Alleged home invader who was shot dead is identified

Boston Police report the man found dead at the scene of an apparent armed home invasion on Esmond Street was Jordan Chinapoo, 20, of Roxbury

Police say Chinapoo and Cedric Slayden, 18, tried busting into an apartment at 85 Esmond St., last Wednesday, only to be discover the resident had his own gun - which he used to shoot Chinapoo and force Slayden to flee.

Slayden faces a charge of illegal weapon possession. Police say they are continuing to investigate the incident.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

    Comments

    Why is the home invader

    By on

    Why is the home invader called a "victim" in the press release?

    up
    34

    Because in regards to the

    By on

    Because in regards to the home invasion, they are indeed the victim?

    up
    10

    Hazarding a guess here, but...

    By on

    Because he was alive, before he was shot dead by someone?

    Christ on a crutch, people. Your fetishistic obsession with using your guns to shoot people and not get in trouble for it doesn't mean you have to starting playing semantic Calvinball whenever we try to talk about the consequences.

    up
    41

    He shot someone who broke

    By on

    He shot someone who broke into his house late at night with a gun. Try to at least not be so liberal and be more open minded. He killed armed home invader. Good for him

    up
    47

    That's the story we are hearing in the media

    You know, the same media that gun nuts howl "unfair" at whenever Sandy Hook gets a mention?

    The police are still investigating. The homeowner said it was a home invasion, but lets wait for the full story. It might have been a bit more complicated than that.

    up
    20

    Right, because armed

    By on

    Right, because armed criminals never break into homes in the middle of the night to steal and harm other human beings. There must be something missing here that isn't being reported, right? What kind of outcome are you looking for exactly? I'm sure you're hoping it was a family member that was mistakingly shot, so that you can howl on about your own agenda.

    Let's get a few things straight...

    Not all gun owners are "gun nuts", and neither are all people who defend legal gun ownership. There are thousands of law abiding people who own firearms – legally! – to protect themselves, their family and their property. This looks like it's the perfect example of why it's legal to own a firearm in your home.

    up
    27

    Might want to change jobs...

    By on

    A fitting consequence for someone who kicks in the door and invades the home of another. A few more outcomes like this and potential home invaders might smarten up and look for another line of work. If not, well, plenty of room at the morgue.

    up
    34

    The only victim is the guy

    By on

    The only victim is the guy who had his broken into by two armed thugs.

    up
    30

    More Info Needed

    According to the Globe article the home owner knew the invaders so this wasn't a random break in. Both groups were armed and it sounds like neither had a firearms license. I don't fault the home owner for shooting if his life was honestly in danger but there is more to this story then some thugs going after the wrong guy.

    up
    29

    Ha!

    By on

    "Christ on a crutch" was the first muttered expression that my uncle, then a teenager, trotted out to shock his gentle, Catholic parents. As the story went it didn't go over too well.

    up
    14

    erik g - Should the homeowner

    By on

    erik g - Should the homeowner have stabbed the armed intruder instead? Hid in a closet? Called the cops? Armwrestled him? Tried to reason with him? Made him a cup of tea and talk it out?

    While we're on the topic of consequences, was the home invader considering the consequences of breaking into someone else's home?

    up
    15

    We have no frigging idea

    We don't know *if* there was a home invasion, or whether or not the guy found shot in the street had anything to do with the home invasion, or whether the homeowner was an innocent victim or whether this was a drug deal gone bad or a territory war. We don't know shit at this point.

    up
    14

    Never. It's always the

    By on

    Never. It's always the correct thing to do. Unfortunately; when the armed invaders are seconds away from getting through your door, the police are several crucial minutes away.

    up
    17

    Victim

    By on

    vic•tim (noun):
    a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action

    There are entire books out there dedicated to defining words that you might be unfamiliar with, you know.

    up
    28

    Is this your first police report?

    "Victim" is the police term for "person on the receiving end of a gunfire transaction". It carries no implication of law-breaking on the shooter's part. A justifiable homicide still has a victim. What is your proposed alternative? Shootee? Gunfiree? Like the police don't have enough to worry about, without the "Dude probably had it coming" brigade copy-editing their paperwork.

    up
    56

    "Assailant" doesn't work, either

    The point of the term "victim" is to succinctly identify who got shot as opposed to who did the shooting, not to impute criminal intent to any party involved. Ours is an innocent-until justice system: whatever their feelings or best professional guess as to the criminal culpability of the person who caught the bullet, police aren't expected to pass judgment in the report, but simply to capture the facts.

    It's a frickin' police report, fergawdsake. Cops have to suffer enough administrative overhead and second-guessing of their motives without a bunch of civilians butting in with, "Yeah, you can't call that guy a *victim*: in my opinion, which I formed without the benefit of any details of what happened, the mofo *deserved* to get shot." If you are opposed to creeping political correctness, stop engaging in it yourself.

    up
    12

    Read for understanding

    Cops get a call about a breaking and entering. Cops arrive and find a freshly shot guy, bleeding to death, on the street. Maybe this has something to do with the breaking and entering. Maybe not. They don't know, yet. You don't know, yet, and I don't know yet. Meanwhile, "victim" seems like a perfectly reasonable term to describe someone who has been shot to death, no?

    up
    23

    Cedric slayden should be

    By on

    Cedric slayden should be charged for murder for getting chinapoos killed. First 48 style. Insert comments in which I disagree and I'm a gun loving nut below... Just an opinion for an independent political stance such as myself. And GO

    up
    17

    that might happen

    Felony murder rule might apply here, if Massachusetts is one of the states that hasn't explicitly disclaimed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

    Any UHub legal-eagles care to elaborate further on the status of the Felony Murder Rule in Massachusetts? Seems that this case is tailor-made for it. I couldn't find anything clear-cut, only a couple of cases from the early 80s and I was too lazy to read through them. :-/

    Whether or not the Felony Murder Rule should exist or not is controversial. While the two alleged home-invaders here obviously played a more-or-less equal part in the crime at hand, in some cases, someone who was a relatively minor or even unwitting player in a crime can be subject to some disproportionate penalties. Say, someone who lends an automobile to a friend whom they know is involved in some shady stuff. The FMR has been abolished in all the other developed countries that have legal systems whose roots are in English common law.

    up
    13