Hey, there! Log in / Register

Garden security guards charged with abusing homeless; one now faces criminal charges

The Globe reports on aggressive security measures against homeless people in North Station, including a Dec. 9 incident in which surveillance video shows a guard smashing a man in the face with his own cane on Dec. 22.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


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

Comments

what a pos...he needs to be fired!

up
Voting closed 0

TD, Allied, MBTA, should all face a big law suit. Those in responsible positions who were aware of the behavior and incidents involving the guards, and did nothing, should face criminal charges.

up
Voting closed 0

the MBTA didn't do anything wrong. good luck with that lawsuit

up
Voting closed 0

Did you notice the part where they haven't been bothered to prosecute these things even when there is ample video evidence? That the BPD had to do the investigating and arresting?

No? Read it again, then.

The MBTA was sweeping their hired thugs under the rug.

up
Voting closed 0

Actually, the MBTA may well share liability in a matter like this because of the shared jurisdiction with TD Garden and the MBTA (Transit Police are an agent of the MBTA).

The questions for the court and by extension, a jury, would be along the lines of: given its jurisdictional authority within the facility and it accompanying policing responsibilities, does the MBTA have a duty to know how "security matters are being handled by contract security personnel."

Another question would be: "if the Transit Police became aware of incidents (via complaints or notice) did they fulfill their responsibility to investigate those matters particularly involving physical confrontations.

As to why would we want to sue the MBTA indicating that taxpayers foots the bill - well, frankly, the MBTA has been ripping of the taxpayers in a wide spectrum of ways for years…if this individual was wrongly assaulted and battered by an agent of TD Garden and the MBTA was negligent in handling the matter, justice is not at the whim of the tax-payer. Fix the MBTA management instead pf penalizing the victim.

up
Voting closed 0

You know where the MBTA gets their money, right?

up
Voting closed 0

Amy Latimer is the bosr there and should have known probably did

up
Voting closed 0

This is horrible! The security should be fired asap...no on leave with pay shit. It wasn't his first time beating up a homeless person. I saw one pic of the victim being led outside the T station and you see the blood on his face and a good size amount on the ground. What a bully! Literally beating up someone twice his age and half his size. Hope karma gets him sooner than later.

up
Voting closed 0

How could an incident that happened on Dec 22 be shown on surveillance video from Dec 9?

including a Dec. 9 incident in which surveillance video shows a guard smashing a man in the face with his own cane on Dec. 22.

The linked article says the incident happened around 9pm on Dec 22 - is that what you meant?

Apologies in advance for being pedantic.

up
Voting closed 0

Pray that this is a one day story and hope the minimum wage security guard keeps his mouth shut and takes the blame. The Globe article states passengers made numerous complaints to the Boston police and the MBTA about disabled homeless citizens being beaten and tossed out of North Station for the crime of being poor. The police claim they can't find the victims, videos are lost and complaints are ignored.
The Attorney General should step in an initiate an investigation for civil rights violations and have state police investigators assigned to her office get to the bottom of these cruel acts and heads should roll.

up
Voting closed 0

Attorney General should step in an initiate an investigation for civil rights violations

up
Voting closed 0

Disgusting!

Mr. Norestant should be fired and prosecuted. There is no place for people in positions of authority to beat people.

There should be an AG should investigate why the Transit Police chose to do nothing when this matter was brought to their attention.

There are three basic questions about this problem that tell what kind of society we are.

  1. Do homeless people panhandling in public places make us feel uncomfortable?
  2. Should management of businesses that are public accommodations be allowed to instruct their employees to act as goons who use thuggish behavior to remove people who make us feel uncomfortable?
  3. Do we as a society allow, or even encourage behavior storm trooper behavior like this.

    To mix metaphors, I am sure that I'm not alone in thinking that how we treat the least among us is where the rubber meets the road when it comes to showing what kind of society we really are.

up
Voting closed 0

Do homeless people panhandling in public places make us feel uncomfortable?

Irrelevant. Your discomfort does not justify suspending someone else's civil rights. We, as a society, don't need to be comfortable with homeless people panhandling in public, we DO need to understand that when other people are not violating any laws, our "I don't want to see that" discomfort is something we simply have to live with.

up
Voting closed 0

- and that includes people coming up to you and asking for money, is more than discomfort. It's harassment. And AFAIK it's also illegal. While it doesn't justify the alleged behaviors of the TD Garden security forces, it shouldn't be totally ignored either.

up
Voting closed 0

Reading the article in the Globe today, it also dawned on me that TD North and their security sub-contractor Allied were likely to have serious liability exposure arising from their hiring and employment practices. Specifically for negligent hiring and negligent retention.

A claim for negligent hiring is founded on the concept that an employer is liable for the harm resulting from its employee’s negligent acts. In analyzing such claims, courts are asked to assess whether the employer exercised reasonable care in choosing or retaining an employee for the particular responsibilities that individual was supposed to perform.

Negligent retention is essentially the same, except that it relates more to placing an employee that the employer knew or should have known would be predisposed to committing a wrong in a position where the employee actually does commit that wrong against a third party.

Although technically separate causes of action, many plaintiffs allege them in conjunction with one another.

up
Voting closed 0