Hey, there! Log in / Register
Time for a state of emergency in Boston?
By adamg on Wed, 06/02/2010 - 8:49am
Alicia Canady notes the recent spate of murders - including that of a friend of hers - and wonders why Boston has yet to declare a state of emergency:
... My young black and brown brothers are gunned down like slaughtered animals each and every week as it appears and it continues. This is a state of emergency yet there is no panic, no one running out into the streets yelling evacuate, stay inside, this city is on lockdown. HOW when two 14 year olds have been murdered within in a month of each other, they will never get their driver's permit, never go to high school, the prom, college, get married or have children. They were more than just homicide victims, they were people with dreams, plans, personalities, feelings, families, children and futures. ...
Meanwhile, the Boston Police Department is handing out fliers with photos of alleged gang members it's seeking the public's help in finding.
WBUR interviews neighbors of Nicholas Fomby-Davis, the latest 14-year-old to be shot to death.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
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
Yes, but...
I think Los Angeles, D.C., Chicago, Detroit, Gary, Ind., Newark, N.J., Miami and a bunch of other places have it much worse without resorting to hyperbole. You live in a city with drugs, gangs and poverty and, much like suburbs with similar issues, you're going to get murders. It's awful, but it's inescapable. That whole "state of emergency" mentality is what fueled white flight and, not surprisingly, it did nothing to improve the situation on the street. The answer to recent shootings isn't isolation -- which often puts the alienated folks pulling the trigger in that position to begin with -- but outreach. You want it to stop? Fight for it. Cops don't create a Boston miracle, government doesn't create a Boston miracle -- communities do.
Not to take away from Ms. Canady's obvious pain, but
I wonder how long she's lived in this town. If these murders were taking place on the mean streets of the Back Bay or Beacon Hill, you'd see some hustle, but they happen in areas that most of the people in power in this town don't give two shits about.
Did you read what she wrote?
Did you read what she wrote? That's exactly her point.
good point
We've had almost as many Americans killed in Boston this year as in Iraq.
Globe map to murders here:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/201...
Now the question is - what do you do about it? Note that 90% of the murders happen in a very concentrated part of the city. That community needs to sound the outrage - and we need to support them with the resources to put a stop to this.
How about this - instead of all the money we waste on details - the local utilities and contractors still have to pay for a detail but we put that money and those cops (or other resources) to work solving a real problem. Next time I need a detail cop to watch the crane put an air conditioner on my roof I'd gladly donate that time to put that cop to work in a real problem area. And if that money can better be spent on after school programs, youth services, summer jobs, street workers etc. instead of cops - then so be it.
The City doesn't want to do that.
They like the millions of dollars in surcharges they get off those details. And those millions of dollars are already going right back into the budget that could be used for this problem.
And if I'm a contractor and I feel the need for some cop or flagger or coworker to direct traffic, I should have the right to pay that person to help me direct traffic.
That's the great thing about this
The city still gets their piece of the pie - but instead of putting 35 cops on details up and down comm ave where they do virtually no good 99% of the time - they work in Roxbury/Mattapan. The city still gets 100% of their money, the cop still gets the detail pay and if the contractor needs/wants a flagger - that's still his option (as it always is) and if they absolutely want a cop there they can insist on it, but most of the time I'd guess they could care less - the rest of the country has no need for details - why do we? If it's to put extra feet on the street as the mayor always says - no problem - but put 'em where we need 'em!!
I live in a nieghborhood that has virtually no crime and probably 10 detail cops within 5 blocks of my house almost every day - what good is that unless shoplifting on Newbury Street is a higher priority than kids getting killed in Roxbury? If I have to pay anyway - I'd rather tell the city to put the cop (or other worker) in a neighborhood where s/he can make a real difference (granted - that means the end to working an hour and getting paid for 4 - they'd all be minimum 4 hour shifts - sorry, but the gravy train left the building when those kids got killed last month).
So essentially, you are
So essentially, you are advocating a tax on a specific industry to fund something entirely unrelated to the activities of that industry? This seems hugely inconsistent with the tax philosophy you generally advocate. If detail cops are a bad idea (and I think mostly they are), then we should eliminate them, thereby decreasing the cost of installing a roof top air conditioner or replacing a water pipe. If we need to place more crime prevention resources in parts of Dorchester, then it is up to the community as a whole to fund those resources. We shouldn't just force the cost on an unrelated industry.
And by the way, I'm not sure that more policing is the answer. This happened in front of an off duty cop. Once the decision to kill is made, it's probably too late to prevent it. We need more social workers in schools, more summer job programs, more intervention before the kid becomes homicidal. In short, more of the many things that property owners in Boston don't want to fund.
I'm not so sure you know what happens in the rest of the country
Most cities and states have very strict rules when it comes to working on public streets or areas that might effect vehicular or pedestrian traffic. I worked for a city in Maryland that had strict rules when it came to public and utility works projects. If they were not on a main road, the utility company unions made the companies hire one of their own union workers for safety reasons if they couldn't or didn't want to hire a police officer or traffic control flagger (which they have in many areas in MD). Either way it is up to public transportation departments to decide what is safe and what is not safe.
And explain this one again...If I'm a contractor who wants to insure the safety of my crew (which legally isn't up to private companies anyway on a public street and shouldn't be), why should I pay for my own flagger/cop and a cop in Roxbury making $37 an hour? I pay taxes to the City of Boston, you want to tax me again besides the 10% surcharge?
Henry - then Pete
Henry - I agree 100% - personally I think details are a total waste - just be up front about it and make me pay for public safety in my taxes. HOWEVER - the point is that if I have to pay for it anyway - might as well put them where they can do the greatest good - and standing in front of a brownstone on comm ave watching an air conditioner get lifted by a crane does little if any good. If I gotta pay - I'd rather pay and see the guy patrolling a problem area in Roxbury so another kid doesn't get killed (assuming it's effective - if more cops doesn't bring down the crime rate -then we need to look for another solution).
Pete - just got back from a couple of days in South Carolina - road construction all over the place and not a cop in sight - and even on major roads few if any flaggers - lots of flashing signs, cones and strategically parked trucks - but didn't see many flaggers. Public safety is one thing on a busy road or where you have opposing traffic sharing lanes etc. - but let's be real - they are building the new elevators at Boylston and Dartmouth for the T - there are regularly 2-3 cops there - but the construction site is behind a chain link fence - where's the public danger there? I didn't say pay twice - if there's a true safety issue - then put the cop/flagger on the site. But realistically that's very rarely the case, especially once you get off the main drag and out of downtown. Again per my response to Henry - i think the system is generally a waste of money/union featherbedding - but if they are going to make us pay it - let's use it for priorities - not to pay somebody with a gun to stand on the side of the road and talk on their cell phone all day in an area where the worst thing to happen is usually a kid shoplifting from the 7-11.
No I agree too.
I think from a city standpoint there are three issues here.
The first is the saftey issue in following OSHA and transportation safety regulations that require one person per x amount of feet to stop and slow down traffic and other regulations where you need an actual person to direct traffic. For every guy like you out there who makes sure it is safe for people to walk out into the street on a side road, there might be another one who goes to lunch with a hole in the ground at his construction side, or a guy who leaves his truck in the right lane of traffic all day while cars have to go around it without direction. There has to be a line drawn somewhere in regards to having someone directing traffic.
The second issue is that surcharge. It is basically a tax that the city gets for every hour worked per police officer. And the police officers are already getting paid, insured, pensioned, workers comped etc so they don't need to add any extra bureaucratic city or state departments to oversee this (see the $53 an hour flaggers and flagger trainers the state has to deal with now). What you say about paying these guys to go in urban areas make sense, but if I'm a contractor who has to pay for a guy, I want to pay him to watch my contruction site, not fight crime. And if I don't need him, then I don't want to pay for him or anybody else unless he is working for me.
The third issue is the fact that detail pay is a bounus in recruting police officers in cities like Boston. Boston already has a very hard time filling the ranks with qualified officers. For the first time in probably the history of the department you see officers leaving to go to surburban police departments for higher pay, benefits, time off and safety. This happend in New York City in recent years as well. Surburban police departments around New York max out around 90K compared to the 65K in Boston without the extra work. The town of Wellesley just struck a deal with its union getting the town out of civil service in exchange for a 1% raise over 2 years and full quinn bill. Now Wellesley can hire whomever they want. Wellesley can afford that though, and that is where the urban police department problem comes in. Potential cops (like any potential job seeker) will go for the money rather than the location.
I didn't say create mayhem
1) if there's a real safety/traffic issue - then stay on site. In cases where there isn't like the guy putting the air conditioner on my roof parked in a reserved streetside spot (assuming we can't get rid of the detail program which would be ideal), give me a choice - cop on site or I can "designate" the cop to a more appropriate detail in a trouble spot. As a rate/tax payer - happy to have the cop redeployed at the department's discretion - they are making me pay either way and I see zero benefit to having the cop on site. As a contractor (assuming I don't need the cop for site safety and the rate/tax payer is paying anyway) I can get lots of PR bennies by "volunteering" the detail cop to go save a kid's life in Mattapan instead of standing on the side of the road on a cell phone.
2) The contractors don't pay the cops - one way or another that cost is ALWAYS passed on to the person having the work done (or tax/rate payers in the case of utilities/MBTA etc.). If a cop is truly needed as noted above, s/he stays there. If a flagger will do, that's fine too - and no need for a cop. If neither are needed other than the usual stand around and talk on the cell phone routine and we the people are forced to pay anyway - forget the detail and put them on "designated assignment".
3) The cops don't go and work for free in Roxbury - they still get their full detail pay. The only difference is they do real cop work instead of talk on the cell phone for four hours.
Easier said than done.
We can agree that there is a line that needs to be drawn in terms of whether someone is needed or not needed to direct traffic somewhere. In those cases where someone is needed, then you pay someone to be there. There is no choice.
In cases where no one is needed, you shouldn't have to pay anyone. Why in those cases where someone is not needed should you pay to have someone fight crime somewhere else in the city?
Would someone drive around looking for contractors that don't have a flagger/detail and ask/force them to pay someone to fight crime in another part of the city?
If you have a problem with a cop talking on their phone for 4 hours and he isn't doing his job, that's a different issue. I just don't think its feasable to make you pay for him to possibly talk on his phone in a high crime neighborhood. I mean that's what it really comes down to. Trust me, the cop that talks on his phone while directing traffic is probably going to talk on his phone or hide out if paid to fight crime. Thats a supervision issue not a detail/crime issue.
In theory you have a good idea. But will that be more productive than the millions of dollars the city currently makes of details? Unless you think we could eliminate all details and keep the Boston police salaries at the same rate compared to similiar surburban towns that can afford to pay whatever they want.
I guess you don't remember
I guess you don't remember the guy that was stabbed to death outside of Walgreens on Boylston recently. Furthermore, I don't exactly see a lot of cops walking the beat on Newbury Street. Do you think armed robbery is a polite gesture just because it happens on Newbury Street? Tell that to the minimum wage shop clerk who had a gun shoved in his face. Which Boston neighborhood do you live in with virtually no crime? Let me know so I can move there!
FYI
There are a lot of undercover cops on Newbury Street during all hours of the day.
Break up the drug traffic in that area
There are ways to do this, and the BPD should be doing some research into what works and is appropriate.
One city put up roadblocks to frustrate drug buyers driving in off the highways, moving them regularly and working with the neighborhood and emergency services to keep up to date on shifts and changes. Another city maximized the number of officers on the street by having them make arrests only if challenged or attacked - their job was to just stand around in community-identified drug deal areas watching and being there in uniform. Needless to say, the customers were uncomfortable with this approach ...
I don't know if these tactics could or would work in Boston, but they are examples of something the police and community can do together.
There are ways to do this,
I'm so glad you thought of this - I'm sure the police will be amazed by your new idea.
Put it this way
The obvious isn't always obvious, particularly in these parts.
start snitching
more blood will spill and there will be more outrage. it comes down to who knows what. if people know about a murder before or after the fact they need to step up and talk. if the people in these neighborhoods dont want to "get involved" it will never stop.
Snitching.. good luck
When I lived in the Bunker Hill projects, every time someone got clipped, it was common knowledge in the neighborhood who the shooter was within hours. The cops could never do anything about it, because no one would ever come forward. If someone did, they would wake up to find a bullet on their doorstep, a little get out of town message. These days, I don't think they'd be that subtle.
Snitchin
Well, there are problems with this. First and foremost, revenge killing. Then there is the handy way that immediate police response to "snitching" could soon generate a lot of leads intended to disrupt a rival's activities.
Ultimately, the police need to solve their community problems. People don't trust them not to swoop in and harass everyone just because any young man MUST be a gangbanger ... or a suburban guy decides to plug his wife and claim some scary black dude did the deed. The cops need to work with the communities here - that takes staffing, it takes commitment, it takes officers with a certain vocation for such work, and it takes time.
27? Pssh....
Baltimore laughs at this person. They had 27 homicides before tax time this year. They almost had 27 in the month of May alone (23). They're up to 81 so far in 2010 with 2 homicides in June already...and there haven't even been two whole DAYS in June so far.
27. Don't make Baltimore laugh...sheeeeeeeeeiiit. State of Emergency? Ha.
One problem with that, Kaz
Just because Baltimore is hellish doesn't make Boston a safe place. In other words, the murder rate isn't acceptable in either city.
For those who care, the in-city population of Baltimore is about 10% higher than Boston.
I didn't say it did
I'm just trying to put the "what's going on here??" crowd in Boston in perspective. This isn't a special problem for Boston. Also, I'll give Baltimore one benefit of the doubt...they're not killing their 14 year olds. Their youngest street violence victims are 16 (3x) so far this year.
+1
If somebody killed my 14 year old, you might as well add another murder to the list.
I think it is a special problem for a relatively small area of Boston, though, and it needs to be addressed going into the summer.
And that's a key point
The problem in Baltimore is probably a lot more citywide - the poverty is much more dispersed throughout the city based on my experience there (admittedly limited). Boston is EXTREMELY wealthy by comparison except in that problem area around Franklin Park - so Baltimore - of approximately similar size - will probably see a larger problem. But when you consider that the affected area in Boston typically impacts only say 100,000 of our 600,000 residents - in comparison it's probably similar.
Well, I'll agree that one
Well, I'll agree that one murder is too many. NOBODY should be being killed.
But at the same time, Boston is as safe a place as it has virtually ever been. Last year, we hit a 6 year low for homicides. And the 2003 low that we didn't beat was a historically low rate. It's a difficult or impossible problem to solve, and the idea of spreading panic because we're a small percentage above last year's very low rate just isn't going to help anything.
Yes, we've all watched the
Yes, we've all watched the wire.
Yeah? Well, I lived it
Ok, not quite. But I did work for a few years at Hopkins School of Medicine just blocks from all of the East Baltimore mess down near Patterson Park, etc. I personally loved the weekends when I'd park in the on-campus garage and walk over the footbridge to the Biochem building and pass cops using the bridge as a stake-out point with a headset and pair of binoculars looking up Wolfe St. You could often see guys slinging rock just off Monument near the Northeast Market where I got lunch every day.
They've since plowed a lot of those rowhouses under. It hasn't slowed much of anything down.
Need to help yourself.....
Speaking as a Lifelong resident of Dorchester & someone who is considerably older than you: Sadly this City has seen this tragedy unfold for quite some time now.....We are past being outraged and now sit passively numb…..
We were outraged in 1988 when a twelve-year-old Tiffany Moore was murdered while sitting on her front steps….with the slayings of 11-year-old Charles Copney and 15-year-old Korey Grant in 1991 as the two kids played front of Copney's house. We were outraged in 1993 when high school sophomore, Louis Brown on his way to a meeting for the group "Teens against Gang Violence," was shot and killed in Dorchester. We were outraged in 2003 when Kai Leigh Harriott, then 3 years old, sat on her third-floor porch of her house with an older sister, when a gunman’s bullet shattered her spine, permanently paralyzing her from the chest down.
The impacted communities need to stop looking for outside help and realize the solution lies within !!! The community needs to be outraged, the community needs to demand more of themselves and stop looking for answers from City Hall and start looking in the mirror. The only way this will stop is the Parents of these troubled children need to start taking ownership and responsibility for their actions and the actions of their children.
My outrage and my neighbor’s outrage will not amount to a hill of beans if parents are parenting. Asking questions…demanding answers….searching drawers…punishing bad behavior….. Government can’t legislate good behavior, Government can’t keep kids off the street….Being a responsible parent can. Money isn’t going to fix this…Time will !! Take time to be a parent, a mentor, an activist……
The impacted communities have lost the attention of the greater Boston public….folks don’t care anymore, they are desensitized and immune to the day to day mayhem. The only way fix the problem is from within….Call the police when something is wrong….don’t allow problems to fester.
Get involved with your community, start a crime watch, join a civic association…. Don’t ask what I am doing to solve the problem, ask yourself, what are you doing?
Lastly….we are weep for the lives of these lost children, it breaks our hearts.
Yep
A blog post won't get things rolling. Action will begin when people demand it.
Another problem with these murders.
These aren't drug dealing gangsters making thousands of dollars here. Most of these murders involve petty issues like "disrespect". They involve kids under the age of 18 that have mental issues. Some of them are might be involved in some minor drug trade action but even the major suppliers know these kids are horrible workers and cannot be trusted. Kids that kill other kids for stupid things like looking ata girl the wrong way cannot be trusted with tens of thousands of dollars.
I know it sounds like a possible solution is just adding police to every block or every other block and have other ones driving around in unmarked cars. That helps, but studies have shown that active patrols are somtimes less effective than reactive patrols:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_experiment
I do believe that unmarked cruisers and units and cameras (by public and private citizens) do help in many instances, but you need good cops to be doing this kind of work too.
True enough, JohnAKeith, but
unfortunately, all too often, people are afraid to come forward when it comes to situations like this. It's sad, sad, sad...indeed.
leadership
It would be useful to hear from men who grew up in violent neighborhoods and what they think would help. Not politicians, not religious leaders, just your average guy who knows first hand what it was like, and has some ideas on solutions to start alleviating the violence.
What we're seeing here
is the net result of Boston and of the United States society and culture's total dependence upon and revolvement around the gun. This has been deeply embedded into the very fabric of our society and culture since day one, and it's finally come home to roost! It's tragic, and we're paying a horrible price.
Completely uninformed
Wow, I'm not surprised you posted as anon.
There are tens of thousands of people in MA with LTCs who legally own and carry firearms without any problem or incident. It's not a problem with gun control, it's a problem with allowing people who commit crimes to go unpunished or lightly punished. It's a problem of parents wanting to be friends with their kids instead of parents. It's a problem of people not wanting to snitch or get involved. It's a problem of people allowing their children to grow up with the expectation that they don't have to work hard or do what's right.
If there were no firearms these kids would be using knifes, or bat, or some alternate weapon. Blaming inanimate objects for the troubles we're seeing is completely ludicrous and inane. It's PEOPLE that are the problem.
Was waiting for one of you open-carry numbskulls
The day one of these crimes is committed with a letter opener, you'll have a point. Sadly, since Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to dissolve, we've been seeing more guns move into urban communities with greater stealth and efficiency. There was a time when you could track a gun used in a crime back to a gun show in Tennessee or a shop in Manassas and shut down that artery. No more.
Now, suburban gunslingers who would rather play strip mall cowboy and show off their piece at the local Starbucks value toting their lethal toy more than the lives of people killed on the streets each day.
Yep, because it's just that reductive, isn't it? The battle starts at home, but not in some Archie Bunker chair in Amesbury with a diatribe about how "they" don't know how to raise "their" kids right and how "we" should create inmates and brutalize them instead of prescriptively addressing the problem. It's funny how folks with minimal weapons training, nonexistent hunting background and a modicum of education justify having a cannon tucked beneath their cardigan as "self-defense" or "protection" when they're just as guilty of propagating a culture of intimidation and violence as the phantom "criminals" they hope their heroics ward off at the coffee shop someday.
Can you show us where an
Can you show us where an "Assault Weapon" was used in a murder in Boston since the Assault Weapons Ban was lifted? An "Assault Weapon" is a long-gun/rifle. These gun crimes in Boston are committed with handguns, something the AWB did not address. Where are your stats that indicate more guns illegal guns are entering the city since the AWB expired? I would be interested to see those if they exist.
Additionally, I don't understand what open carry has to do with this? There is no open carry in MA.
Finally, you say that the expiration of the AWB prevents tracing of firearms. That is completely false. Any new firearm sold in the US is registered to the person who purchases it in addition to there being records of the dealer who purchased it prior to resale. The person who bought it new may re-sell in some states without a record of the transaction, but regardless, the serial number is traceable to the original dealer and purchaser.
I can understand your concern about gun crime. The part of Boston I live in has its fair share and it concerns me as well. However, people are not going to take you seriously if you don't know what you are talking about.
Wrong, troglodyte
According to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, an "assault weapon" is defined as any weapon manufactured as an fully automatic firearm and converted to a semi-automatic firearm OR any weapon with a "high-capacity" belt or magazine. By the government's definition, a "high-capacity" magazine is any clip that can hold more than 10 rounds. That said, any handgun with a clip of more than 10 rounds -- and that's an broad spectrum -- is by definition an assault weapon.
What does open-carry have to do with this? A lot. The same folks pushing open carry and forcing the open-carry issue in other states are the ones impacting gun policy here and in neighboring states (New Hampshire comes to mind). "Open-carry" has become a metaphor for absolute freedom to keep and brandish any weapon one desires and to intimidate those who disagree. Mass isn't an open-carry state, but it's not impervious to outside influence either.
I never said the expiration "prevented" the tracing of firearms, but its lapse and a strengthened Tihart amendment made those traces a whole lot more difficult. This isn't a subject I address lightly and, unlike some people on the other side of it, I'm not going to take a half-cocked approach. If I'm making a statement, I'm damn sure I can back it up.
OK Tough Guy. I managed to
OK Tough Guy. I managed to respond without name calling and insults. But I guess your just too wound up to respond in a similar fashion.
1. There are no Fully Automatic weapons "converted" to semi-automatic. The internals are very different. An AR-15 looks just like an M-16 to the casual observer, however they are quite different in how they function and are manufactured. A 30.06 deer rifle that fires semi-automatically and accepts a detachable magazine is not an AW while a rifle that functions similarly but has a pistol grip or bayonet lug is considered an AW. These are cosmetic differences only. They both accept a magazine and fire 1 round with each trigger pull. Again, can you show me where a firearm that was banned under AWB has been used in a crime in Boston since the ban was lifted? I don't know if there is or not, but I suspect if there was, it was a highly isolated incident.
2. "Sadly, since Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to dissolve, we've been seeing more guns move into urban communities with greater stealth and efficiency." You still did not show me where your stats come from to back up your claim.
3. You are incorrect about handguns. To be classified an AW, a handgun must have a detachable magazine PLUS several other factors. Do you really think that the thousands of semi-automatic hand guns sold in MA were banned under AWB?
4. "Brandishing" a gun means you have drawn it from the holster. If you do that in public in any state without proving a direct threat, you will be arrested. Open carry and brandishing are not the same thing so don't conflate the two. I will be the first to agree that open carry often works against what the proponents wish to accomplish.
5. "There was a time when you could track a gun used in a crime back to a gun show in Tennessee or a shop in Manassas and shut down that artery. No more." That is what you wrote. Pardon me if I assumed you were tying it to the AWB. However, that doesn't change the fact that what you stated is incorrect.
You need to take a deep breath and relax a little. Even with all your histrionics, you haven't provided any suggestions on how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Also, you haven't backed-up jack. All I see are assertions that you know what you are talking about, when clearly you don't. Show me some links and reputable stats and we'll have a conversation. Unfortunately you seem more interested in stereotyping people and being angry that someone may have a different point of view than you.
No legal guns used in these crimes
I'm sure someone else will already have responded to this by now. But just in case, I'd like to point out the obvious:
There are no legal guns being used in these crimes. In other words, the possession and use of the weapons by these criminal kids is already illegal.
"Legal guns"
Because those don't kill someone nearly as dead as an "illegal gun," do they? In other words, a bullet is a bullet and whether it came from the "illegal gun" of a 16-year-old with a grudge in Roxbury or the "legal firearm" of a 52-year-old with road rage in Revere, it still took someone's life. Your gun isn't a tool, your gun isn't a "heritage piece," it's a weapon. Its lone purpose is to kill and, like vehicles, tobacco, alcohol and narcotics, its should be regulated within the context of its lethality.
True, but the illegal guns
True, but the illegal guns are coming from some legal source originally right? I would imagine the pervasiveness of guns makes them easier to obtain illegally. Stolen from legal owners? Crooked dealers that don't do background checks?
Do the BPD "wanted" posters go too far?
Andrew Phelps takes a look, notices none of the people on them have actually been charged with anything:
I would bet my left foot...
That everyone of these guys has been convicted of at least 5 violent and 15 non-violent crimes. That is probably what makes them "bad".
But I think the police wants people to give them any information about these guys. Good information for the police:
-Where do these people live or sleep at night?
-Who are their girlfriends and where do they live?
-Where have you seen them hanging out?
-Have you ever seen them commit criminal acts (if you want to snitch on them).
-Who do they hang out with and what kinds of cars (and licence plate numbers) do they drive?
"Person of interest"
This is a well-tried description for someone that the police suspect of crimes but don't have a burden of evidence for an arrest warrant. If it pans out, then they'll bust them. If it doesn't, then they'll keep looking or give up.
So you think you are going to do something about gang members
Really? More police are going to stop gang members? Or how about more laws hindering law-abiding citizens from obtaining firearms that they could use to protect themselves - this will stop gang members from obtaining guns? No wait, let's give money to the community where the murder took place and no one will commit crimes there anymore? How about more politicians talking about "what is needed" that will make teh difference. All the outreach, all the restrictive laws, all the police don't change the situation enough. Gang members are criminals. They do not care what you do or what you think. They do what they want, when they want, how they want because they do not care. I hope when the police find the "suspect" they do not assume that he is the suspect, because as we have seen recently, the judges will throw this out of court saying there was not cause to question th individual or frisk them. That is the real problem, we ant justice, we just don't want to do the things to get justice for fear that we might be unjust. Boston reaps what it sows.
Oh, really???!!??
Hate to rain down on your parade, JohnFrancis, but the fact that there are so many guns around, and that they are so easily accessible is what's really contributed volumes to an already-horrendous situation. Poverty, lack of employment, decent education, and substandard housing, not to mention an already-high crime rate and drug abuse rate to begin with are all rampant to begin with, and the addition of firearms to all this creates a truly dangerous situation that is extremely difficult, if not downright impossible, to keep under control.
Stop making excuses for
Stop making excuses for criminal behavior. Without guns the same morons are using knives, clubs, and their bare hands to commit violence.
Poverty doesn't make people into criminals. Are these thugs robbing and killing each other over food and necessities? HELL NO! Stop blaming a lack of character and civility on poverty. There are plenty of upstanding and law abiding people whom are dirt poor and would never consider breaking the law.
Lack of employment? Do you honestly think tough guy gang bangers would give up the thug life if a job was a available? HELL NO! Their whole lifestyle is centered around standing around the block all day looking hard. They wouldn't take a job if it was offered to them, work is for suckers according to the vermin.
Lack of a decent education turning people into criminals? HELL NO! Damn, the thugs try so hard to go to school. It's not their fault they are truant 80% of the time hanging around the block or screwing around rather than studying or attending class. The kids who bother going to school and actually graduate aren't the ones whom typically shoot each other wholesale in broad daylight.
Substandard Housing? HELL NO! Are you kidding me? The only time the places the thugs live in are sties is if the thugs themselves have trashed them. Most of the neighborhoods in Dorchester, Roxbury, Mattapan, et al where most of them live were built as fairly good quality housing stock, not shoddy tenements. Even public housing, as anti-human as the architecture is, isn't some nightmare to live in comfort wise. Most of these people are living quite comfortably with large color TVs with cable and sterosystems the whole block can hear.
"already-high crime rate and drug abuse rate to begin with are all rampant to begin with"
Well let's see, who commits all the crime, buys and sells the drugs? Maybe taking some responsibility for their own actions and not getting government checks to continue the lifestyle would help.
"the addition of firearms to all this creates a truly dangerous situation that is extremely difficult, if not downright impossible, to keep under control"
Guns are paperweights without someone to use them, they are a symptom not a cause of crime. There are plenty of neighborhoods, towns, and cities which have gotten control of these situations by attacking the root cause: non-existent parents and a lack of credible law abiding authority figures.
Give me a break
Give me a break. Mattapan isn't exactly the only poor neighborhood of Boston, is it?
Give ME a break
Move to Boston.
I live here
I live here, my friend. What's your deal?
My point is that it is not "poverty", as such, but culture, that causes epidemics of teenage gang-related deaths.
Really?
I'm not so sure you do, Marc, as you seemingly have no idea what goes on in this city on a regular basis and consistently prove it on this site.
"Culture?" Oh, do go on. Try to explain without using the terms "urban," "hip-hop" or other code for what you're really thinking. The only "culture" that leads to gang membership is one that consistently excludes the people who turn to gangs for a sense of inclusion. This is how the Irish gangs were formed, this is how the Italian mobs were formed and this is how gangs in black, latino, Russian, Albanian and Armerian communities are formed as well. It's a universal truth.
These guys were felons the
These guys were felons the second they touched the gun and ammunition. If you are willing to break the law, then no amount of "gun control" is going to stop them from getting firearms. In addition, whomever sold or provided the firearms to these guys is a felon as well. Thus, there are no additional laws that would have prevented them from doing what they did.
You cannot transfer a firearm in this state without reporting the transfer to the state. Both the seller and buyer must be registered with the state AND have a license that allows ownership of that particular type of weapon. The guns these guys get are from the black market. Putting additional restrictions on law abiding citizens is not going to change this. Mass is already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and yet this still happens.
Commnuity is the most important thing
This is a shocking and incredibly heart wrenching set of events and there are undoubtedly some thing that the City, service agencies, and BPD can implement to help. However, the most important thing in combating this kind of crime is for the community itself (i.e. the law abiding working citizens who make up 99% of neighborhoods where we see this violent crime) to organize and begin policing itself. I'm not talking about being vigilanties or taking the law into their own hands. Rather, simply holding community getherings (large or small), affirming a common desire to rid the neighborhood of crime (violent and otherwise), and starting passive patrols is a big step. Relying on forces who don't live in the community (the City, police, blogs, the media, etc.) won't work. The people who committed these crimes live among the community and can only be stopped by them. This is what the 10-point coalition was about in the 1990s. It is also what things like "orange-hatting" are about. Getting out into the neighborhood in community groups or patrols, letting criminals know they are living somewhere that people won't tollerate what they are doing, and getting the police involved when crime is observed is the answer. It is difficult to do this. It takes time meeting, coordinating with neighbors and police, and walking the streets. But it is effective.
ideas
#1: Legalize drugs. Take away the gangs' biggest cash cow, and let Darwin sort out the rest. Use the tax revenues from drug sales to fund youth sports programs and such.
#2: Death penalty. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these two guys executed a 14-year-old right in front of an off-duty cop? The whole idea of the DP was created for crimes like this; pre-meditated, heinous, air-tight evidence. They shouldn't be breathing our oxygen. Lethal injection is perceived as painless and not enough of a deterrent; use the electric chair.
Jimmy
These gangbangers are not involved in any type of serious drug trade. They would do what they do regardless of drugs. Legalizing Drugs would have more of an effect in other cities in the world, not Boston.
Still a good idea, though
n/t
#2: Death penalty -- Because
#2: Death penalty -- Because it's such an effective deterrent. There are totally no gangs in Texas, right? The whole idea of the "DP" (which means "donkey punch" in most circles, but I'll humor you here) was to kill Gary Gilmore. I assure you that if you ever witnessed an execution by lethal injection, "painless" wouldn't be a world you'd use to describe any portion of the experience.
not good logic
There are still gangs in Texas, therefore, the death penalty doesn't work.
That's sort of...not good logic.
Also, notice I said that lethal injection is perceived as being painless (not actually is painless). Reading comprehension, etc.
OK then
Try this: According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, all 10 of the states with the highest murder rates in the U.S. are death penalty states.
Also, after the death penalty was reintroduced in 1976, the national murder rate actually rose -- from 8.7 to 10.2 -- and didn't return to that level again until 1994 (coinciding with the assault weapons ban). It has dropped each year since. If we're talking about cranking it up here in Massachusetts, consider that the two states with the highest number of executions -- Texas and Virginia -- have murder rates per 100,000 double that of our state.
Since 1976, New Jersey and New Mexico dropped the death penalty entirely, New York found it unconstitutional and North Carolina, Kentucky and California have imposes moratoria on executions. Kansas and New Hampshire, meanwhile, have never executed anyone.
Better logic?