Jarrod "Rizz" Simmons, 21, yesterday pleaded guilty to distribution of controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a public housing facility.
He is scheduled for sentencing on July 31, the US Attorney's office in Boston reports.
Simmons was one of nine people arrested in January in connection with gang-related drug and gun incidents in the sprawling Mildred Hailey Apartments between Centre and Heath streets.
Simmons admitted he sold crack to a "cooperating witness" working with the feds and Boston Police in 2016 - wearing a GPS ankle bracelet while awaiting trial on local gun and drug charges.
Simmons's older brother, Joe, was also arrested on the same charge in January.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Crack rocks...
By THE_WIZ
Thu, 04/26/2018 - 3:35pm
The size of lacrosse balls.
Within 1,000 feet of public housing?
By Will LaTulippe
Thu, 04/26/2018 - 4:01pm
So what? I get the school one, but what's inherently wrong with selling crack to public housing inhabitants relative to private housing inhabitants?
Was wondering something similar
By Scauma
Thu, 04/26/2018 - 4:06pm
Why does this matter? Slow news day? This seems like it would be a pretty common occurrence and common charge. Wondering why it made its way to UHub?
Maybe because the crack
By anon
Thu, 04/26/2018 - 4:12pm
Maybe because the crack cocaine epidemic impacted inner cities more than any other population?
Maybe because crack is illegal?
Maybe because our lawmakers aren’t trolls like you?
It's not opiods and they're
By C. Sarjeant
Thu, 04/26/2018 - 6:21pm
It's not opiods and they're people of color, so f*** it.
Ah, a troll
By Will LaTulippe
Thu, 04/26/2018 - 6:36pm
Says the anon.
No kidding crack is illegal. Next you'll tell me that I can't steal things or walk naked down the street.
The ills of inner cities exist because government built a tax code which rewards home ownership, an opportunity that many inner city residents were shut out of when banks wouldn't lend them money. Lawmakers are trolls.
Actually, maybe better on your part that you posted as an anon, because now I can't beat you over the head forever with "lawmakers aren't trolls." That's (expletive) rich.
I love hearing about the ills of the inner city
By Brian Riccio
Fri, 04/27/2018 - 9:06am
from a kid who grew up in a state with how many people of color and anything even resembling anything considered "urban"?
The culture shock you display is glaring in both it's ignorance and it's braggadocio over the same.
Two things
By Will LaTulippe
Fri, 04/27/2018 - 11:18am
1) I cede firsthand intellectual superiority over city living to you without breaking a sweat. Print this and put it on your fridge.
2) I'm also correct in what I said above.
I'm not one to defend Will
By Scauma
Fri, 04/27/2018 - 11:39am
But what's the difference between selling next to a public housing development and selling on a run down street in some other part of town? I mean crack is crack, and we all (hopefully) understand the issues with time given out for crack offenses as opposed to coke offenses but I agree that selling next to public housing isn't the same as selling next to a school.
Yes, Will
By Brian Riccio
Fri, 04/27/2018 - 3:37pm
you prove almost daily that you are quite the hard boiled, tough as nails street kid that Vermont is so renowned for turning out.
We also make ice cream
By Will LaTulippe
Fri, 04/27/2018 - 4:52pm
Goes nicely with that cookie you seem to want for having grown up in Greater Boston.
I mean even broken clocks are
By anon
Fri, 04/27/2018 - 11:52am
I mean even broken clocks are right at some point.
Redlining and the racist lending and suburbization policies of the last century had a direct and measurable impact on the relative wealth and generational security of different races.
I could be wrong
By anon
Fri, 04/27/2018 - 12:09pm
but it's possible that certain public housing communities have rules that, if broken by its residents, could mean automatic eviction (on top of any other legal consequences of course). I'm not saying that is the case here, but I'm aware that such rules exist in at least one of the low income housing communities in South Boston, for example (the name escapes me). The idea was that a lot of money had been pumped into redeveloping the project and they wanted to implement conditions aimed at keeping the area "nice" so-to-speak.
If the above is true, that makes mention of the location and proximity at least somewhat relevant.
Add comment