Hey, there! Log in / Register
Two charged with armed holdup inside Loews Boston Common
By adamg on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 2:15pm
Boston Police report the two - and an accomplice - held up a pair of moviegoers in one of the Tremont Street theaters around 10:20 p.m. on Monday, shortly before the movie began:
One of the black males stated to the male victim, "Give me that chain that's around your neck". He also asked where the victim was from and stated, "Do they have a hood there"? The suspect placed his hand over his pocket and stated, "I know you have a phone too ... don't make me reach into my pocket". This comment led the victim to believe the suspect was in possession of a weapon and was in fear he would be harmed if he didn't comply with the suspects' orders. The suspect was also holding a cane and held it in a menacing manner. The victim then handed over his belongings to the suspect.
The two may have decided to take in a flick themselves; when police arrived, they were still inside the building. Jeffrey Venter, 20, of Mattappan was charged with armed robbery and receiving stolen property. A female, 16, was charged with juvenile delinquency and receiving stolen property. Their accomplice was not around.
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
un-fuck-ing-believable
...prolly just wanted popcorn Money.
[size=10]THE [color=#FF0000]C[/color][color=#FF9933]O[/color][color=#FFFF00]L[/color][color=#339900]O[/color][color=#3300CC]R[/color] OF CHANGE - PETITION GLENN BECK'S ADVERTISERS[/size]
Popcorn money
Wouldn't that bump this up to grand larceny, then?
This doesn't surprise me
The place has well-earned reputation for being a crime manget.
Why suspects race listed when they were all ready caught?
Since the suspects WERE apprehended, I don't see why they felt the need to identify the race of the perpetrators. It seems like unnecessary information.
The telephone game of
The telephone game of reporting is missing a "said" or two.
There is a description from the alleged victim, and there are suspects that have been apprehended. The suspects are not necessarily the ones guilty of the alleged crime, and the alleged victim's description is relevant whether they are or aren't, for different reasons.
What does it matter? It's a
What does it matter? It's a fact of the situation, not something a reporter or anyone invented out of thin air.
It might matter, and the meta matters
I think anon #1's suggestion was that the alleged victim's claim as to the race of the alleged attackers was likely not a *pertinent* fact. I don't think anon #1 was questioning the (we assume) fact that the alleged victim made that claim.
If you (anon #2) mean to say that the fact should be reported because it is *pertinent* fact, you could make a credible argument. Anon #1 might then respond with a credible argument that the fact has little relevance, and that competing considerations of public good outweigh any benefit of reporting the fact.
I'm not too interested in this particular question at the moment, but I think that it's important that we, as citizens, have a basic layperson's understanding of how our systems work and are supposed to work. Otherwise, the systems are not sustainable.
Possible explanation
I'm betting it's nothing sinister. The police are so used to including the race/ethnicity of suspects in reports (typically to aid in possible capture) they do it all the time, even in cases where the reports end with the suspects' capture.
Agreed
I could even think of good reason to include it in this case, as I alluded in my first message.
In my second message, I meant to comment instead on how I think we should be reasoning about the question, not comment on the question itself.
I think that the new job doesn't leave enough time and attention for my UH duties. :)