Only in Massachusetts...

[Palladin]

No decision on charges against Brinks guard
Teens indicted in robbery bid, face life in prison


By Mike LaBella
[email protected]

HAVERHILL — The two teenagers charged with trying to rob a Brinks armored truck guard have been indicted by a grand jury and face the possibility of life in prison.

Investigators said they have still not decided whether the guard will face charges for firing his gun at the teens as they drove away.

Isaac Sosa, 18, of 100 Berkley St., second floor, Lawrence, and Christopher Delarosa, 19, of 275 Andover Road, Billerica, were charged with assault with intent to rob, which carries a potential sentence of up to 10 years in a state prison, and unarmed robbery, which carries a potential term of up to life in a state prison.

Both charges can only be brought at the Superior Court level, said Stephen O'Connell, a spokesman for the district attorney's office.

Both men had been previously arraigned in Haverhill District Court on charges of unarmed robbery, with Delarosa receiving the additional charge of assault and battery. Had their cases not been bumped up to Salem Superior Court by the grand jury indictment, they would not have faced the possibility of a life sentence.

Sosa was arraigned yesterday in Salem where he pleaded not guilty. He was ordered held on $20,000 cash bail and his case was continued to March 4 for a pretrial conference.

Delarosa is scheduled to be arraigned in Salem on March 4.

Both men were arrested Jan. 14 just minutes after authorities said they tried to rob a Brinks armored truck guard who was about to replenish an ATM in a Bank of America kiosk at Riversedge Plaza, police said.

Police said the Brinks guard fired his handgun at the car as Sosa and Delarosa drove away and that the bullet struck the rear of their vehicle.

O'Connell said lawyers for the district attorney have not yet made a decision as to whether any criminal charges will be brought against the guard.

At their dangerousness hearing on Jan. 21 in Haverhill District Court, Sosa and Delarosa were ordered held on $100,000 cash bail. O'Connell said Delarosa was subsequently released after posting bail.

During their arraignment in Haverhill, prosecutor John DePaulo said Sosa had waited nearby in his father's car while Delarosa tried to rob the guard. DePaulo said Delarosa punched the guard in the face, made an unsuccessful grab for the bag of money, then fled in Sosa's car. The men were captured by police on Route 125 in Plaistow, N.H., just a few hundred yards north of the Haverhill line.

ÔÇæÔÇæÔÇæ

 

[MikeH]

I hope Brinks will foot the legal bill for this guard if charges are brought.

 

[MichaelJ]

This is a tough one. I am prohibited by department policy to fire at almost ANY vehicle. I would be quickly out of a job if I fired at a FLEEING vehicle! Good luck to the Brinks guard but I don't think it's going to end in his favor.

 

[terraformer]

This is a tough one. I am prohibited by department policy to fire at almost ANY vehicle. I would be quickly out of a job if I fired at a FLEEING vehicle! Good luck to the Brinks guard but I don't think it's going to end in his favor.

I agree with this take as well. They were fleeing. He should have been focused on the plate numbers by that point. The little shits should, but won't, get some hefty time, although I suspect they will get less than the guard unfortunately...

 

[06LemansC6]

The guard should NOT be charged. Perhaps it was a bad decision to make, but I'm sure it all happened in the blink of an eye. If it weren't for these two pukes the guard wouldn't have even drawn his pistol. Every action has a reaction. The guards reaction is a direct result of the action of these douche bags.

 

[theGringo]

I agree with this take as well. They were fleeing. He should have been focused on the plate numbers by that point. The little shits should, but won't, get some hefty time, although I suspect they will get less than the guard unfortunately...

But, if you drill the perp and his car goes off the road, you can get a better look at his plate. Still, probably not a good call on the part of the Brink's guy.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

The guard should NOT be charged. Perhaps it was a bad decision to make, but I'm sure it all happened in the blink of an eye. If it weren't for these two pukes the guard wouldn't have even drawn his pistol. Every action has a reaction. The guards reaction is a direct result of the action of these douche bags.

Problem is, if he is charged, you'd never find twelve people on a jury in Ma**h***chusetts that think that way.

They were just good boys......turning their lives around I tell ya.

 

[Half Cocked]

A tough call.....Although a violation of most every agencies use of force policy, I can see them not charging him. One could easily make an argument that based upon their heinous and brazen actions that they were a continued threat to others.

Tough decision for the investigators and DA. I would say no charges.

Legally justified use of force and violation of agency policy are two different things.

 

[terraformer]

they were a continued threat to others.

But he is a private security guard. He is not authorized to protect the public.

 

[Half Cocked]

But he is a private security guard. He is not authorized to protect the public.

Understood.......but...Anyone can use deadly force to protect another from death or serious bodily injury. So there are a lot of factors to consider.

 

[weekendracer]

Ok, this got all jacked up. I'll try again

 

[weekendracer]

Take 2...

All I can say is, I just don't know. Neither post went to the right place. *sigh*

 

[Half Cocked]

All I can say is, I just don't know. Neither post went to the right place. *sigh*

Have you been drinking?

 

[Bill Nance]

All I can say is, I just don't know. Neither post went to the right place. *sigh*

+1 for having the wisdom to know when NOT to post. -We could all learn that lesson

 

[clinotus]

I am not seeing in the article where deadly force was merited.

 

[mikem317]

Wasn't the guard supposed to be guarding the property of Brinks or their client?

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

But he is a private security guard. He is not authorized to protect the public.

Says who?

Because someone is not a sworn officer wearing a badge and gun that they are not authorized to protect another in public?

That is simply not true or the law....as stated above, even to the point of deadly force if necessary.

 

[stinx]

Self defense in Ma AKA Comm VS Klien applies to everyone. In order to use deadly force a person in Ma must be in fear of seroius bodily injury or death AND no other means is availible to prevent such harm. Basically it means you have to be scared for your life or someone elses and there was nothing else you could do except use deadly force to stop you or someone else from being seriously injured or killed.

The fleeing felon rule known as Julien Vs Randazzo is not so clear. In a nutshell in order for deadly force to be used to stop a fleeing felon several elements have to be met without exception and they are as follows: Person using the weapon may use deadly force to prevent escape If;
1 The arrest is for a Felony;and
2 The Officer reasonably believes that the force used creates no substantial risk to innocent persons;and
3 The Offcer reasonably believes that;
A The crime for which the arrest is made included the use or threatened use of deadly force; OR
B There is a substantial risk that the arestee will cause death or serious bodily harm if his arrest is delayed.

Since the case specifically mentions Officer and arrest it seems that only a person who is authorized by statue to make arrests would be covered under this. YMMV

 

[terraformer]

Says who?

Because someone is not a sworn officer wearing a badge and gun that they are not authorized to protect another in public?

That is simply not true or the law....as stated above, even to the point of deadly force if necessary.

Ahhh... Where do I start.
First, I said:

not authorized to protect the public

You said:

not authorized to protect another in public

These are not two equivalent statements.

So, if you read HC's post again, you see that he is making, knowingly I believe, a very large leap in considering the guard covered by my statement, by making the argument that your statement is still a valid use of force in this case for citizens when the threat is not clearly defined or a future threat. I and others seem to believe otherwise.

The rules for cops to use deadly force are vastly different than for us lowly citizens. In some cases, that is a good thing, but in many others it causes a great deal of ambiguity in situations beyond the most simplistic self defense case. See this now closed thread for more. You will also note that HC agrees with someone's point there in contradiction to his point here to some extent.

 

[terraformer]

Self defense in Ma AKA Comm VS Klien applies to everyone. In order to use deadly force a person in Ma must be in fear of seroius bodily injury or death AND no other means is availible to prevent such harm. Basically it means you have to be scared for your life or someone elses and there was nothing else you could do except use deadly force to stop you or someone else from being seriously injured or killed.

The fleeing felon rule known as Julien Vs Randazzo is not so clear. In a nutshell in order for deadly force to be used to stop a fleeing felon several elements have to be met without exception and they are as follows: Person using the weapon may use deadly force to prevent escape If;
1 The arrest is for a Felony;and
2 The Officer reasonably believes that the force used creates no substantial risk to innocent persons;and
3 The Offcer reasonably believes that;
A The crime for which the arrest is made included the use or threatened use of deadly force; OR
B There is a substantial risk that the arestee will cause death or serious bodily harm if his arrest is delayed.

Since the case specifically mentions Officer and arrest it seems that only a person who is authorized by statue to make arrests would be covered under this. YMMV

Citizens in pretty much every state can affect an arrest if they witness the felony and deadly force was used by the perpetrator (A) or there is really good chance the person continues to be a deadly threat (B) to others. I believe B is why HC thinks the guard is covered. I don't think grabbing a bag of cash, with no weapon or use of deadly force is enough for B. A was never in question. The problem here is for a citizen to be covered by B, there is a very high bar. ETA: A bar that even cops here think they wouldn't be able to get over in this case.

 

[Palladin]

personnally, I think the guard is going to get f***ed. I'm not saying it's the right decision, but it's going to be the outcome. He was trying to stop a fleeing felon, should he have fired?? probably not, the crime was over, the threat was over, in this state he's going to have his ass handed to him.

In Texas, they would have had a state holiday in his name.

 

[BOBKATT]

Understood.......but...Anyone can use deadly force to protect another from death or serious bodily injury. So there are a lot of factors to consider.

You're not going to convince a jury in MA or me, for that mantter, that shooting at a car while it is being driven away from the scene of an attempted unarmed robbery, is defending someones life. If that is what you are getting at.

Don't get me wrong, I wish it was a magic bullet and took out the two of those shitbags at the same time. But legally speaking, I really don't think your argument that he was protecting someone from death or serious bodily injury, has a leg to stand on.

 

[Kicker96FS]

personnally, I think the guard is going to get f***ed. I'm not saying it's the right decision, but it's going to be the outcome. He was trying to stop a fleeing felon, should he have fired?? probably not, the crime was over, the threat was over, in this state he's going to have his ass handed to him.

In Texas, they would have had a state holiday in his name.

I agree, I think he has been watching too many TV shows. He could have hit anyone in the area with his bullets. The crime was over. Time to gather info. and let the real cops do the work. (and they did)

 

[06LemansC6]

You're not going to convince a jury in MA or me, for that mantter, that shooting at a car while it is being driven away from the scene of an attempted unarmed robbery, is defending someones life. If that is what you are getting at.

Really? Has he been charged already? Have you had a chance to hear all the evidence? Did you already hear the arguments from the prosecutor and the defense lawyer? If you were on a jury would you be able to keep an open mind to BOTH sides of the argument? Please explain how you can make such a statement. Talk about guilty until proven innocent.

 

[BOBKATT]

Really? Has he been charged already? Have you had a chance to hear all the evidence? Did you already hear the arguments from the prosecutor and the defense lawyer? If you were on a jury would you be able to keep an open mind to BOTH sides of the argument? Please explain how you can make such a statement. Talk about guilty until proven innocent.

We're all making comments according to the only evidence that we have here in front of us. Thats pretty basic. You should be able comprehend that. With your logic, we all should not discuss this at all. And that sort of defeats the purpose of having a forum, wouldn't you say? I suppose that in an ideal world, according to you, we should all look at a story that has been posted and not submit our opinions unless we attend the trial and then speak about it afterwards? Or do you only suggest that people not discuss their opinions if their opinions do not align with yours?

The guard should NOT be charged. Perhaps it was a bad decision to make, but I'm sure it all happened in the blink of an eye. If it weren't for these two pukes the guard wouldn't have even drawn his pistol. Every action has a reaction. The guards reaction is a direct result of the action of these douche bags.

Thank you for that comical demonstration of hipocrisy.

 

[dsm]

As an aside from the core points here, although it's mathematically accurate I suppose, I wish that the media would not refer to 18- and 19-year olds as "teens" in stories like this. The term should be reserved for juveniles.

 

[06LemansC6]

Thank you for that comical demonstration of hipocrisy.

What I posted was opinion. MY opinion.......

What you posted was not just your opinion, but the opinion of a hypothetical jury. You made it sound as if your mind was made up long before this guard even getting a fighting chance.

You're not going to convince a jury in MA or me, for that mantter, that shooting at a car while it is being driven away from the scene of an attempted unarmed robbery, is defending someones life.

 

[BOBKATT]

What I posted was opinion. MY opinion.......

What you posted was not just your opinion, but the opinion of a hypothetical jury.

So then you do think that it is okay to post an opinion based on the information that we have in front of us, so long as you are not posting your opinion on what you believe others will say or do? That is sort of silly, wouldn't you say? And to explore that idea further, what made you single out my post vs. the other many posts by others who felt that in MA this guy is fighting an uphill battle, to say the least?

You made it sound as if your mind was made up long before this guard even getting a fighting chance.

Thank you, Mr. Holmes, for pointing that out to me. This is what you would call "having an opinion". I do have one, and maybe it opposes yours, but it is no less valid. And so long as you criticize me for forming an opinion on this matter, and so long as you have an opinion on this matter, you are a hypocrite.

 

[06LemansC6]

And to explore that idea further, what made you single out my post vs. the other many posts by others who felt that in MA this guy is fighting an uphill battle, to say the least?

Perhaps because you are the only one that had him already loosing a trial.

you are a hypocrite.

Thanks for the name calling. I have a few I can think of towards you too.

I'm done. -----------Edited before I get booted--------------

 

[BOBKATT]

Perhaps because you are the only one that had him already loosing a trial.

Read:

This is a tough one. I am prohibited by department policy to fire at almost ANY vehicle. I would be quickly out of a job if I fired at a FLEEING vehicle! Good luck to the Brinks guard but I don't think it's going to end in his favor.

I agree with this take as well. They were fleeing. He should have been focused on the plate numbers by that point. The little shits should, but won't, get some hefty time, although I suspect they will get less than the guard unfortunately...

Problem is, if he is charged, you'd never find twelve people on a jury in Ma**h***chusetts that think that way.

personnally, I think the guard is going to get f***ed. I'm not saying it's the right decision, but it's going to be the outcome. He was trying to stop a fleeing felon, should he have fired?? probably not, the crime was over, the threat was over, in this state he's going to have his ass handed to him.

And then let me know if you still feel that I am the only one who feels that he's screwed.