Hey, there! Log in / Register
Framingham kid held on $10,000 bail for alleged Boston cruiser torching; if he makes bail, he has to stay out of Boston
By adamg on Fri, 06/12/2020 - 3:38pm
A Boston Juvenile Court judge today agreed with prosecutors to set bail at $10,000 for a Framingham 15-year-old who is the first to be charged with lighting a Boston police cruiser on fire during the May 31 after-protest rioting in downtown Boston, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.
Judge Peter Coyne also ruled that should the teen's family post bail, he will have to wear a GPS device, in part to ensure he meets another order: To stay out of the city of Boston, the DA's office adds.
According to the DA's office, the investigation that led to his arrest after the cruiser outside the Beantown Pub on Tremont Street went up in flames involved a panoply of law-enforcement agencies, including Boston Police, the Boston Fire Department arson squad, the FBI, ATF and the US Attorney's office.
The DA's office adds that the investigation into the cruiser burning and other incidents that night is continuing.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
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
To stay out of the city of Boston
That's for good, right? Like forever ever, ever ever.
Bail
Cash or bond? Bond would be 10%. I think the family would be able to raise this amount. This kid is accused of a serious crime. Should he be found guilty, I hope the punishment is sufficient to deter any possibility of a repeat criminal offense. Nice job to the FBI,ATF, US Attorney and the Boston Police as well as the Arson Squad of the Boston Fire Department.
Bail is stupid
When bail is set for someone who is not an immediate danger to his community and isn't a flight risk, the only purpose is to ensure an impoverished defendant remains stuck in jail awaiting trial. That can easily wind up as a years-long sentence before he even gets in front of a jury.
Bail is a means to ensure attendance
I’m going to go out on a lark and say there is a good chance the kid’s parents could get the $10 grand, but unless he is a flight risk, he should be conveyed into his parents’ care until the conclusion of proceedings. No need for bail.
Parents?
Why do people assume he has normal, functioning parents?
To use a new phrase
Okay, his "caregivers." Or guardians. In the end, there's someone who is legally responsible for him.
I say hang him
I say hang him high and his parents
You mean after he's convicted
You mean after he's convicted by a jury of his peers...?
Right..?
You think a bunch of 15 yo. won't sentence a peer to death?
Check out a video game chat.
lol
But the peers do not do the sentencing.. The judge does.
Thankfully the Ninth
Thankfully the Ninth Amendment stands in your way. And the Fifth. Especially towards the parents.
He's a juvenile, probably not
He's a juvenile, probably not
It used to mean something to
It used to mean something to be banned in Boston.
I'm cool making his parents
I'm cool making his parents put up 10k for bail.
That happened fairly late in the evening. I support his parents letting him go to Boston for a protest but he should have already been home by the time that cruiser was lit. It was a school night too.
We blame the cops for a lot but what about parents ? I don't care why it happened if I did this when I was 15 I would request to stay in jail.
"It was a school night too. "
You do realize that nobody's attending school now, right?
Yes, there is school
Wrong. It's online. And fewer hours. But it was still "A school night".
Serious crime
He should be named.
Take it up with the state legislature
Which has decided that the point of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation, not punishment.
Lol, says "anon".
Lol, says "anon".
But seriously, he shouldn't. He's 15. He should get a serious punishment, but naming him will do exactly nothing beneficial for him or society. We have a lot of problems with our criminal justice system, but protecting the names of youths that have not been convicted of any crime is absolutely, unequivocally not one of them.
So why do we name people 18 and over who haven't been convicted
of a crime yet? We're not dealing with a six year old who swiped a candy bar from the local store. We're talking about someone almost old enough to hold a driver's license that's been charged with arson.
Time to treat serious crimes for what they are. CRIMES.
The police release the names
The police release the names of people who have been arrested to inform their family/ community that the person in custody and hasn't disappeared. Places that jail people without publicly stating their names and crimes are places where people disappear.
Good idea, perhaps
But no, that's not why police release the names of suspects. They release the names because they're public records and it saves them the trouble of having to respond to all the public-records requests they'd get otherwise, if nothing else.
That's a good question
Seems to me we ought to think twice about naming the accused adults, at least in some cases.
He should be tried solely based on the crimes he's charged with
Age should not be a factor in determining how he's charged or tried. And if the "juvenile" wants to argue poor impulse, peer pressure, or all those other "justifications" that caused him to willfully commit arson, fine. Let his lawyer do it in front of a jury.
Hate to break it to you
But the Supreme Court has ruled that there is a difference between minors committing crimes and people over the age of 18. Frankly, I agree with them (though in the case of murder and like crimes, giving them custodial sentences akin to what adults gets, with the possibility of parole, seems proper.)
This kid has every right to be mad as hell
Donate to the Mass bail fund to ensure he is not unnecessarily detained in a system that will destroy his life. He needs support, justice, and mental health resources, not jail time.
https://www.change.org/defundbostonpd