Police: Good Samaritan chases iPhone thief for several blocks through the Back Bay until officers arrive

By adamg on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 4:21pm

iPhone suspect MBTA Transit Police report the first arrest of the year for a smartphone theft, off a woman on a Green Line trolley at Arlington Street station yesterday afternoon.

According to a Transit Police report, Emmanuel Castro, 17, of Roxbury, grabbed an iPhone right out of a woman's hands when their inbound trolley stopped at Arlington around 2 p.m. Police say the woman chased after him from the train and then up the stairs to the street, where where she lost him. But an unidentified man, spotting the two running, figured out what was going on and began chasing Castro himself, calling police as they ran all the way to Fairfield and Beacon streets.

Police say they caught up with Castro at Fairfield and Comm. Ave. where, on a pat frisk, an officer felt something hard and pulled an Apple iPhone 4G in Castro's right front pocket. The officer then called one of the numbers on the phone and was, police say, connected to the woman's aunt.

Castro was charged with unarmed robbery.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods:

Topics:

Free tagging:

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

I hate to blame the

By BH on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 4:40pm.

I hate to blame the victim.

BUT PAY ATTENTION! YOU'RE ON THE F***ING T!

Now, if the phone had been a Blackberry,

By roadman on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 4:54pm.

this incident wouldn't have been reported to the media at all.

The person was robbed of their personal property. That is relevant and worth reporting.

However, the make of phone (even if it is noted in the police report) is totally irrelevant information that is not necesary for people to know, and only serves to give even more undeserved free advertising for Steve "let's build a larger monopoly than Microsoft has" Jobs and his overhyped electronic junk that can't even keep track of time properly.

If it would have been a Blackberry

By Sarcastic Sam on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 5:03pm.

It wouldn't have been worth stealing in the first place.

i am not sure that...

By bandit on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 5:05pm.

"buy this phone: get mugged!" would be advertising that steve jobs would be interested in.

Why they actually sent out a copy of the report

By adamg on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 5:07pm.

It's the first smartphone theft of the year and the first smartphone-theft arrest, after going after gropers, going after iPhone/Sidekick thieves is their big public-awareness campaign.

The e-mail does mention "iPhone," but I think they've taken to using that as a generic term for smartphones.

Me, I thought the fact some guy ran after the alleged lug for several blocks was more interesting than the brand name.

He probably knew it was an iPhone

By Kaz on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 5:13pm.

I sure as hell wouldn't help chase down some thug over a Blackberry...but us iPhone users have to stick together, ya know?

Kaz
Written from my iPhone

...

Ok, not really.

Dude, roadman...

By eekanotloggedin on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 5:29pm.

Quit being an anorak and focus on the important issue here -- when you read a post that says an officer was doing a pat frisk and felt something hard, the proper response isn't to obsess about what brand it was. You either clarify as to whether the perp was just happy to see him, or you speculate as to what the proverbial she may have said.

Jeez. I can't take you anywhere.

(Oh, and fwiw, this here iPhone wanted to make you into "roadmap.")

Pfft, I should have anticipated you

By adamg on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 5:49pm.

The report mentions the officer feeling "a solid rectangular shaped object" (as opposed, of course, to a solid rectangular sounding object). But read the whole report for yourself.

That URL should be

By Saul on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 6:48pm.

That URL should be http://images.universalhub.com/images/2011/castro-report.pdf.

Some people have trouble with checks ...

By adamg on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 6:56pm.

I have trouble with directories. Thanks for spotting that; fixed!

You just proved my point for me.

By roadman on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 11:15am.

As you note, the important issue here is the fact the person was robbed. The brand of phone is irrelevant to that fact, therefore, there is no legitimate reason to even mention that brand in the reporting.

Now, suppose the media insisted on identifying specific brands in every news story. You'd see headlines like:

Pedestrain hit by MBTA Bus Number 0505 Ontario Flyer Model N-2307 in Malden.

Passenger ejected from American Airlines Boeing 767 Tail Number N-AA-PDQ264 at Logan.

Pretty silly, wouldn't you agree.

BTW, the common lingo for a cellular phone has always been phone, not 'iPhone". I can't recall ever hearing one of my friends or co-workers saying "Im on the iPhone" instead of "I'm on the phone".

I think it matters a little

By Pete Nice on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 11:33am.

Iphones are worth more than other phones, and thieves will target them more.

Also, property valued over $250 that is stolen is a felony while anything undert that is not. (Robbing someone of anything is always a felony).

Also, I have a cheap phone that does not have the computer capibilites that an Iphone has. They really are two different types of products for the most part.

There's a difference

By adamg on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 11:45am.

There are your basic clamshell-type phones that basically only let you make phone calls and send text messages and get sports scores. Generically, they're cell phones.

Then there are the tiny little handheld computers that let you play Angry Birds and, oh, yeah, make phone calls. Those are smartphones and they are perfect for misanthropic hermits who run Web sites and spent way more time using them for online stuff than making phone calls because they come with a separate data-only service that "cell phones" can't tap into.

I have heard people use "iPhone" as a sort of generic catchall for smartphones. Apple should be concerned in terms of trademarks, I suppose, but in the meantime, thieves are targeting people who have these things. In this particular case, it turns out the "iPhone" was, in fact, an iPhone, as opposed to, say, an Android phone.

benefits to Apple of the term going generic

By Sarcastic Sam on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 1:38pm.

Adam I also noticed that about some people using the term "iPhone" to mean any smartphone. I believe Apple isn't pursuing trademark issues because they probably benefit overall from the name recognition aspect of it all. It's kind of free advertising every time someone says "iPhone" but they mean any phone-that-does-more-than-make-phonecalls.

This may also be why the folks at kleenex and band-aid didn't go suing every person who published their product's name generically.

Good point

By Kaz on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 11:46am.

Let's take it in the other direction.

From now on, all car thefts/break-ins will just say "another car was broken into", no need to waste all our time giving free advertising to those bastards at Toyota, Honda, etc. I'm sure potential car shoppers don't care which brands get broken into more than others.

All armed robberies will occur at "a neighborhood convenience store". Club violence will erupt at "a regional late-night establishment". The cure for cancer will be developed at "some pharmaceutical company based in the area".

Screw Apple, right?

GREAT JOB

By anon on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 8:55pm.

Nice piece of police work by the responding officer and the dispatcher. A special thanks to the gentlemen who gave chase to the punk.
Now the real crime begins with the juvenile justice system. The good samaritan will loose several days of pay in continued court hearings and the cop will be labeled a racist and sued for illegal search. The victim will be victim a second time by the system.
The court will order that the punk be given a free charlie card so that he can travel to and from work in a no-show job in a city sponsered program for T-MUGGERS