Hey, there! Log in / Register
Charges dismissed against bus rider with fake-bullet belt
By adamg on Mon, 07/13/2015 - 1:32pm
The Suffolk County District Attorney's office today dropped charges against a Watertown man who created what police said was a "panic" on a 66 bus, because the bullets he was wearing around his waist weren't real. In a statement, the DA's office says:
Chapter 140, Sect. 121, allows prosecution for unlawful possession of “cartridges or cartridge cases … designed for use in any firearm, rifle or shotgun,” and responding officers acted in an abundance of caution after a 911 call for a man believed to be armed. Based on the totality of circumstances, however, including confirmation that the cartridges on said belt could not and weren’t intended to be fired, prosecutors dismissed the charges at arraignment in Brighton Municipal Court.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Hopefully
Hopefully he didn't miss anything important or have to pay any fees/fines/costs associated with dealing with this "abundance of caution" but at least the outcome is the appropriate one.
Hopefully
Hopefully law enforcement is trained on what the law is before they go out "enforcing" it again.
acab
acab. acab. acab.
Hopefully
Hopefully he'll realize those 70s/80s fashions are passe and he'll wear something more up to date than what I was wearing at the Rat in 1976.
Rob the arrest was correct.
Without knowing the other circumstances, it looks petty I agree.
Come on, Pete
Disorderly conduct? I mean, we don't know. Maybe when he was asked off the bus he started shouting and going crazy before police ran into him (I'd be pissed myself if someone told me the cops had been called and I had to get off the bus because of what I was wearing that wasn't of any harm to anyone). But throwing disorderly conduct at him is just one of those "contempt of cop" charges they always use to make sure something sticks even if the other charges they *think* he should be charged with are incorrect application of the law.
Well like I say below Kaz...
Thousands of officers have seen thousands of Allston bullet fashions over the last 30 years and I've never heard of an arrest or summons, why do you think it happened here? In fact, I don't ever recall anyone ever calling 911 over these things either. Doesn't that make you reasonably believe something else might be up? (Of course you may have never known about the thousands of times no charges were brought so we can't fault you for information you don't have).
If you saw what any police officer sees in Boston over a 15 year career, you would never say that disorderly conduct is a "comtempt of cop" charge either. I know you can youtube clips of bad officers and you can watch the news and see all the bad cops, but that simply isn't how the disorderly charge goes down in Boston.
How do you know?
How do you know that the arrest was correct? Maybe it was....
It was in response to your comment.
about officers knowing what the law is. The person broke the law on two counts that are not subjective, and one that is (although you have several people who were alarmed enough to call 911 to report 2 crimes and that would be sufficient for the disorderly conduct charge).
Mistakes
Even if there is an objective standard, the officers could operate under a mistake of law or a mistake of fact. In either case, the arrest could be erroneous.
I don't think enough facts have been published to say conclusively that the police were not (or were) operating under a mistake of law. Are you saying they definitely were not?
As for the disorderly charge, I'm surprised to hear that two 911 calls would provide a legally sufficient basis. Let's say that both callers reported that this guy had a gun. The police show up and confirm he doesn't have a gun. Disorderly charge based on the calls?
Yes I am saying that.
While it is true that the officers could operate under a mistake of law, they did not here, since case law backs them up on both charges (possession of a dangerous weapon, and possession of ammunition).
Disorderly is another issue, and yes it is subjective. People called 911, they were alarmed, the person they were alarmed about was technically breaking the law (although people are never charged with it usually, because people usually don't call).
Are there other circumstances? Did the person say something? Was he trying to scare people, even in fun or jest? Was the person evasive or suspicious if confronted by the MBTA driver?
The elements of disorderly conduct require:
1. Cause or risk
2. With a Public Reaction (Of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm)
3. Prohibited conduct (fighting, threatening to use force, or violent or tumultuous behaivior or creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which served no legitimate purpose of the suspect.
Look, I agree that the charges from what we read are pretty lame, I even say so in the original post, but in my experience there is usually a lot more to the story when arrests like this are made.
A lot more to the story
I'll agree that there is a lot more to the story that we need to know before coming to hard conclusions.
I'm still not sure that the case law on ammo and dangerous weapon proves that they were not operating under a mistake of law. It seems the operative question (for ammo at least) was there reasonable suspicion that a component of the "ammo" was "designed for use" in a firearm. (I'm basing this off the case law you cited in the first article.)
What we have been told by police/DA: (1) upon stopping the suspect, the police "discovered that the ammunition was fake" and (2) that at some point, it was confirmed that the cartridges "could not and were not intended to be fired."
I'm still not saying that I can conclusively say that the arrest was a mistake of law, but I don't see how you can say it wasn't either.
Ok I got ya.
I see what your saying, yes. You would be right about that.
Wild guess
Someone wearing a fully-loaded Wookiee bandolier on the 66 bus PROBABLY wasn't on his way to anything important.
Guess again
You know what makes America great?
You don't get to determine what he feels is important to him. Maybe he was on his way to a job interview or maybe he was just headed to hang out at the Model and pretend to be at work so his mother would get off his back. You don't know and it doesn't matter if you don't think he had anything important to do in that garb.
Hopefully
He learns that just because something isn't illegal and/or he won't be
chargedprosecuted that doesn't make it a good idea.EDIT: Having seen the photo below I agree he looks like no threat at all. But years of "see something say something" brainwashing should not be forgotten when selecting a wardrobe.
He was charged
The charge was dropped. In fact, one of the easiest ways for a police force to "control" an area is to start arresting people for contempt of cop crap charges and then letting the DA follow up their mess by letting people go afterwards once the situation has settled down. Of course, if you're not white, the chances go up that you don't get the charge dropped and get to plead out instead or take your jail time for something that shouldn't have been a charge in the first place.
$$$
Kaz, I know he definitely has to pay that appointed lawer fee plus he had to spit up that $40 bail money if not more until the case was resolved unless he wanted to be in jail until he goes to court and bets on the judge letting him out on a personal. All that for souvenir bullets right.
Doesn't have to pay the lawyer fee.
If the judge drops the charge at arraignment.
$$$
Kaz, I know he definitely has to pay that appointed lawer fee plus he had to spit up that $40 bail money if not more until the case was resolved unless he wanted to be in jail until he goes to court and bets on the judge letting him out on a personal. All that for souvenir bullets right.
20 hours of community service
20 hours of community service, which while still bullshit, pales in comparison to the 6 felony counts.
Let's see how much the
Let's see how much the taxpayers end up shelling out to this guy for poor police training and supervision. The sad thing is the dope could probably make a living boarding buses and suing departments.
No, the sad thing is that we have
lawyers who would bring such frivilous cases up, and judges who would actually hear them. The charges WERE DROPPED - end of story.
Unless you are somehow living in a fantasy world where the police should be able to immediately tell fake ammo from the real thing, or immediately decide that all the people on the bus were intentionally lying when they called 911 to report this "alleged" yutz.
Just because the guy was inconvenienced because of HIS poor decisions to wear bullets does not justify us giving him a payout of any amount whatsoever.
When is ammo dangerous?
Um, when there is a gun involved?
Nanny state idiocy should be punished.
Um
Can't a gun be concealed on a person?
I sure as shit couldn't necessarily tell at a glance that those are fake bullets. And I sure as shit am not enough of a firearms expert to know that he didn't have a gun they'd fit stuffed down his pants. So I'm not going to blame the passengers who called 911 and let the experts sort it out. And too damn bad if Johnny Costume got inconvenienced for a while.
(UPDATE: I finally saw a photo of this dude getting on the bus, and am now less convinced it would have set off any warning flags for me. But I don't claim to speak for everyone.)
Said pic from MBTA surveillance cam
From Raw Story: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/fashion-police-cop...
They are fake rifle rounds
Do you see him with a rifle? People must have just been horrified at his dated fashion sense.
ALWAYS
Guns are not dangerous without ammo, the reverse is not true (well pistol whipping aside). You can fire a bullet with nothing but a pair of pliers and hammer. Would it be smart? No. Would you have any type of control over where it went? No. But it could be fired. The primer on the bullet (little plug on the bottom) need only be struck hard enough. Like Chris Rock once said, keep guns legal and make bullets $5k each. Problems solved.
Oh
Please.
If you 'fired' a bullet that way...
... would it have enough force to do any more damage than a BB?
Depends on the caliber
A large enough round close enough could hurt, maybe kill.
But nothing like the ones represented on that belt. They could sting maybe.
Source: Mythbusters
I dunno...
...watch this video and you tell me...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewmeTbEAhyU
If the rounds on his belt were real they are rifle rounds, using more gun powder, meaning more likelihoof of spraying shell shrapnel all over the place. The barrel of the gun is what contains the shell and explosion and points the force of the explosion away from the trigger-puller.
Investigate, yes; arrest, no
I don't think anyone is saying that the police should not have responded to the 911 calls. The question is whether the arrest (which is emotionally upsetting and unquestionably time-consuming) was appropriate.
The fact the charges were eventually dropped by the prosecutor is also rather besides the point when we are talking about whether an arrest by the police was proper.
I imagine that we need more information about the police investigation at the scene to decide whether or not probable cause for an arrest existed under the law.
which is emotionally
In other words - inconvenience. Which does not constitute enough of a injustice that justifies a lawsuit against the police for DOING THEIR JOB! Train the police better, perhaps. Give a person a cash settlement because of it - NO.
The police don't need to be trained.
Thousands of D-14 cops see tens of thousands of fake ammo belts every year and no one ever gets charged, arrested, summonsed, etc. Sometimes the totality of the circumstances or victims/witness statements and their own fears/concerns force the police to take an action they might not otherwise take.
Tomato tomato
What you call an inconvenience and describe as the police doing their job others may fairly characterize as an unlawful detention and abuse of power. That's why we have civil courts.
I don't think he would get much, if anything, but it's not for you or me to decide.
But Officer!
He REALLY looked like that guy from Falling Down, and he was carrying a gym bag and muttering about lack of signs and waste of MBTA resources on electronics.
I figured he was some lunatic going to shoot everyone!
Completely ass-backwards wrong
If you are arrested on a bullshit charge, thereby significantly inconveniencing you, do you really, seriously think that the government has made you whole simply by dropping the charges?
I'd sue for false arrest,
I'd sue for false arrest, defamation, etc.
That's nice dear
You'd lose.
This story showed up on the
This story showed up on the Dangerous Minds website
good
What an embarrassing waste of time.
New Fashion Police
I think there are some openings on Joan River's old show. They can only harass white people though. Saying an African-American's dreadlocks might smell of Patchouli and weed is politically incorrect.
That's a nice straw man you've constructed
What the hell are you even talking about? Nothing about this story has anything to do with race.
I'm talking about
Giuliana Rancic. With her departure for un-PC comments there are openings on the show for additional fashion policemen, which Boston seems to have.
The dude has to take the bus
since losing his job when Hot Topic closed. Give him a break maaaan.
They used to work in photo labs
and sometimes kinkos, but most of those workplaces went away with the styles.
Bike messengers
Don't forget bike messengers. But they're fading away also now that there are so many more ways to transmit/transport information. Their heydey was the 80s/90s.
Mass General Laws 269-10
The bullets weren't illegal but the spiked gloves and bracelets are illegal in the State of Massachusetts and if the bus passengers were in fear the officers did their job correctly.
Pressure cookers next?
Now that people are in fear of fake bullets, is it time for lawmakers to sooth the public with new laws over their new fear of pressure cookers? Remember that fashion statement last year before the marathon by the art student in a black bee-keeper veil and rice cooker in his backpack? Will there be a 3 day waiting period and background check for pressure cookers next?
Even a blind squirrel
... sometimes find a nut.
And even Markk is sometimes spot on.
It sounds like fake...
news, but it's not. I wonder where those passengers were from that they were fearful of late 70s fashion. Remote Nepal villages, remote suburban america, or paranoid schizophrenic? Unless the kid was behaving erratically and threateningly, I dont' see a cause for 911 calls. It's bus 66 to boot.