Hey, there! Log in / Register
Police: Man's gun goes off as he's pistol-whipping woman after Roxbury car crash; bullets don't hit her
By adamg on Sun, 09/20/2015 - 11:04pm
Boston Police report arresting Pete Gallop, 26, of Roxbury, on charges he used a gun to beat a woman after the two got into a collision around 1:40 a.m.
The woman suffered minor injuries from the beating, but was not injured when Gallop's gun discharged in the middle of the attack, which happened outside 21 Dudley St., police say.
An officer was exiting the police station parking lot when he heard the sound of gunshots nearby. While conducting a search of the area, the officer observed a motor vehicle fail to stop at a stop sign while turning from Dudley Street onto Shawmut Avenue. The officer pulled the car over and as he approached to speak with the operator, his police radio began to relay information regarding a possible shooting in the area the vehicle had just fled. The driver, later identified as Pete Gallop, 26, of Roxbury, apparently heard the radio transmission as well as he quickly stated “Yo bro, it’s not me, it’s not me” and began to conceal his right hand from the officer’s view. After additional units arrived, the suspect was removed from the vehicle and frisked at which time officers recovered a loaded Glock handgun from his waistband area. The suspect was placed in custody without incident.
He faces arraignment tomorrow in Roxbury Municipal Court on charges of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, unlawful possession of a large-capacity firearm and discharing a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling.
Innocent, etc.
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
Cops stopping vehicles without headlights on at night?
When will they start doing that for bicycles? Same road, same rules- NOT.
Struggling here
having a very hard time deciding whether to tell you to go fcuk yourself or to feel sorry for your pathetic little existence. Leaning towards the former.
Cyclists earn every left hook they get at night
for not having headlights. Its f'ing rampant rampant how many cyclists go without headlights at night. No excuse: http://www.ebay.com/bhp/bicycle-headlight-generator
So tell me, at night, how many bicycles do you see without headlights vs cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, and scooters? How many times have you seen cops stop these cyclists?
So tell me
How many cyclists do you see whip out a gun and pistol whip someone?
The story is about some thug (correct usage of the word) nearly killing a woman with an illegal weapon. Bike and traffic laws have nothing to do with it.
Read the BPD link
It details several instances of how guns were taken off the street. Its where the quote came from.
That's quite enough
This story has nothing to do with bicycles. Further bike-related comments here will be deleted.
They should add attempted
They should add attempted murder to the charges
I wonder if
Daunasia Yancey has checked in on the victim, Mr. Gallop?
boston's ugly racism
Black Lives Matter activists concern themselves with the state's use of force against unarmed black people. I suspect they would have no objections to the way Boston Police handled the arrest of Pete Gallop.
What have you heard, Bulging? Did you hear Boston Police pistol whipped him and beat him like Rodney King after he disarmed and submitted to be arrested?
You pretend to hate Daunasia for false reasons you invent (Daunasia Yancey has checked in on the victim Mr. Gallop?) but it's pretty clear you hate her for reasons everyone can see.
I bet they would have a problem Marcus.
"they" (meaning some of them) had a problem when a cop was shot in the face and then shot a black man. Why do you think they wouldn't have a problem here?
The whole "armed/unarmed" issue is not black and white anyway, since you don't know if someone is armed or unarmed until it may be too late. That is why there is a defensive tactics structure that the Supreme Court goes by, as does pretty much every police department in the country.
Come On
There is no indication that the police used any violence against Gallop and we know he was not shot and killed. So are you saying that BLM is against what appears to be a textbook arrest of a black men?
As much as you may object to BLM, I don't think you can seriously believe that.
They had a problem with.............
the use of force used against a guy who shot a cop in the face. Why do you think they wouldn't have a problem here? I'm not saying any of them did, but logically speaking, if you have problem with the above, you probably have a problem with every use of force arrest.
Because
No citizen was shot and killed. Full stop.
Marcus said they had a problem
killing unarmed black people. But they had a problem with an armed black person who was killed too. So that really isn't consistent with what they actually care about. (when you say they care about state vs unarmed black deaths, instead of just police killings, or black gunshot deaths).
Focus on this:
"use of force" That is the key.
I agree with you it's hard to tell armed vs. unarmed. Put that aside for a sec.
There was no use of force here. That's why no one is upset, in real life or in the imaginary world we're talking about.
Great job BPD. Stop making up reasons to attack BLM.
Focus on this:
"unarmed black man"
That is what I was talking about. It was in response to a comment that had nothing to do with force.
Your making too much of a big deal about this. If I had to bet, BLM members would probably not have a problem with this, and 99.998% of them wouldn't have a problem with the cop shooting the guy who shot the guy in the face. But when one loudmouth speaks up in opposition to that police shooting, the whole BLM movement gets painted with his voice, which is unfair. It would be nice if someone from BLM came out and said this guy doesn't speak for us, and that he actually hurts the BLM cause, which I would agree with.
Edit: I did say "I bet they would have a problem with this". which is untrue. So I apologize. But logically speaking, they still might have a problem with it, since they had a problem with an armed man who just shot someone getting killed.
So..
So you picked a fight about something that you thought might happen, and now that it definitely hasn't happened, you're still flogging that dead horse?
Take my first statement out.....
And I stand by what I wrote. It still does not make the initial comment that I was referring to correct.
I see the logic
If they have a problem with killing unarmed black people…. and they have a problem with killing armed black people… then maybe they have a problem with not killing armed black people too?
Oh, wait, that doesn't work...
Ha.
No that wasn't the logic or lack of logic.
#1 BLM is only concerned with unarmed black men getting killed by police.
#2 BLM is also concerned with armed black men who shoot at the police getting killed by the police.
Therefore, #1 cannot be true, so they might be concerned with anything.
That was my point.
Minor quibble
Just because someone is armed doesn't mean you have to kill them. It is certainly a helpful determining factor, but so is their actions. Yes, that guy shot a cop in the face. That puts him on the "he's likely to do it again" list. But (and I'm NOT saying this is how it actually went down) if his actions when cornered with guns drawn at him is to lay face down with the gun holstered in the back of his waistband, you don't get to shoot him in the back of the head just because he's both shot a cop and still armed.
Also, Pete, I have no idea what you're trying to put on the local BLM that held a meeting regarding Angelo West. As far as I can tell, they put out nothing critical of police, they held no marches or protests about West's death, they had one community meeting regarding it and then I can't find any other news regarding them and West on their Facebook feed or otherwise. So, what are you attributing to them? That they held a meeting to talk in the wake of the shooting? That doesn't indicate that they had a problem with police about that but that they wanted to talk about what happened. Am I missing some pertinent piece of info that says BLM Boston was pissed at cops about West's death?
Kaz....
on your first point, you would be correct, but it also does not mean that every unarmed death means they don't have to be killed (for a lack of a better phrase). But the Harvard Student who questioned Supt. Gross and called him a pig, kind of alluded that he didn't want to hear about the police side:
To your second point, I was talking about the Harvard student who was questioning the Supt. Gross and called him a pig and went on and on. He got a lot of press that night and is what most people saw, and what a lot of people associate with BLM.
Huh?
You're talking about the video from the police line that night when Gross approached the crowd?
Is there evidence that the person taking that video is a part of BLM that I'm missing? Or are you just perpetuating the idea that BLM has to answer for every outraged person that hates the police and makes a stupid statement or films a video of their idiocy?
It's about perception Kaz
And maybe it's not just "BLM" official members. But, yea, you can't just say BLM thinks one way, when like any large political organization, BLM is very diverse, large, unofficial, sometimes incoherent, illogical, irrational, uninformed group.
People say the same things about democrats or republicans all the time, so I think you should expect some sort of blowback if you say that one of those groups thinks in a specific way that may or may not be true.
You seem a bit
sensitive. Your defense of hypocrisy is to cry racism. Whenever I read of shootings or violence within the city I hear crickets from BLM. Pointing that out is what pisses you off.
.
Daunasia Yancey didn't call Mr. Gallop a victim, you did.
That's
right I did.
why?
Why did you call Mr. Gallop victim and attribute the sentiment to Daunasia Yancey of black lives matter?
I've borrowed the tactic
from the highway blockers.
You didn't read what he wrote to you
"Black lives matter" is not a literal statement of their concern. Acting as if it is exposes either your refusal to deal with their concerns or your attempt to belittle them to make them irrelevant in your mind or make them go away faster. Either way, whatever motivates you to do that rather than deal with their valid concern is ugly. Too often that ugliness is racist in source. The rest of the time, it's often flat out ignorance which allows racism to continue on regardless of intent.
There's no hypocrisy to being a single issue advocacy group. Pro-life advocacy groups don't need to take a stance on the funding of food stamp programs. Sure, it sounds good to say "they only care about 'life' until that life actually begins but then it can starve for all they care" just like it sounds good to say "black lives matter...unless it's another black person on the street shooting at them, then they're quiet". But it's irrelevant to either group's actual advocacy. Pretending like "pro-life" or "black lives matter" somehow wholly defines their cause and that anything that can be attributed to "life" or "black lives" should somehow fall under their moniker just because *you* are choosing the broadest definition for them to have to defend (to yourself) is a logical fallacy.
I read what was written.
Its the same excuse laden nonsense that ignores reality and blames police and racism.
Tell us
Tell us more about reality. I'm listening.
I'm also curious why you think black lives matter is concerned about citizen on citizen violence because they never have claimed to be. Their concern is about unwarranted police violence. It is by consent of the governed that we authorize police to use violence. That is why society must be very particular about the limits of its use.
His reality
Is making sure the people he hates are kept in line by force - even when that is counterproductive for his grandstanding cause of the moment.
Pretty obvious if you look through his comment history.
Swirl
you would know hypocrisy.
bulgingbuick, waiting
waiting for your response.
Seriously?
You are the one whose day job seems to be making excuses for Louise Day Hicks, Whitey Bulger, and Cardinal Law.
Riddle me this: how long and hard have you worked to make the world a better place? I'm guessing, well, never given your deeply seated but ill-informed justifications for continuation of routinely failed public policies.
Swirl shouldn't you be off
defending heroin addicted baby killers?
.
.
You really are obtuse
There is a huge difference between explaining and defending. Those who refuse to understand what goes on around them are doomed to repetition. Those that do can take steps to prevent further incidents.
Not that anyone as demonstrably dense as you are can understand that. After all, you're the guy who thinks a judge caused busing - not decades of denial and segregation after the Supreme Court ruled it to be illegal in 1954.
Swirl your "explanation" is
your opinion. That's how this works. Like defending heroin addicts defending the dismal failure of Boston Public schools is another great windmill to charge.
That word doesn't mean what you think it means
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
I'd say that a person who says "double down" on all the failed ways to prevent crime and dead kids is the hypocrite here.
The person who saying that we need to base actions on facts is not a hypocrite.
You seem a bit confused here.
Grammer
man to the rescue....
Thank you or the clarification.
BLM doesn't care about the violence. Therein lies the contradiction in name. Either BLM or not? Only where police are involved? This group wants to be taken seriously?
Does this deliberate obtuseness go over well at parties?
I'm sure they're deeply worried about how seriously you take them. I know why I would. Now excuse me while I warn the Daughters of the American Revolution of your impending stompy-pouty demands that they remove the contradiction in their name. Are they actual, literal DAUGHTERS of the American Revolution, or aren't they? Which is it? Oh, the humanity.
IBB as you acknowledge
BLM defines obtuseness.
Two points
1) it's lbb, letter l, not numeral 1, not that it matters.
2) You are an intellectually dishonest assclown. There's really no other way to describe someone who tries to stick his pathetic racist lies in someone else's mouth.
2BB
Regardless of one's race its easy to see thin skin.
Let's see....
I said "not that it matters", and in response, you say that I have thin skin?
I've got it! You're just a garden-variety dog-whistle-blowing asshole!
3BB
Your hate filled responses display contempt for this civilized forum.
Damn you, NRA
For too long, the hypocrisy of being called the National Rifle Association while being concerned with "gun rights" has gone unabated! First, they don't even care about the rifles; they care about the riflemen! They aren't concerned with the gun's rights but the gunman's rights! They claim to speak for shotguns, but the smoothbore nature of the gun isn't encapsulated by their name!
3 victims of fatal police violence per day in 2015
The Guardian counts 704 people killed by police in the U.S. in 2015 (by August 10) —about 83 percent of whom were shot. But less than half of the unarmed black men who were killed by police were shot. Ten died in police custody, including Jonathan Sanders and Freddie Gray. Four were struck by police vehicles—in each case police say it was an accident but in at least two cases, that of Bernard Moore and Bryan Overstreet, the families are questioning the police narrative. Fourteen unarmed black men died after being Tased.
Of the two black women killed by police this year, one was among four people fatally struck by police vehicles in New Jersey alone, and another, Natasha McKenna, died after being Tased while shackled in a Virginia county jail.
I find that tazer stat to be kind of high.
How many of those killed by the police were in a commission of a crime or resisted arrest? And many people in custody are jacked up on heroin or coke, and many have heart attacks in lockup. I guess that's a statistical norm to just include them in the police killings in 2015.
Unitl someone actually does a scientific study of these deaths (and before that you need the police to actually track them and record them uniformly like the feds have them do with NIBRS.) nothing is ever going to change, and it actually makes the issue worse.
You do?
What's your count?
Not arguing with those facts.
There are bad police departments and bad police officers and these incidents are inexcusable. The loss of young Black men to gun violence continues to be ignored. There are multiple shootings every day in this city. Most never reported with police chasing shot spotters and young people feeling they have to carry weapons to stay alive. Madness.
That's funny
That's funny because at the top of the thread when you brought Black Lives Matter into it for no apparent reason, you insinuated Daunasia Yancey would call Pete Gallup a victim. What a feeble minded man you are.
And now look! You agree 3 victims of fatal police violence per day [704 people killed by police in the U.S. in 2015 by August 10] is a real problem... but, you note, there's another one that everyone or perhaps just black lives matter folks should be *more* concerned about "The loss of young Black men to gun violence." What's stopping you?
The philosophy of ignoring the burning building
to argue with the fire department makes sense.
That was quite the petty
That was quite the petty cheap shot. Applause break for the hatred.
Don't feed the trolls
They like to eat bicycles.