Hey, there! Log in / Register
Police: Gun, drug suspect tries to outrun officers in Moakley Park, fails
By adamg on Sat, 09/08/2018 - 1:54pm
Boston Police report arresting a Jamaica Plain man on a variety of drug, gun and driving charges in Moakley Park in South Boston last night.
Police report officers on routine patrol on Preble Street stopped a car near Mohawk Street shortly before 11:15 p.m. when the driver sped off toward Old Colony Avenue.
The suspect vehicle then entered the parking lot of Moakley Park and came to an abrupt stop at which time the operator quickly exited the vehicle and took of running. Responding officers quickly arrived on scene and chased the suspect on foot across a baseball field, eventually placing him in custody after a brief struggle. Officers then recovered a loaded .380 caliber Glock 42 handgun which the suspect had discarded as he fled. Officers were also able to recover 32 grams of crack cocaine packaged for sale from the suspect along with additional contraband from inside the recovered motor vehicle.
Robert Santos, 24, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, carrying a loaded firearm, trafficking Class B drugs, possession of Class B and C drugs with intent to distribute, failure to stop for a police officer, negligent operation and unlicensed operation.
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
Why bother
None of these are punishable according to the new DA.
Good luck Suffolk county
They have remedial reading classes for adults
You might consider one. Even the Herald list does not include gun charges (and notes that not prosecuting the possession charges would be the default, but that the charges could be brought with a supervisor's OK).
I'm guilty
Of exaggerations.
The fact remains that there is even a list at all is KRAZY.
Translation
"A government agency is announcing plans to allocate its resources based on a policy rather than letting it default to a lot of random individual ad-hoc decisions... that's KRAZY, man"
Oh the irony
Are you trying to say that police shouldn't charge people who attack other people now?
The list DOES include
The list DOES include resisting arrest.
Are you trying to say you don’t care when people fight the police? Because that usually preceeded them or the suspect being murdered.
Try again
The list includes resisting arrest as a standalone charge. That's not what we have here, kid.
If you don't like Rollins, sure, vote for her opponent. But if you're going to criticize her positions, at least get them right.
Resisting arrest is illegal
Resisting arrest is illegal and dangerous to police, stand alone or not.
Never said I don’t like Rollins, sport. I don’t like this list.
Don’t be a condescending asshole when you make a living listening to the police radios while they are the ones out there risking their lives. .
Love,
The family member of a cop who worries every fucking day
Please
I'll stop being a condescending asshole when you learn to read.
Let's try this again: Rollins's list does NOT say she will not prosecute somebody who is charged with resisting arrest and other things (which would be the case with this guy, except BPD does not say he was charged with resisting arrest). She is saying she will not prosecute somebody who is solely charged with resisting arrest. It may not be the case in Suffolk County, but in other jurisdictions, that has been used in the past to put minorities in jail despite the fact it raises the obvious question: How can you be charged just with resisting arrest if you're not being arrested for anything else?
As for somebody doing more than just resisting arrest, like, say, taking a swing at an officer, I'm sure you're most aware that that's assault and battery (more specifically, assault and battery on a public employee), which is not on Rollins's list.
Irresponsible
Rollins list is irresponsible and will lead to greater victimization among the innocent population of the city. That is not debatable. While I agree she has points about the cost of lockup for those facing crimes with the inability to make bail, her "solution" is to permit crimes against innocent victims. This will lead to myriad problems.
First, the police will stop making arrests for the crimes that will no longer be punished because it will be both a waste of their time and only put them in danger by interacting with a criminal who could be a danger to them. Next, those criminals will be emboldened to increase this activity against those of whom they wish to take advantage and that will increase the number of innocent victims. I might add that those who are easiest to commit crime against are the weakest so women and young adults will suffer the most. Last, people who do not wish to become victims themselves will begin to arm themselves with varying types of weapons which will lead to injury and death in greater degrees.
None of this will change a thing about the current amount of violent crime going on in the city. It will only begin to add frequency to a type of crime we have not been accustomed to in Boston because our police and DA have protected us against these types of persons.
There is no way to sugarcoat this. Her election makes our city a more dangerous place to live for most citizens who are not engaged in gang or otherwise criminal activity which makes them a target. I am libertarian so I understand the arguments Rollins makes and accept there are problems with the current situation with which she hopes to deal. Unfortunately her response is totally unacceptable and blood will be shed. It will be on her hands.
Massachusetts Criminal Injustice System Reform
Currently, no inmate's behavior is "corrected" at the Suffolk House of Corrections. Rather, what occurs is inmates graduate with an accelerated Bachelor's degree in Criminality. Inmates at MCI-Norfolk graduate with a Master's degree and at MCI-Cedar Junction, a Ph.D. Couple that with almost impossible probation conditions, inability to become gainfully employed, loss of a driver's license, no access to housing etc, and you have a system built for guaranteed recidivism.
Instead of spending 50K - 60K a year to enroll many in the Massachusetts Institutes of Criminality, why not spend a fraction of that to actually help reform these people. Create and divert them to treatment programs. Just as this is the current approach many are lobbying for drug addicts, the same should be done for criminals as well. Just like not every heroin addict can be saved, not every criminal will be reformed, but saving some is better than saving none.
Most hardened criminals began their careers as children/teenagers who made bad choices. Choices that follow them for the rest of their lives. If we can believe that heroin addicts can recover with the right treatment programs, then the same can be said of criminals. We need to use the criminal justice system to reform their behavior, not add to their credentials.
This is not a novel idea -
Connecticut - https://www.dw.com/en/us-state-of-connecticut-sees-success-implementing-...
Philadelphia - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/23/justice-ref...
Of course, the current criminal justice system (police, correctional officers, prosecutors etc.) are against this.
Jails may close, overtime will be lost, layoffs will occur, 200K+ salaries won't be justified but at a cost which will be worth it. On the other hand, there will be many new opportunities to help keep us safe with careers in reform/recovery treatment programs.
What does society do with those who can't be reformed?
Many have profound personality disorders that really can't be fixed.Generally, at best, they can be locked up until they become elderly, when they become statistically unlikely to be violent.
The best way to try and prevent their antisocial behavior is to have policies that encourage families with boh parents in a stable relationship, preferably married.We should not be encouraging single parent homes as a lifestyle choice, especially among those who can barely afford and care for themselves. Statistics all show children raised by single parents, especially moms, have much higher rates of behavioral and emotional problems from a very young age, which tend to explode at puberty into young adulthood. The social engineering which mostly date from the 1960s and 70s doesn't work.
Imagine if we said the same thing about heroin addicts?
You have much to learn.
We need a new approach. The status quo is not working. Just like the suburban heroin addicts, the inner-city youth need help - not punishment. Treatment, not punishment. Reformation, not punishment. Invest in the youth, not punish them for the rest of their lives.
https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_foss_a_prosecutor_s_vision_for_a_better_j...
https://www.ted.com/talks/alice_goffman_college_or_prison_two_destinies_...
Read about the beginning of "social engineering" - http://www.genfkd.org/tough-on-crime-united-states-packed-prisons
https://thecrimereport.org/2018/04/10/in-germany-its-hard-to-find-a-youn...
You need to stop watching FAUX News with all of your warped facts and statistics.
What?
Your post is a reply to mine but I have no idea what in my post you are referring to. I specifically said that I agree there are problems with the current policy. My point which you completely ignore is that there will be unnecessary new additional innocent victims of predators who will be emboldened to act due to a lack of potential criminal justice response. You are clearly a typical liberal who cannot see that their vision of society has problems. Just like all other visions of society. It is a matter of who and what we as a people feel are most important to protect. I would protect the innocent. You would the predator.
I hope you sleep well at night and no one comes to you wishing to do harm. But, apparently if they do, so what? You are OK with it.
You mean like reading this?
You mean like reading this?
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter268/Sect...
Learn to read. Resisting arrest is illegal.
Have a great night listening to their radios from the safety of your home. Asshole.
Rollins seems sincere but policy will lead to problems
I was borderline impressed with D.A.-elect Rollins on Tucker Carlson (Fox News) and talk radio, defending her position that I disagree with. Truth be told, under the current judiciary in this state, resisting arrest, shoplifting, drug charges are almost always dismissed, not to mention many other crimes.
Short of murder, the state courts are a joke. As we saw with the green card holder from Africa, D.A. Dan Conley and staff allowed two violent bank robberies to be changed to "pickpocket" and agreed to a 364 (not 365) day sentence so he wouldn't be deported. The green card holder showed his appreciation by slaughtering two Medical Doctors in South Boston. I'm guessing that's why Conley didn't stand for election again.
Rollins may want to state the facts a little better but most cops have given up on the cases that are almost always dismissed. I've never seen resisting arrest as a standalone charge, oxymoron. Hopefully police still make the arrests (not her call) and let her decide to prosecute. When they kill two Medical Doctors, it will be on her lap. I urge officers not to give up because of her.
Fishsplaining
More patronizing mansplaining from the fake cop.
WTF does this guy having a green card have shit all to do with anything? It likely had zero to do with his crimes or his treatment by the system.
Green card holder release means everything, especially to 2 MDs
When the DA manipulates charges or declines to prosecute, especially for political correctness, then the criminal released early or not prosecuted kills people, whether two Medical Doctors or two homeless, it matters a lot.
The DA's office admitted they agreed to a 364 day "pickpocket" sentence instead of two bank robbery charges because those charges (anything resulting in a one year sentence) would have triggered deportation. One of the very experienced bank tellers said she had been robbed before and this was by far the most violent. The teller never agreed to a reduced charge, but Conley didn't want him deported.
The suspect then went on to kill the two Doctors, slicing their throats. He should still be in jail on the two bank robberies and the Doctors should be alive. Trust me, BPD will continue to arrest on shoplifting, resisting arrest, drug distribution, it will be blood on the DA's hands when the next one is not prosecuted and kills.
Anyone who helps someone else
Anyone who helps someone else to resist arrest gets charged with resisting arrest also, as a stand alone charge. If you are attempting to arrest someone and a third party interferes in an attempt to prevent said arrest, without actually assaulting the officer, they are charged.
Thanks for the education
I guess the question for Rollins is what exactly she means by "standalone."
Will Rollins be guilty of "rescuing a prisoner?"
MGL Chapter 268 Section 17. Whoever aids or assists a prisoner in escaping or attempting to escape from an officer or person who has the lawful custody of such prisoner shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two years.
---
At least these criminals will still be arrested since the SJC has long ruled in favor of officer discretion. She can't order them released and has no supervision over them while in custody for the night of arrest. She may merely "noll prosse" (no prosecution) at the next sitting of the court. That policy will last until another known criminal kills an innocent person and blood is on her hands, see Jared Remy.
Oh horrors
A MINORITY WOMAN WILL SOON BE DISTRICT ATTORNEY!
Skip the birth certificate, what fishybait really wants to know is if her SSN matches her state of birth!
Sure she wasn't born in Kenya honey?
Actually, 'honey'...
...a Kenyan birth certificate (if I'm not mistaken) wouldn't disqualify her from becoming the DA. As far as the rest of it...the Fox/Tucker Carlson interview was actually informative and civil, unlike your gibberish-encrusted comment. She made valid points. I also like her view on civil asset forfeiture. Hopefully, it becomes a template for the rest of the country.
As related to the above arrest, my questions, addressed to the fish, as you add nothing to the conversation, go along this line...OK, looks like the gun is a good arrest, the .380 is probably stolen, but the 32 grams of crack with intent seems like a lot more than mere possession. Now, from her website, she says 'possession/intent' will be 'Default is to Decline Prosecuting (unless supervisor permission is obtained).''
So, here's the questions...at what point does the possession or intent cross over from decline to ok, that's a lot of crack? At what point will it go from a victimless crime (then why the .380?) to drug dealing?
My thinking is that she may be on the right track with diversion programs, but sometimes drug dealing is just that. Her position might need a little fine-tuning.
(smileyfacehere.jpgbecauseI'mtoolazytoopenanotherwindow)