directly from the mouth of the former Boston licensing officer who claims he has closed a "loophole" in the MA Gun laws.
Two young men in separate incidents were carrying concealed handguns with a Sport/Target restricted Boston issued license. Both of them got into an "altercation" and their concealed carry handguns were exposed, in one case, not on purpose. Both men told police that they were on their way to/from a gun range. Those two incidents are the force behind Boston's latest restriction, in addition to Sport/Target, "NO CONCEAL CARRY" which went into effect March of 2006.
In the recent incident, even though as far as we know, no charges are being filed against the defensive shooter there is no guarantee that he has not received greetings of some sort from the Boston licensing authority. I hope for his sake that he has one of those coveted LTC-A without any restrictions.
As far as publicity, the defensive shooter may want to remain anonymous. If it were me, that would be my choice.
Best Regards.

 

[jdlmm80]

I completely agree with everyone hear. People should be allowed to carry concealed firearms.

 

[terraformer]

I heard this directly from the mouth of the former Boston licensing officer who claims he has closed a "loophole" in the MA Gun laws.
Two young men in separate incidents were carrying concealed handguns with a Sport/Target restricted Boston issued license. Both of them got into an "altercation" and their concealed carry handguns were exposed, in one case, not on purpose. Both men told police that they were on their way to/from a gun range. Those two incidents are the force behind Boston's latest restriction, in addition to Sport/Target, "NO CONCEAL CARRY" which went into effect March of 2006.

You know, if they are going to restrict a license, at least do it right and this is the way it should be. No BS, no fuss, straight language. Nothing confusing about that, save for the fact it is listed as a restriction and not under the heading of condition but that is a minor geeky nitpick.

 

[Riverside]

You are kidding me with this ridiculous ode to Boston right? I went through that system twice. Please stop acting like Boston is reasonable because it's not.

1. They treat you like scum at the desk at Boston PD headquarters. You are presumed to be a criminal by them and that's how you are treated.

2. They require a birth certificate, letter from a gun club, utility bill, driver's license, range test at Moon Island (with THEIR gun not yours), etc.

3. They do not process renewals automatically even if ALL of your information is exactly the same. They make you file ALL the paperwork all over again right from the beginning.

Menino and his administration are corrupt to the core and they have only succeeded in driving out many creative, productive individuals while keeping the parasites firmly on the city payroll.

I'm glad I got the hell out of there. It was one of the best things I ever did and I encourage anybody else who values liberty that's currently living in that city to get out. It long ago ceased to be a good place for intelligent, decent people.

Jim is 100% correct. Boston is not reasonable when it comes to issuing gun licenses. You have to be connected and/or have an insider make a phone call or visit on your behalf.
Best Regards.

 

[Riverside]

You know, if they are going to restrict a license, at least do it right and this is the way it should be. No BS, no fuss, straight language. Nothing confusing about that, save for the fact it is listed as a restriction and not under the heading of condition but that is a minor geeky nitpick.

A restriction such as "NO Conceal Carry" does not belong on an LTC-A. The licensing authority has taken the law into his own hands and created a new license. LTC-A USELESS!
Best Regards.

 

[terraformer]

A restriction such as "NO Conceal Carry" does not belong on an LTC-A. The licensing authority has taken the law into his own hands and created a new license. LTC-A USELESS!
Best Regards.

Let me repeat myself.

You know, if they are going to restrict a license, at least do it right and this is the way it should be. No BS, no fuss, straight language. Nothing confusing about that, save for the fact it is listed as a restriction and not under the heading of condition but that is a minor geeky nitpick.

I am not suggesting neutered licenses are smart (although they do allow for hi-cap handguns so even neutered As have some usefulness), only that do it right, and don't do it like Jim said they did to him at one point. WTF is "no concealed target" mean anyway???

 

[GSG]

The idiots in Boston demonstrated their utter lack of intelligence by putting "no concealed target" on my LTC. Yes, they really are that stupid in that town.

I would carry everywhere on that license, I'd just make sure that I open carried targets if I had any on me at the time.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

I remember reading recently about an incident in the news (in North Carolina, IIRC) where a woman's husband stabbed her a few times on a sidewalk, then poured gas on her and tried lighting her on fire. Tons of people were around, and no one did anything except some unknown man with a gun who held him at gunpoint until the cops showed up, then disappeared into the crowd and was never seen or heard from again.

Her name was Gracie Watson.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

They also issue LTCs on time...

Are you joking? If not, you were the lucky one.

Ray Mosher couldn't find his own ass with a flashlight and an assmap in 40 days, let alone process an LTC application.