Dorchester burglary nets four guns, $15,000 worth of jewelry

Boston Police report a thief or thieves broke into 10 Mather St. sometime Sunday afternoon:

The male victim stated he left his residence and when he returned he noticed the rear door was wide open with the storm door closed. The victim further observed his front door breached. and door's frame damaged.

Officers observed footprints in the snow that led out the front door towards the driveway.

The victim stated a 3 finger lock safe, located in an upstairs bedroom which contained 3 firearms; a Sig 380, Smith & Wesson .38, and a Ruger Special .32 was stolen. A fourth, LLAMA. 32 cal firearm, which was located in a downstairs closet safe, was also reported taken along with $15,000. worth of jewelry, and a flat screen TV. Officers confirmed a license to carry.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

    Comments

    I would like to see gun

    By on

    I would like to see gun owners be civilly liable if they lose possession of their guns by theft or otherwise.

    up
    14

    So then, by that logic,

    By on

    So then, by that logic, should car owners be civilly liable if their vehicle gets stolen? What if the thief takes out a pedestrian while trying to quickly flee with the stolen vehicle? Is the owner negligent for not having a more robust security system on the car?

    up
    39

    Hmmmm

    By on

    This gun owner jumped through the hoops to get a license and stored his guns in a manner above what the law requires. He is the victim of criminals who BROKE INTO HIS HOUSE AND STOLE HIS PROPERTY.

    Should a car owner be held liable if their car is stolen from a locked garage and then used to run down a pedestrian? Of course not.

    Don't beat around the bush with this civil liability crap. Just stake your claim that you want personal gun ownership banned. Your proposal of civil liability over stolen property is just a back door way to that goal. Make ownership so onerous and legally treacherous that no one will take the risk to own firearms.

    Guns are bad mmmkay

    up
    37

    What a ridiculous comment.

    By on

    Why would the owner be responsible if he had the guns locked up? Shouldn't the actual criminal who broke in and stole the guns be liable? That's why they are called criminals. Is the man also liable his tv was stolen and his jewelery? You should be held liable for writing an uneducated irrational comment. Please think next time before your try and write a comment.

    up
    36

    Why? He had them securely

    By on

    Why? He had them securely locked up. It's not like he set them down in a public place and someone came and swiped them. I'm guessing he has some ideas to who the burglar is, though.

    up
    29

    Sure

    By on

    I'm all for that, as long as we also hold bleeding-heart judges and lawyers accountable for the post-release criminal acts of all the thugs they released or helped release. A gun you buy might get stolen and be used to kill someone, a thug you release might kill someone - same thing, right?

    up
    21

    They were secured in safes

    By on

    They were secured in safes and as required by law. Don't see how the owner was irresponsible in any way here.

    up
    18

    Did the thieves know where to look?

    By on

    This doesn't sound like a smash and grab burglary. To access two safes takes time. Just finding the safes takes time. Did the burglars know where to look? If they knew where to look what is the connection to the owner?

    up
    16

    Location