MBTA Transit Police report arresting a man they say threatened to shoot up a bus on Cummins Highway yesterday morning because the bus wasn't moving.
Police say the driver opened the bus's doors to let panicked passengers out - and they began running toward Mattapan Square looking for cops to flag down as Jawan Bristow, 27, continued his threats.
According to a police report, the incident began shortly after 8:30 a.m. on a bus at Cummins Highway and Brockton Street, when Bristow got out of his seat in the rear of the bus and yelled: "Yo, bus driver, if you don't move, I'm gonna pop everyone on this bus, including the babies. I have the gun right here in my bag." He then began to walk to the front, the report says. "I have a Glock. I'm getting the women first."
After the driver opened the doors, "the patrons of the bus started to run out of the bus with their children climbing over snowbanks and falling to the ground to get away from Bristow." The driver then radioed for help, to which Bristow allegedly replied, "That's right, get the cops down here, I'm not leaving. They know who I am. I own Mattapan."
The police report states a pat frisk showed Bristow did not actually have a gun. However, he will be arraigned today in Dorchester District Court on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon, disturbing the peace, interfering with public transportation, threats to commit a crime and disorderly conduct.
Innocent, etc.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Assault with a non-existent dangerous weapon?
By Ron Newman
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 9:29am
If he didn't actually have the gun that he threatened to use, can they really charge him with this particular crime? (He should still go to jail for a bunch of other stuff, I hope.)
Like Armed Robbery?
By anon
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 9:58am
They can charge armed robbery if the victim believes the assailant has a weapon, so maybe that's the case here.
a matter of law
By anon
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 9:59am
if a person holds up a bank by claiming he has a gun in his coat, that person is charged with armed robbery (regardless if a gun existed)
why you should stick to your day job
By Brett
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 10:00am
...and google things first.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ass...
Yes, it's assault
By Ron Newman
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 10:07am
but is it assault "with a dangerous weapon" when the weapon doesn't actually exist?
Paging Jake Wark!
By adamg
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 10:10am
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe part of it is perception. If you act like you have a gun, and people think you have a gun, legally, that's the same as threatening somebody with an actual gun, at least in terms of what you can be charged with.
In this case, people were certainly taking the guy at his word that he had a gun and that he was about to use it, according to the police report.
Jake here -- not that you
By JakeWark
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 11:54am
Jake here -- not that you need me, because you have it right. If a person creates with a statement or gesture or something the reasonable perception that he or she is carrying a weapon, then the assault or robbery or whatever may be charged as "armed."
What if
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 10:24am
I have a gub?
Then You Can...
By Suldog
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 4:42pm
... Take The Money And Run.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
it can be...
By bandit
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 10:29am
the courts in massachusetts have upheld numerous cases for dangerous weapons charges where their was either no weapon or a weapon that is probably not dangerous (for example, a toy gun). basically, if you make it seem like you have a dangerous weapon, such as putting your hand in your pocket and shouting "I HAVE A GUN", you can be brought up on dangerous weapons charges.
if it could be perceived by a reasonable person to be a weapon that can cause death or greivous injury, it can be charged dangerous weapon.
It's an oddity of
By anon
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 11:48am
It's an oddity of Massachusetts criminal law. There's no definition of aggravated assault, so they have to charge people with assault with a dangerous weapon instead.
Often the supposed weapon in the charge is something ridiculous, like the perpetrator's foot or fist, or the ground. So if you want to avoid carrying dangerous weapons with you, you'd better leave your hands and feet at home and float to work.
A fist is never a dangerous weapon
By Pete Nice
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 12:19pm
but a foot with shoe on it, or the ground can be.
Which came first?
By downtown anon
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 10:35am
http://www.dotnews.com/2011/police-mattapan-man-th...
I love chicken-and-egg questions
By adamg
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 11:29am
Technically, the Universal Hub post went up first, by a few minutes. I know that, because I actually wrote both of them. I do some work for the Reporter folks, including writing up any Dorchester/Mattapan stories I run across that they're not working on themselves (so if you ever see a post here with my name and then see the same or similar story written by "Staff" there, chances are I did both versions).
Here's a question....
By anon
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 1:40pm
So this intimidating violent individual claims to have a gun in his posession & verbally threatens to kill everyone on the bus starting with women and babies. Ultimately he is found to not be in posession of a gun but can be charged with assault with a dangerous weapon becasue people though there lives were in imminent danger.
Now...alternate scenario:
One of the passengers is licenced to carry a gun (like the shop owner from Mattapan we've been reading about) and armed.
At what point does that individual have the right to defend themselves and others with deadly force based on a percieved threat of imminent bodily harm or death to themselves and/or others. A person has the right to defend themselves against a criminal with a dangerous weapon...but if someone says they have a gun and are threatening to kill you with it... do you have to actually wait for them to pull it out and start shooting to defend yourself?
IANAL but this is my guess
By anon
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 3:15pm
This is a tough one and with MA being very uptight about citizens owning, much less using firearms in self defense, it has no easy answer. Keep in mind this instance is inside a bus where there is no ability to retreat. I would think that once someone has declared they have a weapon and intend to use it, a lawfully armed citizen would be within their rights to take a defensive stance and draw their weapon. Firing immediately means you definitely get to live to see tomorrow, but the state may decide to ruin your life for it.
This is a terrible situation to find yourself in. Close quarters and no means of quick escape and being unsure of whether the guy is just talking or about to go on a murder spree. Being unarmed and hoping for the best would suck. But so would trying to determine whether to shoot the guy or not.
Good answer, thanks, Follow
By anon
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 6:08pm
Good answer, thanks,
Follow up question.
Suppose you're in your rights to draw your weapon and take a defensive stance, declaring to the criminal you will shoot in self defense and not to move. Now the criminal doesn't draw a weapon but advances towards you in a hostile manner. Do you suppose it would be within your rights to fire based on the situation, threats that were made and now an advancing attacker about to potentially attempt to disarm you? I think you'd be justified.
Legally you have a duty to retreat
By Pete Nice
Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:06am
unless you are in your own house. Now an enclosed bus is probably a special circumstance and that would be taken under consideration. Historically though, courts have frowned upon people taking the law into their own hands with vigil-anti type actions like the scenerio you present. Many of the 'self defense' statues deal with 'what a reasonable person would do' factor.
And what do you think would happen if this man was shot and killed by an armed citizen? His family would come out saying that he would never hurt anyone and he never had a gun in the first place and there would be a big issue made out of it. In the end you are going to get sued either way, and I would say you are better off not showing your gun until you were actually ready to defend yourself.
I see what your saying though, do you wait untill this guy pulls out a gun and starts shooting people before you act? What if it is too late for you or another innocent person that gets shot?
No simple answer to a complex question. Just my two cents.
Gerald Ung
By anon
Thu, 02/17/2011 - 8:24am
A man named Gerald Ung just recently went to trial for shooting an unarmed man that was advancing on him. It's an interesting case:
http://abovethelaw.com/tag/gerald-ung/
In Texas, you're allowed to
By anon
Thu, 02/17/2011 - 9:35am
In Texas, you're allowed to shoot a man dead just fer lookin' at you cross-eyed.
Massachusetts isn't Texas, and I was surprised to learn that we have some kind of Castle Doctrine. I thought you had to flee if at all possible.
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/Part...
I don't how relevant this is to the bus scenario.
I ride buses here sometimes.
By anon
Thu, 02/17/2011 - 9:51am
I ride buses here sometimes. On the routes I've seen, I would bet you money that upwards of 80% of the riders would have terrible judgment of whether to shoot, and when they did shoot, they'd probably hit something on the bus other than the bad guy.
So, you have a potentially dangerous situation on the bus, everyone's packing, and one of the people with bad judgment is probably going to shoot before it's necessary, and then they're probably going to hit an innocent bus rider by accident. And then a few of the others with bad judgment who have their guns drawn are going to be alarmed by the gunshot and start pulling their triggers, and they'll hit innocents and probably also shoot right through the bad guy without thinking about who's going to get hit behind him. Then hysteric screaming and trampling by anyone who isn't contributing to the hail of gunfire.
The more I think about the makeup of Boston, the more I'm glad that mostly only criminals and trained police have guns here. The common man Bostonian is the most dangerous category, by sheer numbers and sheer stupidity.
The question was in regards
By anon
Thu, 02/17/2011 - 12:37pm
The question was in regards to the legality of an armed citizens right to defend themselves in that particular scenario specifically.
You're just taking the same scenario and embelishing it with worst case, unrealistic extremes.
To obtain a License to Carry in Massachusetts you need to pass an extensive background check including criminal record, drug abuse history and any mental competancy, attend and pass State Police certified firearms safety courses, show proficiency in the handling, firing and storage of firearms, etc. They just don't give them out to every shlep who wants one.
Most people with firearms licenses actually go to a range at least on ocassion and practice shooting there weapon accurately.
In other words...most folks who are licensed to carry a gun know how to shoot it.
So you feel safer with the fact that career criminals and gangbangers are carrying Glock .45's & 9mm's around, illegaly, untrained and with a knack to just pull it out and start shooting at there nemesis in the middle of the day on a busy street...more than you would feel safe around a legally armed citizen who's been been trained in the safety and handling of firearms?
Wow...That's a very ignorant and foolish statement.
"they'll hit innocents and
By JPeter
Thu, 02/17/2011 - 12:52pm
"they'll hit innocents and probably also shoot right through the bad guy without thinking about who's going to get hit behind him"
Most firearms carried for self defense are loaded with hollow-point bullets, which are designed to stop after initial penetration, for that very reason.
It's the type of round police officers use as well.
Again....this is something you are taught when you take the safety course.
You might want to get educated on this subject before making up imaginary nightmarish scenario's to defend your stance against legally arming the oh so "dangerous and stupid common man Bostonian"
T COURAGE
By railfan
Wed, 02/16/2011 - 4:35pm
Great job by the bus driver and police. They should be commended by the Governor for their courageous actions. The bus driver could have fled the bus but stood his ground. The Police entered a crowded bus and would have been justified to use deadly force. They showed great restraint.