DA: Man was out on bail on a gun charge when he shot three people to death at Grove Hall party in June

A Suffolk County grand jury has indicted Jael Romero, 23, on second-degree murder charges for a triple murder at a house party on June 22, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office and Boston Police report.

Romero, who lists addresses in Chelsea and Roxbury, allegedly interceded in a fight between a friend and two other men at an after-hours party by pulling out a gun and opening fire. Brian Tirado, 23 and Felix Garcia, 22, both of Dorchester, died, as did Ana Cruz, 22, also of Dorchester, who had no part in the fight.

According to a statement by the DA and BPD:

Romero was already facing a gun charge at the time of the homicides. He was arrested on Aug. 27, 2012, for unlawful possession of a firearm after Boston Police recovered a Cobra FS380 semiautomatic handgun loaded with seven rounds of ammunition from his car. He was held on $20,000 cash bail at his arraignment later the same day in Dorchester District Court. Over prosecutors’ objections, that bail was later lowered to $10,000, which he was able to post. Prosecutors successfully argued against Romero’s efforts to have that gun suppressed from evidence, but Romero appealed and the case is still pending.

Romero was already in prison when the indictment was handed down its indictments - for gun and stolen-vehicle charges out of Bristol County. He was arrested on July 2 after a chase that began in Seekonk and ended in Rhode Island.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

Yep

By on

Yep

Original judge should be held

By on

Original judge should be held accountable for letting him free on lower bail only to murder 2 men and 1 woman.. Ass..

up
15

There really shouldn't be

By on

There really shouldn't be bail for someone who illegally possesses a firearm. Does anyone really believe they have it just for show?

up
10

Yes, I do.

By on

Yes, I do.

And Imagine If I had my way. Three innocent people would be alive. But that doesn't matter. Here in liberal-land only the rights of the criminals count.

up
12

Here in liberal-land only the

Here in liberal-land only the rights of the criminals count.

Do you want to compare our violent crime rate here in the wimpy, liberal Northeast with what those tough crime-fighting hardasses in the red states achieve? Seriously?

Looks like, compared to some of the tough talking states, my state's doing an OK job of protecting my rights against criminals

Limousine liberal BS

By on

When was the last time someone was accused of illegally possessing a firearm in your wealthy lily-white suburb? Heck, when was the last time you've seen a thug who could potentially be accused of illegally possessing a firearm within a three mile radius of your house? Not in this lifetime, I assume. Your types really need a good old-fashioned thug shootout outside your window or perhaps an armed robbery or two on your block, complete with a pistol-whipping, to set your heads straight. Also, how can someone even be accused of possessing a firearm when they have it in their physical possession? They either possess it or they don't, and it's either legal or illegal. Got a CCW permit? Move right along. No permit? Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Friend left it in your car/pocket/hand? Show us the friend, otherwise see above. Playing catch and release with armed thugs kills - often other thugs, but sometimes innocent bystanders.

up
10

Oh, FFS

By on

Count me as somebody who believes in the rule of the law and all that entails: Due process, probable cause, you know, all those horrible things that for some reason got stuck in the Constitution. You want street cred? I got it: A few years ago, there was a gang war in my neighborhood. Right at my daughter's school-bus stop (fortunately an hour or so before she was due to get off the bus), somebody opened fire on a limo carrying people back from a funeral of a gang member - three shot, one dead.

up
17

Seriously?

"Wealthy, lily-white suburb?" Seriously? Try south side of Chicago, Harlem before Harlem was cool, decaying post-industrial Bridgeport, CT. "My types" have witnessed plenty of violent crime and had it touch my family.

As to your second comment, about how someone can be accused of possessing a firearm when they have it in their physical possession?

I'm glad that on your planet, cops never carry drop guns, and that all assertions by police officers that a suspect was carrying a gun can be taken as truth, and that never, on your planet, in the heat of the moment, would an officer mistake a wallet for a gun. Or mistake
the guy they caught for the guy they were trying to catch.

Unfortunately, on my planet, things aren't like that, and so, for the past 1000 years or so, evolving from British Common Law into the system of American jurisprudence, we've had a pretty strong tradition of asking the police to "prove it." Seems to work pretty well here in our imperfect world.

Of course, there are other approaches, too. About 60 years ago, we had a guy in another country who applied the techniques you recommend, and pretty much eliminated street crime. He was wildly popular for a while, but history has not been kind to him.

up
11

What?

By on

60 years ago? Looks like someone failed their middle school history class. As for drop guns and all the other BS, ever heard of fingerprints? No one is saying you should be thrown in jail if a cop alleges he saw a gun on you and cannot produce the said gun, or the gun magically appears our of nowhere and has no fingerprints on it, but it's a huge problem when the gun is tossed as evidence when it's found in your saggy pants waistband, covered with your fingerprints.

And yes, there are other approaches, such as stop and frisk. You can howl all you want about profiling but cops don't profile minorities, they profile thugs. Unfortunately, a vast majority of the said thugs happen to be minorities, but that's an entirely different problem. And despite what all the starry-eyed Utopians are saying it seems to be working rather well, NYC's violent crime rate is much lower than Boston's despite the fact that NYC and Boston have a very similar demographic makeup, and Boston is a communist wasteland where everyone is equal compared to NYC when it comes to income disparity.

Lastly, I find your story about Harlem/south side/etc highly unlikely, there's absolutely no way in hell someone who lost a family member to a recidivist violent criminal would be seen singing praises to judges who set laughably low bails and toss gun charges left and right, only to see the gun-toting criminals they released murder someone as soon as they walk out of the courtroom.

up
10

Really?

What is this "BS" of which you speak? I cited specific cases in which the facts are not particularly in dispute.

And, just because I favor the rule of law and oppose throwing people in jail without trial, how do you read that I praise lenient judges?

Finally, as for the neighborhoods, if you had spent any time there, you would hear from the decent, employed, home-owning, middle-of-the-road law-abiding residents (yes, anon, they do exist) that out-of-control police are a bigger fear than thug violence.

The problem is the so called

By on

The problem is the so called 3 time offender law, if it was used my husband would be alive today.

My husband was murdered cuz

By on

My husband was murdered cuz the sytem let a guy out in roxbury with a 5 page history of violent charges and many gun and ammo. What a system 3 time offender law is the biggest joke.

You're right

If he hasn't been convicted of a crime, then there's no legitimate reason to keep him behind bars.

So you're saying we should do

By on

So you're saying we should do away with any form of pre-trial confinement all together. Murdered 100 children slowly and brutally? You're free to roam the streets until we can schedule the trial. Very interesting opinion, Gov Patrick

I think where we have historically been has served us well.

If you a flight risk, then higher bail. If there is a very, very strong case that you are a danger to the community (for example, if demonstrably insane) then confinement. Otherwise, do as we've always done; it has served us well.

Violent crime is a fraction of what it was in the 70s. I really don't get why people are wringing their hands about the "recent epidemic of urban violence that's slaughtering people in the cities."

up
10

I think where we have historically been has served us well.

If you a flight risk, then higher bail. If there is a very, very strong case that you are a danger to the community (for example, if demonstrably insane) then confinement. Otherwise, do as we've always done; it has served us well.

Violent crime is a fraction of what it was in the 70s. I really don't get why people are wringing their hands about the "recent epidemic of urban violence that's slaughtering people in the cities."